Sketch of an argument from unhappiness for homosexuality as pathological

[Dekusta]

Hello,

I've been doing a bit of thinking these days on the issue of homosexuality and an argument just crossed my mind. Here it goes (sorry for my bad skills at writing arguments if they show up):

(P1) Homosexuals are more unhappy than heterosexuals because of homosexuality itself;
(P2) It is not expected from a normal variant of human sexuality to make individuals more unhappy compared to other normal variants of human sexuality;
(P3) Homosexuality is a variant of human sexuality;
(P4) Homosexuality is not a normal variant of human sexuality (from P1, P2 and P3);
(P5) If homosexuality is not a normal variant of human sexuality, then it is a pathology;
(C) Homosexuality is a pathology (From P4 and P5).


P1 must be supported by science. To provide me from quoting at length, this link provides the scientific support for P1. Of course it is still open to deny, but I'm not an expert on statistics, so if anyone wants to go that path, be my guest. Here it is (it's on google translate because the site is italian, I think, but the translation is awesome) : http://translate.google.it/translat...dei-gay-lomofobia-non-centra-7283.htm&act=url

Another line of evidence for P1 is the evidence from Netherlands. Netherlands has a culture of acceptance and tolerance of homosexuals but still suicide is a major problem among LGBT youns and married adults. I'll leave a link if anyone's interested: http://billmuehlenberg.com/2010/10/21/just-what-is-behind-these-suicides/

The term 'unhappy' here means that the homosexual invidual is more likely to suicidal thoughts and attempts, and also more likely to be discontent with his/her marriage, compared to their heterosexual counterparts. 'Normal' is defined as "correspondent with the state of mind of a group of individuals that we would expect given the feature that unites them in that group". A normal variant of human sexuality should be expected to have more indivuals happy and less suicidal thoughts produced by that sexuality. As for homosexuality does not show the expected levels, it is not a normal variant of human sexuality.

I used P2 to avoid the objection of other groups of individuals who also show to be more unhappy than others. Physicians and women, for example, are more likely to suicide than non-physicians and men, respectively. However, that is expected from physicians and women, because it is reasonable to believe that a normal occupation will have a higher risk of unhappiness than other occupations and remain normal, since more deep thinking might be required, and so forth. And with women, it is still reasonable to believe that it is a normal gender because of the biological differences between genders: hormones, and so forth.

However, when it comes to homosexuality, there is nothing really to it. I can't see how we can expect, given a normal variant of human sexuality, that the indivuals would be more unhappy than others and that variant would remain normal. Of course, there is the issue of homophobia, but the science I linked above deals with it. And it seems that pro-gays would not be willing to accept that homosexual relationships make people more unhappy than heterosexual ones.
The other options are that what causes homosexuality also causes this increased unhappiness. If that is a biological cause, then we have a biological cause that leads some individuals more unhappy. If it is a social/environmental cause, then we have a social/environmental cause that leads some individuals more unhappy. Either way, it should be considered a pathology, shouldn't it?

P3 and P5 sound obvious to me. If something is not normal, then it should be considered a pathology. Take schizophrenia, for example.

I appreciate the comments.

 

[none]

what causes suicidal thought in heterosexuals? is it their sexuality like you assume is the case with homosexuals?

 

[ronburgundy]

Hello,

I've been doing a bit of thinking these days on the issue of homosexuality and an argument just crossed my mind. Here it goes (sorry for my bad skills at writing arguments if they show up):

(P1) Homosexuals are more unhappy than heterosexuals because of homosexuality itself;
(P2) It is not expected from a normal variant of human sexuality to make individuals more unhappy compared to other normal variants of human sexuality;
(P3) Homosexuality is a variant of human sexuality;
(P4) Homosexuality is not a normal variant of human sexuality (from P1, P2 and P3);
(P5) If homosexuality is not a normal variant of human sexuality, then it is a pathology;
(C) Homosexuality is a pathology (From P4 and P5).


