Rubio: sodomites are born that way
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
Lon
Well-known member
Then NO sexuality expression would be
lain: :yawn:You continue to employ fallacy. Perhaps we can try to entertain your 'love for all men' as a blatant lack of discernment. I know I see you exactly that way. Get back to me when you think you understand that first sentence I wrote. Thanks.
Lon
Well-known member
kiwimacahau
Well-known member
Lon, your problem us that you appear to consider homosexuality inherently disordered in a way that heterosexuality is not. My argument is simply that it is not inherently disordered. What is / can be disordered is the expression of sexuality.
kiwimacahau
Well-known member
By which I mean how the person expresses their sexuality in real life.
Lon
Well-known member
I don't believe so. Until almost literally last year (it was a bit longer) it was on every psych list as problematic for very good research, reasons. You don't just 'wipe' those away from memory of those of us who used to read the journals. The majority of homosexuals have been reported as abused in childhood. They often do have a disconnect, but the psychs who were keeping tabs didn't. They knew and reported the problems.
To fail to see the HUGE push the other way that tries to 'undo' decades of research, is political. It isn't a concern over truth at that point. You bought this whole thing without intellect. No intellect can buy an over-night change from being a psychological malady, to "no problem." That isn't 'reasonable.' That you are a pseudo-minister is beside that point. You have no authority here and we wonder if you got that position from an internet application.
kiwimacahau
Well-known member
It was removed from the Psych lists for a good reason.
Lon
Well-known member
Yep, $$$ and lots of it, and political pressure.
You can't undo decades of studies with 2 years of counter points. Psychology isn't supposed to be political, but everything is now. Psychology changes is supposed to take decades of research, in fact, it HAS to do so! A huge chunk of this political pressure and relative truth comes from the government. They gave the public a LOT of reasons to question their reliability and trustworthiness. Once that happens, truth becomes 'relative' because "We now question everything." It doesn't produce answers or intelligence, and worse, is indiscreet. When "NO" truth is any longer trustworthy, you can rewrite psychiatry books that took a century of data and research to build, and make those books say the exact opposite in only two years. This is what happened and even some undiscerning psychologists I've met have been suckered in. It is REALLY odd that THAT should happen. They psychology field, for instance, still has Sigmund Freud's presentations and thoughts and even rely on a few of his psychoanalytical steps and methods.
Guess how much the Psychiatric community had to throw out and disregard over this past decade to favor gays? It is unbelievable the amount of material they tossed and it is ONLY this one particular that they ever did so with. Guess why? We really should be asking these questions, we really should. The REASON this all turned on it's head isn't Psychology science. No, they will be playing catch-up on this for the next 50 years now. When that happens, you KNOW it wasn't psychology that erased the books. It literally takes decades of research, and we still have none for the kids involved in these situation.
What/who/how, can anything but psychology papers, change the face of psychiatry/psychology? I just told you it takes decades AND that we don't have these papers!
It HAD to be something else (and it was). It wasn't psychological studies. They will be playing catch up for decades if not a century trying to understand the ramifications of this change, without any real psychological support or research. They are just NOW doing some of it on the scale needed to have even tried making these decisions. It is actually affirmative action (political) that has forced this, circumnavigating psychology.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
There's plenty of empirical data to support the removal of homosexuality from the DSM. A good place to start is with the study conducted by Evelyn Hooker.
The turning point was the realization that homosexuals, as a group, come out normal by every inventory that doesn't include homosexuality.
In other words, the only thing that makes them different from the rest of us, is sexual orientation.
The are as sane or as crazy as everyone else.
In other words, the only thing that makes them different from the rest of us, is sexual orientation.
The are as sane or as crazy as everyone else.
Lon
Well-known member
Again,you don't turn 50 year of research on a dime. Go ahead and be duped. It was politics and media that made this. Nothing else mattered and it was all slammed through as if it were gospel with little data. Be duped if you want to. The psychology community never worked this way before, and then all of the sudden....
shagster01
New member
It's usually people who talk to an invisible guy that died 2000 years ago that think homosexuality is a pysch problem. Irony?
