Why Isn't Homosexuality Considered A Disorder On The Basis Of Its Medical Consequence

I agree there are subjective, political and moral implications in the R.N's comments.
However,
There is some objective evidence for her suggestion Homosexuality is not properly called 'natural' or 'Normal' - in that, under typical scenario's it will naturally lead to unhealthy or 'damaging' consequences.

Maybe putting it this way:

Any average healthy male and female adults (of normal intelligence) can have sexual intercourse repeatedly and over a lifetime and experience nothing but good consequences for their health and genitals.

Two average healthy males repeatedly having sexual intercourse are going to, as a matter of course, eventually end up with 'Gay Bowel Syndrome', and eventually, urinary tract infections (from fecal matter and colon acids being pushed into their penis openings).

Now some people are going to mention condoms, but this is where we step off the 'natural' definition, since chemical manufacturing labs dont exist in nature.
KY anal Lubricants dont exist in nature either.

Even with these things.. tearing open of the rectums lining is still likely.

Yes, tears occur on the vagina and male penis during 'heterosexual' intercourse too, but here again - nature seems designed to cope and compensate. .. and even strengthen in this case.

The Rectal lining does not seem to have a natural coping mechanism.

What people choose to do outside the 'natural intercourse' is another level of this discussion and there are definatley many many heterosexual couples doing damage to themselves (anal intercourse, large objects, man-made metal pins stabbed through their genitals to 'look cool')

Fair warning, if you think turning the argument to a 'comparison' of bad sexual practices of Heterosexuals 'VS' Homosexuals......

There is a LOT of concern among PRO-Homosexual orgs about the very high percentage of 'Negative' sexual practices among their ranks

I wish I could find some links but many studies showing that while just a small percentage of Heterosexual couples (or one of the two) will routinely engage in 'anonymous' sex with other partners - Homosexuals have a very high percentage of 'anonymous' sex.. and on more occasions.

So making 'side by side' comparisons is not necessarily making a good argument for Homosexuality as a 'Healthy' choice.

 

A lot of "negative" homosexual practises are caused by the homosexual culture. You can't really compare it to heterosexual practise, because there isn't the sexualised culture of promiscuity.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: a lot of heterosexuals would probably indulge in these practises if they were as able and encouraged to as homos.

There are many paradigms in place which have, over generations, conditioned heterosexuals not to be as exploratory as homosexuals have been. If you look at the Sixties, when society was more permissive, many more heterosexuals indulge in anonymous sex, because it was more acceptable and easier to orchestrate.

(Apologies if I just stated and restated the bleedin' obvious there, it's late where I am)

So while I'm not denying that there are probably more incidences of "negative" sex acts among homos, I would argue that the cultures are not comparable. Because homosexuality was not socially acceptable for so long, its culture and etiquettes - with a history measurable in decades rather than millenia - can not be expected to be as sophisticated as heterosexual culture. It is only when open homosexuality is more widely integrated into society that one can compare them.

Does that make any sense? What I'm trying to say is that homos have kind of learned to be sluts as a result of not being allowed to have relationships; that the "negative" aspects are not linked to the people so much as the permissive "quickfix" culture of the gay scene, which is itself a biproduct of heterosexual society's rejection of homosexuals.

Man I sound self-righteous

 

Its sounds like the common turnabout on any of the critisisms made about the Homosexual lifestyle.

The problem is - it doesnt fly (imo).

Although I dont think 'Heterosexuals' really care what Homosexuals do or dont do ..
If anything - the 'disapproving' heterorsexuals would rather see Gays stay in private 1-one-1 personal relationships.

And really.. most of the people we would describe as moderately 'anti-Gay' would probably say they dont care what 'they do, as long as they keep it to themselves'.

This is certainly not encouraging promiscuity??

For that matter.. a repressed lifestyle like homosexuality would be more likely to see less promiscuity when there was no way to identify (easily) another homosexual.
if two should meet - they would be best to stick together since being 'out' was not an obvious thing.

Nope sorry.. I do not believe that the high promiscuity rate is because heterosexuals are causing the homosexuals to act that way.

If anything the opposite.

 

No, what I'm saying is that the culture originally developed because homosexuals were considered unacceptable. I'm talking way back in the 1930s. It developed because people were often married or living in the closet, and just meeting for sex. Back then, homosexuality was considered a disorder, a disease. So people felt a great deal more shame about it than they do now. Many saw their sexuality as an unwelcome addiction, so they'd sate it as quickly and anonymously as possible and get it over with.