P1 must be supported by science. To provide me from quoting at length, this link provides the scientific support for P1. Of course it is still open to deny, but I'm not an expert on statistics, so if anyone wants to go that path, be my guest. Here it is (it's on google translate because the site is italian, I think, but the translation is awesome) : http://translate.google.it/translat...dei-gay-lomofobia-non-centra-7283.htm&act=url

Another line of evidence for P1 is the evidence from Netherlands. Netherlands has a culture of acceptance and tolerance of homosexuals but still suicide is a major problem among LGBT youns and married adults. I'll leave a link if anyone's interested: http://billmuehlenberg.com/2010/10/21/just-what-is-behind-these-suicides/

The term 'unhappy' here means that the homosexual invidual is more likely to suicidal thoughts and attempts, and also more likely to be discontent with his/her marriage, compared to their heterosexual counterparts. 'Normal' is defined as "correspondent with the state of mind of a group of individuals that we would expect given the feature that unites them in that group". A normal variant of human sexuality should be expected to have more indivuals happy and less suicidal thoughts produced by that sexuality. As for homosexuality does not show the expected levels, it is not a normal variant of human sexuality.

I used P2 to avoid the objection of other groups of individuals who also show to be more unhappy than others. Physicians and women, for example, are more likely to suicide than non-physicians and men, respectively. However, that is expected from physicians and women, because it is reasonable to believe that a normal occupation will have a higher risk of unhappiness than other occupations and remain normal, since more deep thinking might be required, and so forth. And with women, it is still reasonable to believe that it is a normal gender because of the biological differences between genders: hormones, and so forth.

However, when it comes to homosexuality, there is nothing really to it. I can't see how we can expect, given a normal variant of human sexuality, that the indivuals would be more unhappy than others and that variant would remain normal. Of course, there is the issue of homophobia, but the science I linked above deals with it. And it seems that pro-gays would not be willing to accept that homosexual relationships make people more unhappy than heterosexual ones.
The other options are that what causes homosexuality also causes this increased unhappiness. If that is a biological cause, then we have a biological cause that leads some individuals more unhappy. If it is a social/environmental cause, then we have a social/environmental cause that leads some individuals more unhappy. Either way, it should be considered a pathology, shouldn't it?

P3 and P5 sound obvious to me. If something is not normal, then it should be considered a pathology. Take schizophrenia, for example.

I appreciate the comments.

I'll get to the "science" for P1 in a moment, but first I want to point out that P2 is false and without foundation, and thus P4, P5, and C are not supported.

Average differences in some trait are completely "normal", "typical", "natural", and non-pathological. Women are shorter on average than men. By your logic, women suffer from a height pathology. You are below average on countless variables, thus by your logic, these are all "pathologies" you suffer from.
At bare minimum, variance in some trait only hints at a pathology, if the differences are so extreme that the most the people in the "pathology" group are below or above the value of the vast majority of the "normal" population. IOW, at least 2 standard deviations away from the mean.
Even the stats from your completely unscientific and rabidly political source fail to show that nearly all homosexuals are even close to being outside of the bounds of what is normal and common among heterosexuals.

As to P1, your source provides zero evidence for it. Nothing cited even speaks to the issue of causality. Every results is completely explicable in terms of social attitudes about homosexuals. Your source makes the absurd claims that homosexuals in the Netherlands are more suicidal "even in a country where the so-called "homophobia" is non-existent". There is no such country where it is non-existent and the researchers say nothing close to that. The researchers merely point out that homophobic intolerance is less in relative terms to other nations, such as the barbaric US. There is still plenty of homophobia in the Netherlands as the Netherlands Institute for Social Research points out "Hostility towards homosexuality is common in schools, making life more difficult for homosexual teachers and pupils than for their heterosexual counterparts. Gays and lesbians are not infrequently insulted in the streets or even physically assaulted; in some neighbourhoods their lives are made a misery, and in orthodox religious circles homosexuality is regarded as a sin.
...
The majority of gays and lesbians have encountered negative experiences, on the streets or in nightlife centres, but also from family members, at work and in sport. These experiences relate to denigrating comments about homosexuality or homosexuals, malicious gossip or bullying, and verbal or sometimes even physical violence. 'Faggot' is a widely used insult at work and in sport."