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
"Little data?" "On a dime?" You have no idea what you're talking about. Dr. Hooker's study was conducted in 1957. She was the first to do a double blind study, and to conduct the study with non-psychiatric patients. What a concept.
lain: Her study demonstrated "that expert clinical judges could not distinguish the projective test protocols of nonclinical homosexual men from a comparable group of heterosexual men, nor were there differences in adjustment ratings, was validated soon thereafter by other investigators. Not until 1973, however, did the American Psychiatric Association delete homosexuality from its diagnostic handbook."
It took almost a generation after her landmark study for homosexuality to be removed from the DSM, and Dr. Hooker's study has been replicated numerous times.
Decades of empirical research, Lon. Not "2 years of counter points."
You have taken a great leap into the sludge of dishonest speculation and conclusion.
Science teaches us that from 9% to about 15% of the earth's population is born with an attraction for the same sex. Studies have been conducted and reproduced with the exact same conclusions.
It is an utterly foreign thought to me but I don't dwell on sexuality or sexual practice. I do defend the freedom to choose one's way in the world.
Lon
Well-known member
Only if that Person isn't answering your prayers in specific and incredibly ways
lain:On top of that, most people aren't, in fact, psychologists or psychiatrists so don't read those journals, studies, and papers. Who are YOU tryng to kid??? Go ahead and try.
Lon
Well-known member
She studied 'normal' homosexuals, not 'all' homosexuals. That is, she chose homosexuals that led quiet lives and didn't show signs of trouble because they were her friends and students and asked her to do so and so it was a secluded study all 30 years. Because it was an interest group she worked with and was interested in, it was not indicative of all. It was 'against' the tide of information. There is little of it because most other data pointed to those abusive childhoods and other factors. One study against hundreds is 'one' study. It is exactly the same today, btw, there are many more studies that rightly and carefully reveal troubling data. There is a push to find more 'positive' supporting data, but as I said it is political and virtually unheard of."Little data?" "On a dime?" You have no idea what you're talking about. Dr. Hooker's study was conducted in 1957. She was the first to do a double blind study, and to conduct the study with non-psychiatric patients. What a concept.
Her study demonstrated "that expert clinical judges could not distinguish the projective test protocols of nonclinical homosexual men from a comparable group of heterosexual men, nor were there differences in adjustment ratings, was validated soon thereafter by other investigators. Not until 1973, however, did the American Psychiatric Association delete homosexuality from its diagnostic handbook."
It took almost a generation after her landmark study for homosexuality to be removed from the DSM, and Dr. Hooker's study has been replicated numerous times.
Decades of empirical research, Lon. Not "2 years of counter points."
Another instance: We have NO idea what living in homosexual homes does to children. How then do we know this is political? Because we opened the gates first, are doing the 'research' behind the 8 ball. Nobody will convince me that this is solid psychology, because it isn't. You don't turn psychology on a dime. Psychology doesn't work that way. It simply shows that psychology is a bought and political science at the moment, and not really concerned about the people it serves. It HAS to be about politics and $$$. You don't "just do it" without the research to back it up in this field.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Good post and it's also foreign to me as well. I'm sorry Lon but your unsubstantiated claim that "most homosexuals" came to be that way through abuse etc simply doesn't hold water. Anna's post was bang on on that score as well.
Lon
Well-known member
I read it and more. Did you? You can be as bias as you like. You cannot make up data however. I am actually 'bang on' despite protest, whether you agree or not is beside the point. People following the tide rarely go against it, so I expect this kind of political cultural duping.
The ONLY thing I've said is that it is, in fact, political because studies don't back it up. That isn't why psychology removed it. They did so because of political pressure. At the time it was even taken off the psychological books, more psychologists opposed that move than were for it. Did you know that? Guess what? --> Politics. It doesn't matter, as I said what you believe. I know what the statics actually are.
Society and gays are trying to run ramrod/roughshod all over us and squash opposition, so this isn't unexpected by me at all. I didn't think those so adamant about this on TOL would actually listen, whether they should or not. Even all of this naysaying is proof in the pudding.
Nuh Uh! Is your first reaction. Political.