I'm not saying it's still this way. I'm saying that's how the culture of the scene evolved. Most of the individuals involved do want to settle down, and many do. but the gay scene does not really permit such things, simply because of the way it originated and continues to be. I'm sure you can accept, it takes a lot longer for an entire sub-culture to change its habits than for one person. Most people are too weak to kick against it.

So yes, homosexual relationships are much more widely accepted now, and to tell the truth, the level of promiscuity probably has come down since those days. It's just a slow process of integration that will change these habits, not just one moment where it's declared "Homos are normal, now they can fucking well act like it."

I don't expect you to understand, I didn't really explain it very well, and I'm boring myself writing this.

 

I remember a few years back .. Homosexual organisations were confronted with complaints from society about the outrageous amount of 'Cruising' going on in public parks.
There was a park in my neighbourhood which, after dusk, became what amounted to a massive homosexual orgy palace.

Almost every populated city has a 'rest stop' on a highway experiencing the very same problem.

Further to that, many people were complaining about the 'Strolls'.
Whole blocks (again, found in any major city) where male prostitutes are hanging around picking up customers.

Now get this!

The various Gay Lobby orgs shot back with a fierce rhetorical 'action defense' in which they accused straight heterosexual men of being the real problem!?

"Its most married heterosexual men who are cruising for young males, or looking for anonymous 'glory hole' sex in those parks"

WTF?

Finally a popular and respected 'Gay comedian' stepped in with a comment:
"Hey.. guess what.. if you are going to parks at 12midnight because you really want cock... then YOU ARE GAY... its called being GAY"

But the point is - Many Homosexuality advocates will need to let their cause 'stand or fall' on its own merits.
It should be able to, if its worthwhile.

If it always has to be compared or rhetorically turned about against whats 'wrong with heterosexuals too' - then it demonstrates a weak cause in the first place.
IMO

 

>

 

But you have changed the premise Skeeter...

In the scenario of a man and a woman - the 'rule' is good health as a consequence of typical sexual intercourse.

In the scenario of two men - the 'rule' is eventual rectum tears, GBD (Gay Bowel Disease) and Penis infections due to feces entering the Urethra.

Now thats fine to turnabout and show exceptions or discuss 'well ya but ..."

Its just discussing this topics original 'concept' which wonders if homosexual sex can be called 'disorderly' or 'natural'.

If you end up qualifying homosexual sex as including, enemas, plastic coatings on the genitals and specially forumulated lab-lubricants.. ..then it becomes a big problem describing it as 'normal' or 'natural'.

I strongly disagree with some of your presentation on homosexual relationships not including penis-anus sexual intercourse.
I suggest it is 'common' to homosexual relationships.

I strongly agree that outrageous drug abuse had a lot to do with the speed in which AIDS blew through the homosexual circles.
Low immune systems and torn rectal tissues combined with some homosexual 'groups' counting average 'partners' per year at 60 (!!) was absolute prime pickings for the AIDS virus.

Recently, (and you may have heard of this) there is a very serious concern about the new young Homosexuals who have discovered the combination of Erectile Dysfuntion pills like Viagra, Cialus AND Meth or 'Speed'.

This has resulted in '48 hour' 'fuck parties' in which there is no let up in the intercourse and very very low immune systems.
Combine that with the fact these young Gays are being told AIDS is not a 'Gay Disease' and Anal sex is not a 'Homosexual thing' and that what they are doing is 'normal' anyway.

Maybe the biggest danger - justifying whats typical in homosexual sex by comparing up against the kinkiest or 'alternate' things that some heterosexual couples might do.

 

but this wouldn't just be gays now would it? i'm sure straight people suffer equally from sexual acts

 

Why are you asking this question?

Why do you need to keep pointing at 'straight' people?

Is it because you do not want to talk about the expected consequences of homosexual intercourse (penis/anal)?

Dont worry about what someone else is not doing right or wrong and lets see if this RN's suggestion that homosexual sex is a 'disorder'.

I mean really.. if the 'best' anyone can come up with is to say "Ya.. well staight couples do dangerous or unnatural things" - well then it seems to me you are wanting to agree homosexual intercourse is dangerous?

I have seen the 'Oral Only' defense being used too.
Now it is probably true that many homosexuals practice 'oral only' - but dont think this is a great 'out' for the 'disorder' argument.

The male erection and the male mouth do not seem to be made for one another. Oral Sex (an unfortunate mis-use of the word Oral btw) can be inherintely dangerous for one simple reason - the human mouth contains an astonishing amount of bacteria and germs.

But here you come to another possible problem - if you have a relationship where there is no intercourse, and the couple is either masterbating each other using their hands and mouths - is that comparable to heterosexual sexual relationships?

