Homosexual behavior ...a curable disease?

Clarissa

Tue, Jan 10 2012, 6:47 am

mamommommy wrote:

Clarissa wrote:

mamommommy wrote:

Why are people afraid of the word disease, as if it's inherently offensive? A disease means that there is a deviation from the normal or natural function. Do we not consider homosexuality to fall into that category, or are there those on this board who consider it as natural as a heterosexual lifestyle?

And let's discuss other "diseases" such as depression and anxiety? Is it offensive to label those who suffer from these conditions as mentally ill or as having a "disorder?"

And how can anyone label any condition as "incurable?" I can't even begin to list the diseases or conditions for which there was no cure say, 100 years ago, which today are the simplest things to treat. Just because we do not know the cure, does not mean that one does not exist, and it certainly doesn't mean that we should stop trying to find one.

It is not a disease. For them it is how they were born and it is normal and natural. God made them that way. They were born that way and they'll die that way, even if they marry someone of the opposite s*x and fake heterosexuality. It doesn't change. It is not the same as depression and anxiety.

You ask if it's offensive? Well, putting that in the same category as mental illness is offensive, so I am offended. My gay friends are very, very happy, thank you very much.

People are born with many different diseases, and no one says "Well, G-d made me this way. This is the way that I was born so it must be normal and natural." And eople are born with both physical and mental illnesses. What does it matter which form of illness homosexuality is compared to? They are all deviations from the natural functions.

And being offended by being lumped in the same category as mental illness is offensive to those with mental illness, who actually far outnumber those who are homosexual. So, if we want to talk about societal norms, then mental illness is statistically far more normal than homosexuality. And by the way, there are also plenty of mental illnesses for which there is no known cure, and for whihc many people do not even bother seeking treatment because they are fine with their condition, but I digress.

We are all frum women here, so I certainly hope that we are all starting with the basic premise that homosexuality is not natural. By natural, I do not mean inborn or genetic, I mean that it is the natural function. It does not delegitimize the feelings of those who are homosexual, but if we start with that basic premise, then we must assume that there is treatment for it, even if those who have are happy not being treated.

No, we are NOT all starting with the premise that it is not natural. I believe 100% that it is natural. I don't know how frum Jews deal with it. I'd never choose to live a dishonest life without real love, in every sense of the word. And yes, I think what you're saying is offensive.

By the way, every time I see your screen name I think it says "manonmommy" and I picture you having s*ex with a man. So I guess you're not a lesbian.

GreenEyes26

Tue, Jan 10 2012, 7:06 am

mamommommy wrote:

Clarissa wrote:

mamommommy wrote:

People are born with many different diseases, and no one says "Well, G-d made me this way. This is the way that I was born so it must be normal and natural." And eople are born with both physical and mental illnesses. What does it matter which form of illness homosexuality is compared to? They are all deviations from the natural functions.

And being offended by being lumped in the same category as mental illness is offensive to those with mental illness, who actually far outnumber those who are homosexual. So, if we want to talk about societal norms, then mental illness is statistically far more normal than homosexuality. And by the way, there are also plenty of mental illnesses for which there is no known cure, and for which many people do not even bother seeking treatment because they are fine with their condition, but I digress.

We are all frum women here, so I certainly hope that we are all starting with the basic premise that homosexuality is not natural. By natural, I do not mean inborn or genetic, I mean that it is the natural function. It does not delegitimize the feelings of those who are homosexual, but if we start with that basic premise, then we must assume that there is treatment for it, even if those who have it happy not being treated.

Beautifully and tactfully said. I have these same thoughts regarding s*x change surgery for those with gender dysmorphic disorder (is that the correct term?)

mamommommy

Tue, Jan 10 2012, 7:27 am

Clarissa wrote:

mamommommy wrote:

Clarissa wrote:

mamommommy wrote:

I'm sorry that you find my comments offensive. I guarantee you, they are not meant in that spirit as I too have a close family member who is openly homosexual. (By the way, this not-frum family member knows my thoughts on the subject, and fully respects my right to them, much as I respect his right to his.) And I guess that my assumption was wrong, although it was based on the fact that the Torah very explicitly prohibits male homosexual relationships, so I could not imagine how one can believe that people born with those propensities should openly act on them.

It seems unfortunate to me that one equates believing that homosexuality is not natural, with denying it as a valid biological response. Yes, it exists. Yes, when people are allowed to act on their biological urges, it feels right and good to them. I understand, and accept completely, that these urges feel natural to them, but does that mean that it is? There are many other biological systems that can be corrupted, causing people to physically desire that which may seem natural to them, but is not what is good for the body. So, just because it feels completely natural to the person who is experiencing the urge, does not mean that it is the way that the body is meant to function.

By the way, it seems clear to me that many people on the other side of the fence think that the very idea of it being unnatural is equated with the idea that the person experiencing it is bad or damaged in some perverse way. The truth is that many people are judgmental in that way, but I absolutely do not think that the two things are synonymous. I know no one in this world who does not struggle with something (whether it be biological, mental, social,spiritual, etc.) and I do not believe that anyone should be judged for it.

Clarissa

Tue, Jan 10 2012, 7:52 am

mamommommy wrote:

I have close family members and friends who think that frum Jews are mentally ill. I guess it takes all kinds.

No reason for us to debate. I'm from Mars and you're from Venus. But unfortunately, your point of view leads sometimes to gay-bashing, hate crimes and teen suicide. It's all pretty sad. In my life, in my home, we look at this very differently, and I'm teaching my kids very differently.

nylon

Tue, Jan 10 2012, 7:58 am

Right, why wouldn't it be natural?

The Torah doesn't say same-s*x attraction is a problem, it says ACTS are a problem. "Want to" is not a sin.

