I don't need to project problems on to you. Anyone can read this thread.
"So what SCIENCE refutes the DSMII??"
The reason homosexuality was removed from the DSM is because it doesn't meet the criteria for disorder. I don't know how to post links, but I took this from http://www.thebody.com/apa/apafacts.html :
"For a mental condition to be considered a psychiatric disorder, it should either regularly cause emotional distress or regularly be associated with clinically significant impairment of social functioning. These experts found that homosexuality does not meet these criteria."
Whether or not the stimulus for change was socio-political doesn't matter. In the end, you can not show that all homosexuals are regularly distressed by their homosexuality, or that it causes impairment of social functioning.
"Ignoring is a coping mechanism and part of your pathology, I can understand why you need to do so."
I'm not ignoring you or your links. I'm unimpressed and unconvinced by them.
"I never claimed she did, testimonial, long term incarceration, so called bisexuality and the FACT that there are ex-gays proves your pathology is chosen behavior."
Behavior is chosen. Predisposition is not. The Pope chooses not to have sex with women. Can he still be heterosexual?
"Sodomy is not sex, it doesn’t make children no matter how much you pretend."
The definition of sex has nothing to do with whether procreation occurs, and I never pretended that homosexual sex results in children. What an odd thought to attribute to me.
"Homosexuals have hijacked enough vocabulary i.e. “gay”, etc., I guess it’s your need to candy cote perversion."
Gays didn't hijack the word "gay". Slang just appears and goes mainstream.
I don't know any lesbians who feel this is the case. "More anecdotal evidence hmm???"
Yes. This is a conversation, and I'm telling you what my experience is.
"It has nothing to do with proving a negative and everything to do with finding a genetic marker that is responsible for behavior…you simply can’t."
There hasn't been anything definite for human sexuality, but that doesn't rule it out.. especially when you CAN find genetic factors for fruit flies.
"Although this study unequivocally shows that sexual orientation is heritable and can be changed by manipulation of a single gene, there is one problem: they are fruit flies!"
This study isn't claiming that it's proof that homosexuality is genetic for humans.. just that there are genetic factors for fruit flies' sexual behavior, which indicates a possibility that the same may be true for humans.
"Nope, it’s simply the criterion the wackos at the APA use to determine behavioral disorder."
Oh, those crazy "wackos" at the APA.. always trying to define and clarify what makes a behavioral disorder a behavioral disorder.
"Applied to other paraphilias we can say the same…’So if people"caught up" in homosexuality bestiality, incest or pedophilia are not "suffering", it's not pathology.’ See how easy it works?"
I'm not sure of the APA's position on these, but there is quite a bit of separation from these and homosexuality. We've been over this before. There really isn't a comparison, any more than there is a comparison to heterosexuality. Incest and pedophilia (most incest actually falls into pedophilia) have consent issues, and pedophilia is extremely harmful to the children. Bestiality also has consent issues (can animals truly consent?) but more than that, I consider it abuse of an animal.
"Wrong again…many phycicans, health care workers ect. probably hold this feeling, don’t you think? It has no bearing on science."
You said that "science" agrees with you, and posted a link to that article. There was little in the way of science there, it was quite informal and included several "spiritual" references.
"Yeah, maybe you’re right, it’s all one big conspiracy, many clinical psychiatrists are out to get the poor little perverts so they can’t have any fun."
Just suggesting that his faith may be part of why he feels so strongly that homosexuality is a disorder, since he brings it up so often in this article.
"Where’s your proof of “theologically based science"? Oh that’s right you have none."
You sent me to an article, I'm telling you why I don't think it's "science". You linked to it as SCIENCE AGREEING WITH YOU. It is just the professional opinion of a psychiatrist... and many more disagree with him.
"He’s talking about the effects of the sexual revolution on our society, abortion used as contraception, the Gaystapo’s tort suits and GLSEN’s indoctrination of out children. He has a reasonable concern don’t you think?"
So that's what this is about? Not whether homosexuality is always detrimental and can therefore be classified as a disorder, but a cultural war? He's griping about society sure, but that has nothing to do with whether or not gay people can lead non-disordered lives. Stick to the topic.
Do you know anyone who ever said such a thing? "No not personally but don’t you think he’s talking about the liberal philosophical indoctrination which includes “tolerance” of perversion kids get in our Universities?"
Tolerance is not the same as creating homosexuals. I think you and he both are confusing "relaxed attitudes creating homosexuals." with what it really is.."relaxed societal attitudes about homosexuality being conducive to more homosexuals coming out of the closet."
"You don’t think physicians think of themselves as healers both physically and spiritually?"
Sure, BUT THIS IS YOUR "SCIENCE AGREES WITH ME" ARTICLE.
A friend of mine invited me to sit in during his defense for his Ph.D. His advisor took him aside afterwards and told him, "Well done, but about your paper.. if you think God helped you write it, that's good but leave it out and thank him in private."
"this “article” is insight and opinion from a professional."