In addition, everyone in the Netherlands older than 14 lived in a society where gay unions were not legal, and a 2006 study showed that 22% of the population still opposed gay unions. Not to mention, in an internet world where homophobes go to lengths to cyber-attack gays everywhere, the fact that your immediate neighbors accept you is only a partial factor.

Finally, the gender differences right at the beginning of your own source refute that homosexuality itself impacts suicides. Among males, there is a massive difference in attempted suicide rates of 28% to 4%. But among females, the difference is much smaller, only 20% to 15%. Also, hetero women are 3 times more likely to attempt suicide than hetero men, Yet gay women are notably less likely to attempt suicide than gay men. How does homosexuality itself have such a different impact on men and women? Because it isn't homosexuality but social mistreatment. Gay men suffer far more mistreatment and lack of acceptance, thus the much greater difference compared to their same gender counterpart.

 

[Keith&Co.]

(P1) Homosexuals are more unhappy than heterosexuals because of homosexuality itself;

I'd really want to see how that works.

For me, i've been a nerd my entire life.
Being a nerd in certain social situations, since way back before the Star Wars movies, for example, was a recipe for unhappiness. But being a nerd didn't cause my unhappiness as much as the way i was treated by my peers for being a nerd. Being a nerd gave me much pleasure, really. Building my own models of Battlestar Galactica, or the Enterprise or kit-bashing the volcanic creatures from The Savage Curtain from a model set for cavemen... That was fun.
Being outed as a nerd, treated as a misfit, teased for knowing more than three Trek episodes by name....that caused unhappiness....

So it was a social issue, not a pathology.

Can you really show HOW homosexuality causes unhappiness?

 

[braces_for_impact]

Unfortunately I don't have a lot of time for posting right now, but I think I disagree with almost every single premise you've posted. No offense, but the flaws seem pretty obvious here.

ETA:

Really quick...

P1: Are they, or is it the social ramifications of such a preference? If nothing else, a single case where someone is unhappy for another reason invalidates the premise.

P2: Why not? People do things that makes them unhappy all the time.

P3: This one I don't disagree with.

P4: "Normal" needs to be defined and is smuggling in several connotations with it that are unwarranted: i.e. "Natural" is better. Also, considering homosexual behavior is "normal" sexual behavior for many species (including primates), invalidates this premise.

P5: Is something that is uncommon automatically a pathology? I doubt it.

C: Ditto above.

These premises assume their own conclusions and provide no demonstration that they are correct, or even plausible.

Seems very sloppy to me.

 

[none]

Well in defense of the OP, he said he did a bit of thinking not a lot...

 

[Underseer]

That is just a blatantly bad argument in favor of prejudice.

The numbers are shifting right now. In a few generations, theists will be in the minority in advanced industrialized nations. In some advanced industrialized civilizations, theists are already outnumbered by atheists. If the logic of this argument is valid, then this would also be a valid argument against theism in some countries, and soon will be valid in most industrialized nations.

Do you think this is a valid argument against theism?

 

[Dekusta]

what causes suicidal thought in heterosexuals? is it their sexuality like you assume is the case with homosexuals?

It could be their sexuality or other external factors besides their sexuality, that could be linked with it or not. If my sources are correct on what they say, the first option is the way to go. Or is there a bigger difference between the lives of homosexuals and the lives of heterosexuals that I'm missing here?

 

[none]

what causes suicidal thought in heterosexuals? is it their sexuality like you assume is the case with homosexuals?

It could be their sexuality or other external factors besides their sexuality, that could be linked with it or not. If my sources are correct on what they say, the first option is the way to go. Or is there a bigger difference between the lives of homosexuals and the lives of heterosexuals that I'm missing here?

so your sources say heterosexuals have suicidal thoughts because of their sexuality?

 

[Keith&Co.]

It could be their sexuality or other external factors besides their sexuality, that could be linked with it or not. If my sources are correct on what they say, the first option is the way to go. Or is there a bigger difference between the lives of homosexuals and the lives of heterosexuals that I'm missing here?

so your sources say heterosexuals have suicidal thoughts because of their sexuality?