 

Note: the italicized words are my responses.

i'm sorry but i've been reading what you've said and it is really just non-scientific hogwash...you are tageting the subcultures of the homosexual community and generalizing across a vast spectrum of practices. Anal sex, when performed properly with protection and discretion can be safe...sex is a risk in itself...homos and heteros are subject to all risks equally in relation to their practices.

 

I wish all the well-meaning folk who want to 'cure' gays of their 'disorder' would grab a fuckin' brain. My conclusion as to your present one is that it is fubar.

And while on the subject of organs, grab a heart too, cuz my diagnosis is that you are heartless, despite your good intentions.
.
Is skiing a disorder? How about mountain climbing? Car racing? I could go on ad nauseam listing dangerous pursuits that kill young adults every day. You say gay sex is abnormal, okay fine whatever. Is it normal to be in a metal box moving 60 mph over lifeless ribbons of asphalt? Normal is a taste.
These gay people ARE normal. Perfectly normal. Persecuted, insulted, discriminated against, irrationally hated and feared by much of straight society, yes. But abnormal, no. Suffering from a medical 'disorder', no. Victims of bigotry, prejudice, violence, and discrimination, yes. But I just know that this post will be like pissing on a forest fire. They won't change a bit. Probably dig their heels in and rationalize as to why their hurtful, hateful bigotry is righteous, and not just an epidemic of ignorant, meanspirited bullying.(my bet)
I have heard every argument for discrimination against gay couples, at least a dozen times.So you know what? I challenge any anti gay folk to stump me on a legit reason for your bigotry?
I have heard them all......................and they are alll lame.

 

It is not 'non-scientific hogwash'.
Without the use of man-made chemicals and plastics, anal intercourse will (as a rule) result in fecal infections for the 'giver' and Gay Bowel Disease for the 'Receiver'.
Anal Fissures (Torn open Rectal lining) will also results.
Another logical conclusion will be the loss of Sphincter control in which the 'Receivers' will lose more and more control of their bowel movements.
Eventually Feces will 'drop out'
[IF the practice was to continue on long enough]

Once again - you changed the conversation by modifying Anal Sex to include lubricants, latex products and enemas.
You also said 'Performed Properly'.

Why are we trying to keep this on the premise of two healthy adults (of reasonable intellegence) WITHOUT man-made devices, chemicals or special training techniques?

Because we are demonstrating that Penis-Vagina intercourse can do without any of those things and as a 'rule' result in not only increased health - but the creation of new people.

Penis-Anus intercourse is (as a rule) destined to produce pain, suffering and damage IF continued on without Aids, chemicals, special training and devices not 'found naturally'.

As a rule - Gay Anal intercourse leads to what we call 'Disorder'.

This is why the Nurse is suggesting its a 'Disorder'.

Words are used for a reason.. just because the word 'Disorder' doesnt sound 'Good' and you think some Gay people are 'Nice' - doesnt mean you describe something disorderly differently.

 

I am not going to get into an argument with you over the differences over heterosexuality and homosexuality. Your arguments are leading me to strongly suspect that you have a personal problem with homosexuality and I refuse to get into long-winded, point-counterpoint arguments with homophobes. It's a waste of time and bandwidth and I've got better uses for my on-line time.

-- Skeeter

 

Well Im glad niether of us want to get into an argument over this.

My arguments cant possibly be leading you to believe i have a 'personal problem' with homosexuality - unless you hope to avoid the subject by turning this into an Ad Homonym attack.

Even if I did have a personal problem with homosexual intercourse (and im not even sure what you mean by that) - it would not change the facts.

You may have a strong personal attraction to homosexual intercourse - that wont make the case for 'natural' or 'disorder' any better or worse will it?

 

That is so far from true as to be laughable.

I have seen nothing but supercilious condescension from liberals of late. They act like they have a lock on the right way to think, be, speak, vote... you name it. The arrogance is unbounded.

-Jeffrey

 

I agree, sorta...

Words ARE used for a reason. Unfortunately, the words you chose are a little misleading. Anal sex is an activity, it is something you do. "Gay" is a word used to identify a sexual orientation (identity). An activity does not have a sexual orientation, people do. Anal sex, itself, is not gay or straight. Anal sex can cause the problems you described, if one is not responsible. This is true of both hetero- and homosexuals performing anal sex. Any resulting problems are not a disorder linked to sexuality, but one linked to activity.

Heterosexuals carry and transmit far more sexually transmitted diseases and sustain more injuries, according to any data I have seen.