And plenty of psychiatric professionals disagree with him.
Plus, he's basing his knowledge of homosexuality on his own anecdotal evidence as a psychiatrist. "You really should research before you make such asinine statements, it makes you look foolish."
I based my statement on his article. How much homework do you think I should do on this one guy?
"Aside from the fact that ALL homosexuals NEED THERAPY, I believe his clients came to him wanting to change, I fail to see any point here."
Prove that all homosexuals need therapy. If HIS clients wish to change, that's up to them. I wish them the best. That doesn't mean that most of us wish to change, or see any need to, or even have the ability.
"I deserve an honorary Ph.D from whatever school gave him one, because this article is sad. "ad hominem noted."
Oh, so you DO recognize ad hominems. I was wondering, because you tend to slip them into conversation effortlessly and as though you think they're germane to conversation.
"Nope, just helping those who want help. You on the other hand could stand some “preaching” yourself."
Ad hominem noted.
Not true, the reason homosexuality was removed from the DSM was politics. It’s even evident in your link…”APA, since 1973, has formally opposed all public and private discrimination against homosexuals.” Look how much is devoted to civil rights in your link? Politics is NOT science.
Additional proof of the politicization of American psychiatry …the APA did not officially investigate or study the issue thoroughly before it gave formal approval to the deletion of homosexuality from the DSM II.
So we now know there was no official investigation, only a hand picked committee by a psychiatrist that had no experience in homosexual disorder who was lobbied by homosexual activists and then his committee VOTED without a quorum. That’s not science that’s politics. All of the studies and research over the last 70 years was ignored because one politically active psychiatrist and committee railroaded the decision to a VOTE for the APA at large. Over 10,000 psychiatrists said NO!
So I ask again, what SCIENCE refutes the DSMII?
I don't know how to post links
In the end, you can not show that all homosexuals are regularly distressed by their homosexuality, or that it causes impairment of social functioning.
In the end, you can not show that all homosexuals bestials are regularly distressed by their bestiality, or that it causes impairment of social functioning.
In the end, you can not show that all homosexuals incestuals are regularly distressed by their incest, or that it causes impairment of social functioning.
In the end, you can not show that all homosexuals pedophiles are regularly distressed by their pedophilia, or that it causes impairment of social functioning.
What’s your point?
Behavior is chosen. Predisposition is not.
Prediposition? So criminals were predisposed to practice perversion in prison? Or Karla Mantilla was predisposed to make her CHOICE to practice perversion? Or so called bisexuals are a fine blend of predisposition? Or ex-gays were predisposed ro want to change and are successful in doing so?
The only predisposition human beings have is for survival of the species, we do this through 1. Procreation 2. Fight or flight 3. Shelter, sustenance and preservation. You miss the boat from the very beginning. But should you want to cite any studies that proves any predisposition to pretending and anus is a vagina or phallus a penis I’m all ears.
I'm not ignoring you or your links. I'm unimpressed and unconvinced by them.
Being unimpressed and unconvinced by the truth is monumental ignorance, you’re only kidding yourself.
The definition of sex has nothing to do with whether procreation occurs, and I never pretended that homosexual sex results in children. What an odd thought to attribute to me.
The definition is things that are involved in reproduction by two interacting parents. Sex is coitus or acts that lead to that possibility; same-sex sodomy can never be considered sex. Your acts of sodomy attempt to mimic the act of sex, that’s why it’s called pretending and that’s “odd” to most people or at least those without homosexual pathology.
"More anecdotal evidence hmm???" Yes. This is a conversation, and I'm telling you what my experience is.
I thought we were talking about a valid argument. Your opinion and experience may be important to you but it’s entirely irrelevant not to mention worthless to this discussion.
There hasn't been anything definite for human sexuality…
We have survival of the species, that’s pretty definite.
This study isn't claiming that it's proof that homosexuality is genetic for humans.. Just that there are genetic factors for fruit flies' sexual behavior, which indicates a possibility that the same may be true for humans.
Hehehe…Invertebrates are comparable to human beings???…that’s ridiculous! Do you compare hermaphroditic earthworms and male child bearing seahorses to human beings too? Grasping at straws to justify your perversion is not the answer.
Oh, those crazy "wackos" at the APA…
You mean the ones who used politics instead of science to remove your pathology from the DSM?
always trying to define and clarify what makes a behavioral disorder a behavioral disorder.
When applied to other sexual orientations it just doesn’t hold any water. Just as long as you don’t have any anxiety, good psychosocial functioning and self esteem you’re OK so says the APA.
I'm not sure of the APA's position on these, but there is quite a bit of separation from these and homosexuality.
Let’s just admit that the APA is politically correct here.
We've been over this before. There really isn't a comparison, any more than there is a comparison to heterosexuality. Incest and pedophilia (most incest actually falls into pedophilia) have consent issues, and pedophilia is extremely harmful to the children.