From the training on the suicide hotline, i remember that if you find 20 suicidal people, you probably will find 22-40 reasons for suicide.
Someone got a B on the report card, someone realized they'll never screw a Swimsuit Issue model, the toothpaste-airline conspiracy encroaches, they don't get enough attention, they get too much attention.
I don't recall too many cases of suicide based on what got their dick hard or made their nipples erect....

Even the pedophiles never threatened suicide BASED ON their pedophilia... Just fear of discovery or fear of prosecution or fear of being beaten to deaths in a prison laundry...

 

[none]

I think what the moral of the story is ( cough cough ) is that heterosexuals can go to church retreat and act gay for a week and handle it just fine but homosexuals shaking hands with each other can't handle the affection...

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think what the moral of the story is

I thought the moral was that if you offer a premise that something is a pathology (p5) then conclude that it's a pathology, all you've done is masturbate, with a keyboard. And masturbation is a variant of human sexuality that brings unhappiness, because of the masturbation.

 

[Dekusta]

Hello,

I've been doing a bit of thinking these days on the issue of homosexuality and an argument just crossed my mind. Here it goes (sorry for my bad skills at writing arguments if they show up):

(P1) Homosexuals are more unhappy than heterosexuals because of homosexuality itself;
(P2) It is not expected from a normal variant of human sexuality to make individuals more unhappy compared to other normal variants of human sexuality;
(P3) Homosexuality is a variant of human sexuality;
(P4) Homosexuality is not a normal variant of human sexuality (from P1, P2 and P3);
(P5) If homosexuality is not a normal variant of human sexuality, then it is a pathology;
(C) Homosexuality is a pathology (From P4 and P5).


P1 must be supported by science. To provide me from quoting at length, this link provides the scientific support for P1. Of course it is still open to deny, but I'm not an expert on statistics, so if anyone wants to go that path, be my guest. Here it is (it's on google translate because the site is italian, I think, but the translation is awesome) : http://translate.google.it/translat...dei-gay-lomofobia-non-centra-7283.htm&act=url

Another line of evidence for P1 is the evidence from Netherlands. Netherlands has a culture of acceptance and tolerance of homosexuals but still suicide is a major problem among LGBT youns and married adults. I'll leave a link if anyone's interested: http://billmuehlenberg.com/2010/10/21/just-what-is-behind-these-suicides/

The term 'unhappy' here means that the homosexual invidual is more likely to suicidal thoughts and attempts, and also more likely to be discontent with his/her marriage, compared to their heterosexual counterparts. 'Normal' is defined as "correspondent with the state of mind of a group of individuals that we would expect given the feature that unites them in that group". A normal variant of human sexuality should be expected to have more indivuals happy and less suicidal thoughts produced by that sexuality. As for homosexuality does not show the expected levels, it is not a normal variant of human sexuality.

I used P2 to avoid the objection of other groups of individuals who also show to be more unhappy than others. Physicians and women, for example, are more likely to suicide than non-physicians and men, respectively. However, that is expected from physicians and women, because it is reasonable to believe that a normal occupation will have a higher risk of unhappiness than other occupations and remain normal, since more deep thinking might be required, and so forth. And with women, it is still reasonable to believe that it is a normal gender because of the biological differences between genders: hormones, and so forth.

However, when it comes to homosexuality, there is nothing really to it. I can't see how we can expect, given a normal variant of human sexuality, that the indivuals would be more unhappy than others and that variant would remain normal. Of course, there is the issue of homophobia, but the science I linked above deals with it. And it seems that pro-gays would not be willing to accept that homosexual relationships make people more unhappy than heterosexual ones.
The other options are that what causes homosexuality also causes this increased unhappiness. If that is a biological cause, then we have a biological cause that leads some individuals more unhappy. If it is a social/environmental cause, then we have a social/environmental cause that leads some individuals more unhappy. Either way, it should be considered a pathology, shouldn't it?

P3 and P5 sound obvious to me. If something is not normal, then it should be considered a pathology. Take schizophrenia, for example.

I appreciate the comments.