I don't believe in the idea that Hashem wouldn't create anyone with a taiva or problem that can't be overcome. Why are there people with fatal genetic illnesses? It's a horrible thing, but it happens. I think trying to redefine "natural" is a problem. "Natural" means that it happens without conscious human interference, not just the way things were meant to work. Are you sure you want to redefine genetic illness as "unnatural"?

I struggle with keeping kosher, but no one says I need to be cured of my desires--just that I have to not give in to them. Now I realize this is not the world's greatest analogy because I'm not going to starve without a cheeseburger--I can still love kosher food, even if I would also love many treif foods. But no one says my desire is a problem. In fact, people tend to be sympathetic to it. I think revulsion over homosexuality is much more than the Torah prohibition.

Why is it so hard to say "We don't understand"? why do we need to pretend that we need to have answers to make the world neat and tidy?

I don't believe homosexuality can be cured. Certainly not with the state things are today. What might happen in 100 years time is fundamentally irrelevant: rabbis shouldn't be pushing people to unproven psychological treatment that appears to do more harm than good.

mamommommy

Tue, Jan 10 2012, 8:09 am

Clarissa wrote:

willow wrote:

I don't have any idea if its inborn or whatever but I always wondered why is it not looked at the same as a father wanting to do it with his daughter? I know it seems blunt but I am actually serious.

Because it's not that?

I've often wondered why kissing your husband isn't the same thing as stealing a car, licking the air conditioning vents, taking off your shirt and dancing topless in Times Square. Then I've wondered why picking up your child isn't looked at the same as walking into a restaurant, taking someone's roast beef sandwich and running out in the street singing "The Star Spangled Banner" in pig latin.

Life is mysterious.

Willow, as soon as I saw you write this, I knew that you would receive sarcastic and biting responses, but I understand your question.
(And Clarissa, if someone asks a serious question looking for information, if you want to further your cause, you might want to give a serious response.)

Willow, to answer your question, they are not the same thing as much as one who suffers from anxiety is not the same as one who has homicidal tendencies, (or as much as one who has strep throat is not the same as one who has cancer, r"l). However, if you come at it from the perspective that they are both unnatural inclinations, then I can see where you can be confused. Neither one is the natural order of the world, (just like both strep and cancer are physical illnesses) but still should not be equated with each other.

mamommommy

Tue, Jan 10 2012, 8:22 am

nylon wrote:

Perhaps you're right and the use if the word natural is a problem. It is natural in the sense that it is inherent in the person, and they are not actively doing anything that is not already within them. I meant it more to mean the "natural order of the world" or the proper functions of the world, but I can see how the word can muddle the issue.

And you are right that a person's desires are completely separate from a person's actions. I think the issue comes into play when people make the jump from "it's natural" to "it's right." The desire for it does not "naturally" mean that you must give in to it.

I do disagree with your statement about worrying about what might happen 100 years from now. If we believe now, that there is a treatment for this (even though one does not exist now), then we will continue to work towards one for the future. If we give up and say," oh well, it's incurable," then no time, resources or research will be expended towards finding a possible treatment.

mamommommy

Tue, Jan 10 2012, 8:33 am

Clarissa wrote:

Your comparing it to anxiety is pretty offensive. But you won't let go of that. So don't make believe you're answering anybody's questions. I don't ask KKK sympathizers to explain racial equality.

You think I'm converting people to a cause? Here? One person equates homosexuality with incest and pedophilia, and the other one with mental illness? Oh, please. I'd sooner walk up and down the street and convince everyone on my block to go play hopscotch with me.

I see that you will call my comparison to it being anything but completely normal offensive. I guess in turn I should certainly be offended by you comparing my explaining my position as the KKK explaining theirs.

I don't know if you know anything about the history of homosexuality, but in the not so distant past, it actually was officially considered a psychological disorder, so equating it with such is not a distant concept.

And your continued stigmatization of mental illness is insulting. I wonder if anyone with strep throat will come on here all up in arms that I analogized their illness to homosexuality.

chanahlady

Tue, Jan 10 2012, 8:46 am

mamommommy wrote:

Clarissa wrote:

Pointing out something that's been nearly completely discredited in the professional world doesn't really help your argument. Homosexuality stopped being considered a psychological disorder several decades ago, precisely because the medical community stopped considering it a mental illness, on par with schizophrenia or BPD. Now, the prevailing medical and psychological view is that it is a normal variation of human s-xuality, and so continuing to equate homosexuality with mental illness is indeed -- in my opinion, and many other opinions -- offensive.

mamommommy

Tue, Jan 10 2012, 8:53 am

chanahlady wrote:

mamommommy wrote:

Clarissa wrote:

I want to point out that at no point did I actually say that homosexuality is a mental illness and I was merely using it as an analogy. I was responding specifically to someone who called the analogy insulting. I want to add than many people who suffer from more innocuous forms of mental illness may be insulted to have their illness put on par with schizophrenia. You can choose what is insulting to you. (BTW, I compared it to other issues as well.)

For informational purposes, one with homosexuality, to this day, can be given the diagnosis of "s-xual Disorder, NOS", but this is given on an individual basis based on the patients presentation.

Last edited by mamommommy on Tue, Jan 10 2012, 9:02 am; edited 1 time in total

willow

Tue, Jan 10 2012, 8:54 am

mamommommy wrote:

Clarissa wrote:

willow wrote:

I don't have any idea if its inborn or whatever but I always wondered why is it not looked at the same as a father wanting to do it with his daughter? I know it seems blunt but I am actually serious.

Thank you for taking my question and answering nicely. Clarissa you are an intelligent lady I am confused y your response I do feel it is a way of coping out.
Anyways