Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vaxuum!dyer
From: dyer@dec-vaxuum.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: Re: Notes on Last Few Submissions
Message-ID: <2050@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 27-Jun-84 11:26:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: decwrl.2050
Posted: Wed Jun 27 11:26:28 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 30-Jun-84 03:49:08 EDT
Organization: DEC Engineering Network
Lines: 64

Re: Notes on Last Few Submissions______________________________________________

Mental Illness
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> The American Psychiatric Association voted in 1974 that homosexuality is
>> *not* mental illness.  (There was dissent, but it didn't take.)

> The APA voting on something does not make it so.  We know so little about the
> workings of the human mind that there just isn't any way at all anyone could
> conclusively make that statement.

	I agree; but I have to ask what one should consider "conclusive."  Jeff
Sargent stated that homosexuality is a mental illness; I posted a response to
inform him and others that his statement is not supported by the science that
defines mental illness.  But, you say, it isn't a science:

> The mainstream is so clogged with viewpoints (viewpoints that differ to the
> extreme) it isn't funny.  At this point, psychology isn't science, it's fuzzy
> like a rug.

	Psychology *is* a science; a young science that hasn't found a paradigm
yet.  The lack of a paradigm doesn't make it *not* a science because modern
psychology generally uses the scientific method.  If you're going to call some-
thing a non-science because it lacks a fully-operational paradigm, you might as
well consider physics a non-science.
	[For a good understanding of what I'm talking about with science and
paradigms, check out Thomas Kuhn's _The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions_.]
	Rather than quibbling about whether or not psychology _per_se_ is valid
or not, perhaps we should be debating the specific evidence that would indicate
that homosexuality is not mental illness.  Start with the Kinsey report.

Intrinsically Pedophilic
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> It seems to me that the same sociological evidence that would give intrinsic
>> rights to homosexuals would also give them to those who claim to have been
>> born with pedophilic tendancies (sic).

> Bingo.  That's absolutely correct.

	It is?  Just what kind of sociological evidence are you two referring
to?  References, please.
	I've noticed a tendency to lump homosexuality together with sex with
animals and children.  Note that there's one fundamental difference being over-
looked:  homosexuality _per_se_ involves mature, consenting adults.  There's a
definite difference between sex that involves a fellow adult and sex that in-
volves an easy-to-manipulate object.

Inherent Rights
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> I have a large problem with those people who wish to say that gay rights are
> inherently "right"; that women's liberation is inherently "right"; that black
> rights are "inherently" right.

	Yes, you do seem to have a problem.  Homosexuals, like women and black
people, are humans and as such are bestowed with the same equal and inalienable
rights as any human.  If you wish to challenge their rights, then you should
also challenge the rights of all humans - a challenge that would probably be-
long in net.philosophy or net.politics.
		<_Jym_>

Jym Dyer
dyer%vaxuum.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA
...{allegra|decvax|ihnp4|ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vaxuum!dyer
Statements are my own, and not necessarily those of |d|i|g|i|t|a|l|.