I'll get to the "science" for P1 in a moment, but first I want to point out that P2 is false and without foundation, and thus P4, P5, and C are not supported.

Average differences in some trait are completely "normal", "typical", "natural", and non-pathological. Women are shorter on average than men. By your logic, women suffer from a height pathology. You are below average on countless variables, thus by your logic, these are all "pathologies" you suffer from.
At bare minimum, variance in some trait only hints at a pathology, if the differences are so extreme that the most the people in the "pathology" group are below or above the value of the vast majority of the "normal" population. IOW, at least 2 standard deviations away from the mean.
Even the stats from your completely unscientific and rabidly political source fail to show that nearly all homosexuals are even close to being outside of the bounds of what is normal and common among heterosexuals.

As to P1, your source provides zero evidence for it. Nothing cited even speaks to the issue of causality. Every results is completely explicable in terms of social attitudes about homosexuals. Your source makes the absurd claims that homosexuals in the Netherlands are more suicidal "even in a country where the so-called "homophobia" is non-existent". There is no such country where it is non-existent and the researchers say nothing close to that. The researchers merely point out that homophobic intolerance is less in relative terms to other nations, such as the barbaric US. There is still plenty of homophobia in the Netherlands as the Netherlands Institute for Social Research points out "Hostility towards homosexuality is common in schools, making life more difficult for homosexual teachers and pupils than for their heterosexual counterparts. Gays and lesbians are not infrequently insulted in the streets or even physically assaulted; in some neighbourhoods their lives are made a misery, and in orthodox religious circles homosexuality is regarded as a sin.
...
The majority of gays and lesbians have encountered negative experiences, on the streets or in nightlife centres, but also from family members, at work and in sport. These experiences relate to denigrating comments about homosexuality or homosexuals, malicious gossip or bullying, and verbal or sometimes even physical violence. 'Faggot' is a widely used insult at work and in sport."


In addition, everyone in the Netherlands older than 14 lived in a society where gay unions were not legal, and a 2006 study showed that 22% of the population still opposed gay unions. Not to mention, in an internet world where homophobes go to lengths to cyber-attack gays everywhere, the fact that your immediate neighbors accept you is only a partial factor.

Finally, the gender differences right at the beginning of your own source refute that homosexuality itself impacts suicides. Among males, there is a massive difference in attempted suicide rates of 28% to 4%. But among females, the difference is much smaller, only 20% to 15%. Also, hetero women are 3 times more likely to attempt suicide than hetero men, Yet gay women are notably less likely to attempt suicide than gay men. How does homosexuality itself have such a different impact on men and women? Because it isn't homosexuality but social mistreatment. Gay men suffer far more mistreatment and lack of acceptance, thus the much greater difference compared to their same gender counterpart.

I don't think that is the logic I used in favor of P2. In the case of women, such differences are expected because they are another gender than the man, so obviously many biological factors would differ both. I didn't say : any diference between man and women should be considered a pathology. By your logic, my claim would be "homosexuals suffer from a suicide pathology" and not "homosexuality is a pathology itself".
But I suspect you're right about P2, anyway. Although I don't think there are relevant biological differences separating homosexuals and heterosexuals, the psychological differences might account for it. It's sort of... the difference between the nerd and the non-nerd? The thinker and the non-thinker? I'm not sure this cuts P2, though, but I'll leave it up to you if you want to complete that thought.

About the study in Netherlands, I think the researchers did just fine pointing out that there is no institutional anti-gay prejudice, everything supported by evidence and so forth. When it came to where you quoted them, however, they cite nothing in support of it. Nothing in support of the homophobia in schools, nothing in support of the 'faggot' word being used. It sounds to me like if they needed to point out something bad happening so that their study would not pass the idea that Netherlands is perfect. However, the part of 22% still opposing gay marriage sounds true.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I don't think that is the logic I used in favor of P2.

So what is hte logic you used in favor of P2?
Why would we expect variants of normal sexuality in humans to be directly indexed to their happiness?

