Interesting that you actually do fail to see my point. You've restated it, but you continue to argue against something else.
Here is my original point from my original post:
darth_ender said:
My point is that the mind is a complex thing, and that politics are indeed involved in what is and is not acceptable, appropriate, or even a disorder.
Basically, politics and and psychiatric definitions go hand in hand, and not just in sexuality, though that is most salient in present day USA.
Let me give you the same point, but using different examples. Bear with me a moment. Pretend all previous posts on this topic did not exist, and I introduced my idea with the following (though I'm sure I would type a much longer post were I truly introducing the topic for the first time).
In the Soviet Union, those who opposed the Communist Party were labeled as mentally ill. Communist society, which gave the ruling party a great deal of control over individual lives, permitted such definitions, and the general populace agreed with such labels.
In modern diagnostic manuals, there are things called culture bound syndromes. For instance, in many Latin-American cultures, there is something called attaque de nervios, a disorder that is not really present in our culture.
As the Soviet Union evaporated, the definition of many psychiatric conditions changed and modernized. Perhaps one day, several other culture bound syndromes will change as well, depending on the prevailing views and morals of the society in which they exist.
*END OF POINT*
You see, my point remains the same, but the examples are different. Yet you continue to harp on homosexuality and my comparison to pedophilia, which I have already admitted is a limited comparison (as is every other comparison). You still treat that like it's my main point, even if you acknowledge with squeamish wording that maybe it's what I'm getting at.
DominicCobbsaid:
If that's your point it's a pretty thin one. I'm getting "some day values will not be the same as they are now and you may not like that."
DominicCobb said:
Ender, I'm just struggling to see your point. "Societies definitions change." Something like that.
So while you supposedly acknowledge my point, you continue to drive at something else. Obviously you find my example, which was merely a bead on a necklace of argument, to be so offensive as to consume the whole argument. So if you would kindly grant me the time to create another post before replying, hopefully I will clear up any misconceptions.