 

A repressed lifestyle most certainly does promote anonymous sex and "negative" sexual practices, and promiscuity. Homosexuals are trained by society that it is not okay for them to love someone of the same sex. They cannot marry or in many places cohabitate without fear of persecution. They often have to act straight to keep their jobs, apartments, etc. The whole idea of "its ok if they keep it to themselves" encourages secrecy, which, IMO, is the number one contributor to "negative" sexual practices. They cannot live their life open, it must be in secret, which often requires anonymity.

 

The question posed by the nurse is "Why isn't Homosexuality Considered A Disorder On The Basis Of Its Medical Consequence"

What everyone is pointing out to you, that heterosexuals have the same risk, does not disprove their argument. It points out the similarities between the two, rather than ignoring any danger with one while focusing on the dangers of another. Can homosexual sex be dangerous? YES! No argument. Does that make it a "disorder"? If it does, heterosexuality must be a disorder as well. It meets the same criteria being used.

Anal sex, when practiced responsibly, is not at all as dangerous as it is being made out to be. The assumption that any homosexual couple practicing anal sex WILL develop "gay bowel disease" is absurd.

Again, can it be dangerous? YES! But it doesn't have to be...

The nurses argument has a major flaw that no one has pointed out. Activity that causes medical consequences ARE NOT disorders! If they were, eating hamburgers, smoking, and poping zits would all be classified as disorders. Homosexuality does not indicate any organic disfunction of brain or body, so it is not a disorder...

To recap: Activity Is Not A Disorder.

 

Yes, activity can lead to disorder.

Behavior can be Disorderly Behavior.

The question we are looking at - Given typical circumstances and without artificial or 'man-made' interventions - will homosexual intercourse lead to disorder.

The evidence strongly says - Yes.

This is not true for Heterosexual intercourse (with the same standards).

.....

Please do not bother writing more examples of other things which, given typical circumstances and lack of intervention lead to disorder.

To put it bluntly - Two wrongs (or 1000 wrongs) dont cancel out another wrong ok.

.................

As for some of your other assertions and opinions like:
"Homosexuality does not indicate any organic disfunction of brain or body, so it is not a disorder"

Note: Behavior can and often is described as a 'Disorder'.
Having said that:

Homosexuality DOES by its very nature indicate (no, demonstrate) what is called a 'Dysfuntion'.
The Anus is not designed or useful to receive Sperm and Semen.
Yet,
The Homosexual man might insist he wants and desires that.

This indicates (demonstrates) the anus is being used for a different funtion that it is designed for (organic if you will).

So, this leads many in the medical community to term this a 'Biological Dysfuntion' - since their bodies are not functioning right, or fully, or to purposes which work against their functions.

....

But to get back to the original premise - Given enough time, homosexual intercourse will result in increasing disorder.
Given enough time heterosexual intercourse will result in maintained health and children.

now, you can simply say "No it wont" (while continuing to include man-made devices, chemicals and special techniques as part of it)
Ok great.

I suppose you could settle it for once and for all.
without use of man-made chemicals, latexs and enemas...

- Have a man of average size masterbate into your anus until he climaxes.
- Do this at a rate typical to the average married couple - lets say every other day.
- Do this for 20 years.

Then let me know how orderly things go for you.

........

For those terrified that Im 'Anti-Homosexual' - dont be.
And dont think you must change the facts of life to 'protect homosexuals from bashing'.

In fact, I can think of other things that are 'disorders'.
Smoking is a disorder.

Its unnatural and will eventually lead to disorder.

Guess what.. I still smoke.

Am I a 'bad person' - No.

Should I get very upset and say "Oh YA! Well smoking MAY be risky but its not ALWAYS leading to death.. and NON-SMOKERS can do bad things too you know!"

No.

Start by being honest about 'what it is'.

How many lives would be saved if we simply told the truth?

What if we stopped telling young homosexuals that, no matter what anyone says or whatever evidence you see - ANAL SEX IS NORMAL and HEALTHY!
Its Equal to Heterosexual sex dammit!
Its just the same!

What if we said instead "Hey... your body is not meant to do that, naturally, so before you get off on that - use some chemicals, latexs and special techniques.. and then only do it a FEW times - not all the time!"

What if we told them "Ya.. its a kinky sex perversion.. so go for it with that in mind!"

Instead, you have a group of meth/viagra induced young men convinced they should 'ram away' without having to worry about anything.. after all, its perfectly natural to do that"

So before you start giving me crap about being a 'Homophobe' because I am willing to side with plain medical facts of life - ask yourself who is REALLY hurting Gay People?