 

[Dekusta]

It could be their sexuality or other external factors besides their sexuality, that could be linked with it or not. If my sources are correct on what they say, the first option is the way to go. Or is there a bigger difference between the lives of homosexuals and the lives of heterosexuals that I'm missing here?

so your sources say heterosexuals have suicidal thoughts because of their sexuality?

My sources say that the suicide among homosexuals is not caused by other factors external to their sexuality, under which we might infer that it is their sexuality that is causing these suicides.

 

[Wiploc]

(C) Homosexuality is a pathology (From P4 and P5).

If it turns out that homosexuals are naturally a bit happier than heterosexuals, then---by your logic---heterosexuality is a pathology.

Would you actually agree with your own logic if that turned out to be the case? Because, if not, then you should be able to recognize the bias behind your argument. The only appeal of your dubious premises and twisted logic is that it lets you disparage homosexuality.

Or, here's another way to run the logic to another conclusion: Suppose instead of talking about self-killing, we consider other-killing. Heterosexuals murder homosexuals a lot more than homosexuals murder heterosexuals, don't you think? Does this make heterosexuality a pathology, something that should be cured?

 

[Dekusta]

Unfortunately I don't have a lot of time for posting right now, but I think I disagree with almost every single premise you've posted. No offense, but the flaws seem pretty obvious here.

ETA:

Really quick...

P1: Are they, or is it the social ramifications of such a preference? If nothing else, a single case where someone is unhappy for another reason invalidates the premise.

P2: Why not? People do things that makes them unhappy all the time.

P3: This one I don't disagree with.

P4: "Normal" needs to be defined and is smuggling in several connotations with it that are unwarranted: i.e. "Natural" is better. Also, considering homosexual behavior is "normal" sexual behavior for many species (including primates), invalidates this premise.

P5: Is something that is uncommon automatically a pathology? I doubt it.

C: Ditto above.

These premises assume their own conclusions and provide no demonstration that they are correct, or even plausible.

Seems very sloppy to me.

Hi. I don't think much of this argument myself, I was not trying to make an argument against homosexuality when this popped in my head. However, I think the premises can be defended still.

P1: Premise 1 is based on statistics. The link I provided defends it.

P2: How exactly do you "make" homosexuality? Anyway, the question here is that, as shown in the source, suicide between married homosexuals is higher than on married heterosexuals. You would not expect that given the hypothesis that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality, instead you would expect that given the hypothesis that it is a pathology.

P4: I gave a definition of normal under which the argument works.

P5: If you follow the definition of normal I gave you, then yes.

 

[Dekusta]

(C) Homosexuality is a pathology (From P4 and P5).

If it turns out that homosexuals are naturally a bit happier than heterosexuals, then---by your logic---heterosexuality is a pathology.

Would you actually agree with your own logic if that turned out to be the case? Because, if not, then you should be able to recognize the bias behind your argument. The only appeal of your dubious premises and twisted logic is that it lets you disparage homosexuality.

Or, here's another way to run the logic to another conclusion: Suppose instead of talking about self-killing, we consider other-killing. Heterosexuals murder homosexuals a lot more than homosexuals murder heterosexuals, don't you think? Does this make heterosexuality a pathology, something that should be cured?

Heterosexuals do kill others more than homosexuals, but that is because the number of heterosexuals is incredibly higher than the number of homosexuals in the general population. For instance, 69% of serial-killing crimes were practiced by homosexuals. http://www.adherents.com/misc/hsk.html

 

[Dekusta]

That is just a blatantly bad argument in favor of prejudice.

The numbers are shifting right now. In a few generations, theists will be in the minority in advanced industrialized nations. In some advanced industrialized civilizations, theists are already outnumbered by atheists. If the logic of this argument is valid, then this would also be a valid argument against theism in some countries, and soon will be valid in most industrialized nations.

Do you think this is a valid argument against theism?

Perhaps. I wouldn't be necessary, since theism seems to be false anyway.

 

[Dekusta]

I don't think that is the logic I used in favor of P2.

So what is hte logic you used in favor of P2?
Why would we expect variants of normal sexuality in humans to be directly indexed to their happiness?

Fair question. I don't know how to answer this directly, but we expect normal states of an individual to be directly linked to their health, do we not?