DominicCobb said:
Ender, I'm just struggling to see your point. "Societies definitions change." Something like that. But it's not a question of morals. But aren't those societal definitions based on morals? If not then what is your point?
I am saying I am not arguing the moral implications of either, and though I have not enumerated my recent conclusions on homosexuality here, I have implied them enough that I think you and Ryan are assuming a lot about my position. Let me take several steps back, where we are now deviating from the whole point of my argument.
My boss, the director of nursing on the behavioral health floor of the hospital at which I work, is a lesbian. I consider her a friend, trust her, and am happy for her that she is getting married in Vegas in the near future.
The psychiatrist who treats the majority of the patients on the floor on which I work is gay, is living with a man about half his age. I laugh that it is a sugar daddy situation, but hey, if they're happy, power to them.
I am very tolerant of homosexuality. Even if there are religious objections, I find no problem with people pursuing what makes them happy, as long as others are not harmed. In other words, I am okay with a gay person being gay, and wish them happiness.
So what is my purpose in comparing? It is not to equate. It is to point out how things have changed. Do you honestly believe society has stopped at the pinnacle of perfect values? Do you truly believe that what you hold to be right and wrong somehow actually are right and wrong, today, tomorrow, and forever? Has it occurred to you that when you are an old man, your grandchildren will likely consider you behind the times because you will probably be resistant to the changes that are coming down the pike? Values have changed throughout humanity's history. They will continue to do so. And with it, our perspectives on mental health.
Homosexuality and transexuality are easy topics to discuss because they are still hot topics. But while they were the primary example of my point, they were not my point. I brought up the fact that societies have had different perspectives on psychosis/schizophrenia. Once upon a time it was valued, at least in some societies. Who is to say that it will not be seen for something good instead of bad in the future? But our society considers the hearing of things others cannot hear a bad thing. Therefore it is considered a disorder.
I am not making personal moral judgments. If I were to do so, I would indeed say that there is a huge difference between consenting homosexual adults and the victimization of children. I totally see where you and Ryan are coming from. If that were my intent, I would have no problem conceding that you are right. But you are wrong, because you are accusing of something I am not saying at all. I am saying that society as a whole has made moral judgments, and that our definitions of disorders, which come from a soft and imprecise science, reflects what society believes, not what can be considered concrete fact.
Non-heterosexuality is technically a "disorder," but society has now decided otherwise. But why else other than "f that, there's nothing morally wrong with homosexuality and such"? How, in our opinion, might the definition of pedophilia be classified as any thing other than a disorder? If we're talking about societal definitions, then morality will always play a part. And since morality will always shape societal definitions, I'm pretty sure pedophilia will still remain a crime and a disorder.
Probably, and I'm okay with that. But you fixate on these things, unable to see the forest for the trees. But let's also consider that historically pedophilia was acceptable. People married and bore children as soon as they were physically capable of doing so. I'm certain pedophilia has been around as long as puberty. Now consider how many things a child can do with parental consent. Perhaps there will come a time where parents may consent on behalf of their children. Do I like the thought? No way. But it's simply an example of a possible future permutation in society's moral system. And if the change comes to pass, then I suspect the definition of the psychiatric disorder will change with it.
By the way, I do consider pedophilia a disorder. It is a terrible thing, but in many cases those perpetrating it are doing so because of serious psychological issues. So I think as a society we should move away from punishment for these "evil" people, and move towards treatment instead.
Agreed. My brother is a counselor for sex offenders, and I'm sure he's seen many of the worst of humanity, but imagine the service he provides in helping people who are pretty sick find some value in their lives.
But that is still a wholly different thing from homosexuality, transsexuality, and all that. And, whether or not it was your intention, Ender, the implication was clear - gay used to be bad, but now it's not; maybe some day awful things will be okay too. It's the slipper slope argument almost exactly, again, whether you intended or not (but, again, I'm really not sure what you meant to say). And I have acknowledged the scientific comparison. That doesn't mean I can't say the implication is f upped. And I am not being overly sensitive, just trying to call out some bs.
Call whatever you want, but you clearly fail to see my point. Other things that seem bizarre maybe shouldn't be. I mentioned incest. Is there really scientific justification for consenting siblings to not have sexual relations? What if they are homosexual, so there will certainly be no screwed up offspring? What if they are sterilized? What if the chances for genetic problems is far smaller than we think now?
I think you fail to see what morals truly are. Unless one believes in a higher Lawgiver with absolute morals (and I know you do not), then morals are defined entirely by society. And those morals have changed and will continue to do so. I am not equating. I am stating fact. As those morals change, so will psychiatric definitions. And this is not limited to sexual or gender preferences.
I think the root of the matter IS this idea of consent, whether you admit it or not. Naturally speaking, consent is not necessary. Look at any other species. But we are a civilized society with norms and rules based on MORALITY. And consensual sex is the only moral sex. Which means pedophilia and zoophilia will always be immoral because they will always be nonconsensual. The day zoophilia becomes culturally accepted is the day rape becomes culturally accepted. Same with pedophilia. What if the kid gives consent, though? Well currently kids aren't allowed to legally consent to anything, sex or otherwise, until they're 18. That's because we are a scientifically knowledgeable society and we understand that children have not developed their brains enough to drink, join the army, live on their own, etc. So the day pedophilia becomes culturally accepted is the day we let kids be thrown out on the streets. If you notice, as a society we're going in the other direction.
I wish you'd see my point. I think you simply see what you want to see, and you are in fact being narrow-minded. Values change. So do psychiatric diagnostic criteria. The two are linked. Examples given were simply examples, not the final point. Perhaps one day values will change in the opposite direction or in some direction we haven't even thought of. But when they do, so will the definition.
That is my point. Nothing more, nothing less.
