Homosexuality Is A Mental Disorder

Well, here we are in the final round. I’ve pretty much made all of the points I wish to make in this debate. So, in this round I’m going to offer a summary of the arguments throughout the debate. WIKIPEDIA Generally associated with distress or disability. My main point here was that Pro offered no evidence that there is a casual relationship between homosexuality and distress. Pro challenged that demonstrating a casual relationship was not necessary. I presented reasons that it was: First, I compared the way Pro was evaluating this criterium with the way one would evaluate something that is considered a mental disorder, schizophrenia. I explained that schizophrenia is not a mental disorder because of the social stigma associated with it, but rather because of the direct effects of schizophrenia on the human brain. Pro did not challenge this. I also explained that by Pro’s standards of evaluation, heterosexuality, or at the very least female heterosexuality, can be associated with distress and disorder due to pregnancy. My argument can be summarized in the following manner: If there is no causal relationship between homosexuality and distress, then Pro is not associating homosexuality and distress, rather he is associating people with homosexuality and the people and environments in which they live with distress. To support this, I will quote from one of the sources my opponent used in R5 to justify this association. In conclusion of the study by Dr. Remfardi it is written: “It is important to note that suicide risk among homosexual students was not attributable to homosexuality, per se, on the basis of the absence of such an association in the females.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... For what indeed in the purpose of labeling something a mental disorder? That purpose is to be able to address that thing and as applied to this criterium, in treating that thing, reducing distress and disability. It is therefore necessary for that distress to be an effect of that thing, or else the label is meaningless. Yet, it must be noted that Pro has made no effort at all to address this criterium in its proper context. Pro has not demonstrated there to be anything about homosexuality that makes it a good candidate to be responsible for the distress he mentioned. It is the other factors involved, namely social factors, that ought to be associated with distress. Not considered part of normal development. Although they are not recognized everywhere, legal recognition of homosexual relationships is on the rise in the US. Just because public opinion has not yet been reflected in law, it is clear that such changes are coming based on this trend. Next, we see a huge cop out by Pro. I asked for him to address states that did indeed legally recognize homosexual relationships. He wanted specifics. I gave him nine states to choose from. Instead of addressing even one, he chooses not to address any because I gave him too many. How different can the analysis of the different states be anyway? So my point stands: In places where homosexual relationships are legally recognized, homosexuality must not be considered a mental disorder. BRITANNICA Illness Pregnancy is not “an unhealthy condition of body or mind” and neither is homosexuality. Pro protests that because it is possible to have healthy pregnancies, and I’d guess that most pregnancies are healthy, pregnancy is not an illness. In the same vein, because it is possible to have healthy homosexual relationships, homosexuality is not an illness. Finally, Pro says he never claimed that it is bad that homosexual relationships don’t result in procreation. But let’s look back at how Pro initially made this claim: “Another important area where homosexuality is associated with impairment is sexual functioning. By its very nature, homosexuality discourages procreative intercourse, and by extension, the survival of the human species.” Unless my interpretation of the word impairment is wildly wrong and if discouraging the survival of the human species is a good thing, then this would indeed be arguing that the lack of procreation from homosexual relationships is bad. But, if I am wrong, then I guess we have nothing to worry about since the point would in no way effect the resolution. OTHER CRITERIA Pro wrote: “For Con to claim that statistical infrequency has no impact on whether something is a mental disorder is silly for obvious reasons.” I must apologize, however, because those reasons are not so obvious to me. CONCLUSION I’d like to thank my opponent for this debate. All I had to do was to demonstrate why Pro did not prove at least one criterium in each standard. I demonstrated why the Wikipedia standard did not apply to homosexuality in both the third and fourth criteria and why the Britannica standard did not apply due to the first and third criteria. The resolution is negated. Vote Con!!