First of all, I never said there wasn’t consent. Are you saying there can’t be consent between relatives and some children? Consent is clinically measured by mental capacity and arbitrarily by age legally. If you think SOME children don’t have that capacity you are wrong by the standard of using a simple IQ test, if you think “the law” determines capacity then the legislature that votes for age 12 as the legal age of consent they MUST be right…right?
As far as incest goes, by your own admission, if there’s no pedophilia involved it must OK by you huh? As long as there’s no anxiety, poor psychosocial functioning or low self-esteem we’re good to go; it’s just another sexual “orientation”. And don’t bother playing the genetic defect card, it holds no water. So what was that about consent again?
Bestiality also has consent issues (can animals truly consent?) but more than that, I consider it abuse of an animal.
Bestiality has NO consent issues, animals are property but if you think invertebrates are comparable to human beings I can understand your reasoning. So it’s OK to cut them up and eat them or make shoes out of them but it’s wrong to make them happy (as some surmise)? I know you must be a vegan and wear pleather shoes to hold that position lest you be a hypocrite, are you a hypocrite? Animals ARE property and bestiality is just another sexual orientation, who are you to condemn it just because you find it wrong?
You said that "science" agrees with you, and posted a link to that article. There was little in the way of science there, it was quite informal and included several "spiritual" references.
”Science” meant a published psychiatrist in the APA; just because he made ANY “spiritual” references in a position paper doesn’t make his work wrong does it? Does the surgeon who removes a cancerous tumor and reasons his cause spiritual makes his work any less valid or legitimate; I’m afraid you’re looking for the tempest in a teapot where there is none.
Just suggesting that his faith may be part of why he feels so strongly that homosexuality is a disorder, since he brings it up so often in this article.
See above for that irrelevant conspiracy theory but should you look for his peer reviewed reseach you’ll find he’s published, cited and a real live scientist in good standing with the APA…Go figure.
You sent me to an article, I'm telling you why I don't think it's "science". You linked to it as SCIENCE AGREEING WITH YOU. It is just the professional opinion of a psychiatrist... and many more disagree with him.
I sent you a cited and peer reviewed account of how your pathology was erroneously removed from the DSM and you don’t think a cited, peer reviewed, “professional opinion” is science??? You will need to prove him wrong or use another cited, peer reviewed, “professional opinion” to prove him wrong. Here, I’ll help you. Now show me where the APA proves Dr. Socarides accounting of “science” and his research is wrong.
So that's what this is about? Not whether homosexuality is always detrimental and can therefore be classified as a disorder, but a cultural war? He's griping about society sure, but that has nothing to do with whether or not gay people can lead non-disordered lives. Stick to the topic.
He and many others have already proven it a pathology, and for the record, again, many people live just fine with their disorders. What you call griping about a realistic view many hold as the consequences for “normalizing” your pathology, remember the APA VOTE, or non-science, was 42% (10,000) NOT in favor of normalizing your disorder. That’s pretty heady [scary] stuff if you think about replication and normal scientific absolutes.
Tolerance is not the same as creating homosexuals.
That’s not what he was referring to.
I think you and he both are confusing "relaxed attitudes creating homosexuals." with what it really is.."relaxed societal attitudes about homosexuality being conducive to more homosexuals coming out of the closet."
You are mistaking “coming out of the closet” for lowered standards of the choices one makes about practicing perversion. Invoke the bestial, incest and pedophilic orientations HERE.
Sure, BUT THIS IS YOUR "SCIENCE AGREES WITH ME" ARTICLE. A friend of mine invited me to sit in during his defense for his Ph.D. His advisor took him aside afterwards and told him, "Well done, but about your paper.. if you think God helped you write it, that's good but leave it out and thank him in private."
Who cares Ms. Anecdotal, but the good liberal professor obviously failed to see the disconnect if his/her work was “WELL DONE.”
And plenty of psychiatric professionals disagree with him.
Again, from the VOTE, 42% (10,000) of “professionals” did!
I based my statement on his article. How much homework do you think I should do on this one guy?
Well if you’re going to call his “evidence” anecdotal, you should know whether it is or is not, right? If Einstein wrote an opinion paper based on his OWN research it’s not anecdotal is it? Poor form Qwerty; you get an F here.
Prove that all homosexuals need therapy.
Do I need to prove all incestuals need therapy too?
If HIS clients wish to change, that's up to them. I wish them the best. That doesn't mean that most of us wish to change, or see any need to, or even have the ability.
So said the bestial…many people with disorders feel the same way. I completely understand.
Oh, so you DO recognize ad hominems. I was wondering, because you tend to slip them into conversation effortlessly and as though you think they're germane to conversation.
The truth is not ad hominem, sorry if you think so. Reality is very hard to take sometimes; calling a spade a spade is never fun for anyone. I’ll pray (sorry if that’s unscientific) you find help or at the least investigate with an open mind what you are throwing away for your own selfishness. Someday you’ll want a family, I know you will; I hope that innate instinct doesn’t deform into what is objectively best for a child…a mother and a father. Good Luck.