Yep, that sums it up very well, you have nothing to offer but your flawed perverted opinion backed by irrelevant sophistry. Try again when you graduate high school.
I came in here and answered any and all questions... probably from a dozen different posters.
BWAHAHAHAHAAA…
You have answered nothing, you asked for science and when presented with it you either ignored it or panned it without ANY substantiation. You have been discredited objectively for all to see. I suggest you bone up on the particulars about your perversion; it’s obvious EVERYONE else has except you. Juvenile goading and specious analogy doesn’t count as “answering any and all questions”, now how is it again that homosexual pathology is comparable to a normal man/woman relationship? Exactly what science debunks the DSMII? And what was that about consent?
Funny, because to me this sentence sums up YOUR position very well. You offer your "flawed opinion", "sophistry", and now a little ad hominem.
You DO offer other sources, but they aren't helpful to your argument.
"You have answered nothing, you asked for science and when presented with it you either ignored it or panned it without ANY substantiation."
Ok. You're hard to please, so let's go into detail.
You present me with an outdated DSM to refute, which I consider refuted by subsequent DSM's. You think it's political, but that's NOT what the APA says at this point. So yes, I am ignoring it. I'll also ignore any outdated medical information you send me about leeches and bloodletting being a cure for mental illness.
You gave me a "first person" account by someone who titled their article "Biology My Ass", and it's missing a lot of what should be key things. I tried to avoid it outright because it's just that obviously bad, but you're insisting so here we go...
All it covers are her ideas on whether or not homosexuality is biological. She certainly doesn't feel it is pathology. She says that the drive to have sex is biological, but who you have sex with is choice. Ultimately, everything we do is "choice". She does not address what causes sexual attraction between people. Pretty glaring, if you're trying to talk about what makes a lesbian a lesbian. It's quite a leap from "women like the company of women" to "women like women, therefore it's easy to want to have sex with women."
She seems to be arguing lesbianism is sort of like a man feeling that wearing women's underwear is kind of thrilling. Maybe her attraction to women is of a "taboo thrill" or "playing with gender roles" variety, but not mine. Her definition of "lesbian" is shaky.
On top of it all, she thinks lesbians can be "recruited" from the straight ranks. I don't know any lesbians who feel this is the case. It's often joked about, but most I know think that if a woman isn't feeling the sexual attraction, she isn't going to learn to feel it.
Also, she makes the claim that people are pretending that their personal experience trumps science. There's no science ruling biology out. You can't prove a negative. However, studies have been done where some tinkering with genetics leads male fruit flies to attempt mating with other male fruit flies. This indicates to me that the POSSIBILITY exists that there is a biological component.
It's frustrating to have to devote so much time on some nutty divorcee who proves nothing, but this is a major part of your evidence.
Finally, you link to Dr. Socarides' article, and it is really bad. He says:
"Not only was it "off the track"; the people caught up in it were suffering, which is why we called it a pathology."
So if people "caught up" in homosexuality are not "suffering", it's not pathology. There is no suffering in my life is to do with my homosexuality, therefore I have no pathology. You can say to me "Oh, you just THINK you're ok. You're actually SUFFERING!", but I may as well insist that the same is true for you. It's presumptuous, and unproven. He goes on:
"many of us thought we were quietly doing God's work."
Your "science" is doing God's work. It's all well and good for people to feel that way about their work, but this is supposed to be your article showing that "science" agrees with you. He's showing here that maybe "science" is not all that's on his mind, in matters of psychology. On we go:
"Now, in the opinion of those who make up the so-called cultural elite, our view is "out of date." "
Bitter. Not uncommon amongst IDers and other theologically based "science" adherents. Then:
"It has been orchestrated by a small band of very bright men and women-most of them gays and lesbians-in a cultural campaign that has been going on since a few intellectuals laid down the ideological underpinnings for the entire tie-dyed, try-anything-sexual Woodstock generation."
This is one of those examples where you just get a glimpse into the mindset... "Damn hippies with their tie dye and free sex.. and homos with their conspiracy, there's a cabal of very bright homos and they're controlling our thoughts... grumble grumble" Does this article honestly speak to you?
Dr. Socarides claims:
"Astoundingly now, college freshmen come home for their first Thanksgiving to announce, "Hey, Mom! Hey, Dad! We've taken the high moral ground. We've joined the gay revolution.""
That certainly IS astounding. I've never known anyone to do it, but he seems to be attributing this statement to enough people that it would be significant. Do you know anyone who ever said such a thing?
I'm going to skip way down in the article now, because there's so much to pick apart and so little time. But I felt this was interesting:
"Excuse me. Gay is not good. Gay is not decidedly free. How do I know this? For more than 40 years, I have been in solidarity with hundreds of homosexuals, my patients, and I have spent most of my professional life engaged in exercising a kind of "pastoral care" on their behalf."
The definition of pastoral: of, relating to, or composed of shepherds or herdsmen.
I don't think he meant it that way. Maybe he meant another definition of pastoral: 2 a : of or relating to spiritual care or guidance especially of a congregation b : of or relating to the pastor of a church.
BINGO!! There's your science.
Plus, he's basing his knowledge of homosexuality on his own anecdotal evidence as a psychiatrist. Of course all the homosexuals he has dealt with in his illustrious career were ones who NEED THERAPY. Tainted sample. I deserve an honorary Ph.D from whatever school gave him one, because this article is sad. Basically, our Pastoral Dr. Socarides is "preaching to the choir."
Have a nice day, Clint.