Originally Posted by tetsujin
NO worries, I forgot about this thread... I don't fancy beating a dead horse!
Okay, I'll drop the matter.
Anecdotal evidence is hardly sufficient.
What are you talking about?
I don't know where you've gotten that idea. Straight from the APA:
"APA affirms its 1973 position that homosexuality per se is not a diagnosable mental disorder
. Recent publicized efforts to repathologize homosexuality by claiming that it can be cured are often guided not by rigorous scientific or psychiatric research, but sometimes by religious and political forces opposed to full civil rights for gay men and lesbians. APA recommends that the APA respond quickly and appropriately as a scientific organization when claims that homosexuality is a curable illness are made by political or religious groups."
If the key word for your argument is "deviance", from the normal, then that is no argument at all.
I am pressed for time today, I can't whittle myself on every project.. I suspect a simple google search in on direction or another will yield tons of books on the matter.. You are just doing selective reading to foster what you are looking for?.. that is fine.. each person wants to reaffirm their view by whatever means possible.. though I don't put much stock on psychiatry as a solid medical field, that is to say, you can't submit mental disorders to the same type of experimentation that you'd do for the heart or lungs etc, rather forgo that for a ten or 12 step criteria by which if met, voila you are suffering such and such mental disorder.. You are schizoid, he is schizotypal, that lady is suffering from schizophreniform disorder, while the third guy is suffering from schizophrenia in all its subtypes ( paranoid, simple, hebephrenic and catatonic) .. can you tell the difference? be honest here?
Can you give a simple blood test or subject them to an MRI or SPECT studies measure their urine VMA or chemicals like epinephrine and norepinephrine that are produced in the medulla of the adrenal glandand come up with any of the above diagnosis? Do you think you can do a quickie wiki or google search and feel on top of it? if it were the case everyone would be a scholar in every field, no need for proper schooling or incisive thoughts!
Yes to deviance, yes to Sexual Orientation Disturbance, and yes to it as a mental illness indistinct from the others. The judgement factor doesn't play part in science...science isn't concerned with judgement and morality and that is beyond the purposes of this topic..
You simply classfying them as a discrimnated against minority however IS.
Many people really can't help their desires.. it doesn't exclude them however from being liable beyond the science factor!
here is a little excerpt from the. Am J Psychiatry 1981; 138:210-215
Copyright © 1981 by American Psychiatric Association
Am J Psychiatry 1981; 138:210-215
Copyright © 1981 by American Psychiatric Association
- REGULAR ARTICLES
- The diagnostic status of homosexuality in DSM-III: a reformulation of the issues
- RL Spitzer
- In 1973 homosexuality per se was removed from the DSM-II classification of mental disorders and replaced by the category Sexual Orientation Disturbance. This represented a compromise between the view that preferential homosexuality is invariably a mental disorder and the view that it is merely a normal sexual variant. While the 1973 DSM-II controversy was highly public, more recently a related but less public controversy involved what became the DSM-III category of Ego-dystonic Homosexuality. The author presents the DSM-III controversy and a reformulation of the issues involved in the diagnostic status of homosexuality.
that is if we are going to speak of the matter from a purely 'scientific' as far as psychopathology is concerned--- it is a mental disorder no different than other afore mentioned disorders save for the en vogue definitions of a want to be politically correct society--deeming at whim what is and what isn't proper!
Homosexuality at some point was treated with aversion and shock therapy along with other disorders but it didn't yield a positive effect in any of them
. being a pederast or a necrophiliac is still not ok however
while now being a homosexual is?! To me, that is naked hypocrisy!
Though, will attest, matters of morality and ethics from a theological point of view, I gather don't and really shouldn't matter to an atheist!
Gone are the days when psychiatry was necessarily subjective. The new breed of psychoanalysts are also neuroanatomists, neurobiologists, endocrinologists, or of an associated field, and have the scientific tools to diagnose patients. Psychology today is a farcry from the pseudoscience it once was, and while it's still not perfect, at least opinions are not the singular basis for treatment of "diagnosed" mental disorders.
I disagree with what you have written, see my above paragraph!.. aside from that, I haven't seen a single medical research using modern Genetics
as a determining factor to deem homosexuality a 'normal minority', one that in the least was peer reviewed and acknowledged by the medical community as to the 'normalcy' of homoeroticism. Thus it will remain what it is an act of sexual deviance! a disturbance like that found in pederasts --which we apologize if we assumed earlier as an act that makes you cringe when in fact it doesn't!
Fortunately, I do not cringe, as there are natural explanation for these acts. The fact that such acts are illegal or immoral as defined by you, me, or anyone else is an entirely separate issue. I will kindly ask you, once again, to avoid informal fallacies and stop presupposing my position on the subject.
You stick with your 'natural explanations' then-- but, You are bound to read something you are not going to like when engaging in a topic such as this. I am not going to accede to your desires when writing!
If you could find a definition of disease to your liking, I assure you I could find an exception which would fit that definition and not be classified as as a disease.
What you get from your third party sources on google, can hardly be classified as an 'exception'. Opinions and personal beliefs along with heavy lobbying by homosexuals doesn't count!
I am not the type that is swayed by name or article dropping. I have a head on my shoulder and I can reason through BS.
Okay, perhaps you wouldn't mind a bit of reading about the following research
1) Cognitive traits of homosexual and heterosexual people, 1993, Jeff Hall
2) Sexual orientation among monozygote and dizygote co-twins of gay and bisexual men, 1952, Franz Kallman
3) Maternal inheritance of male sexuality, "The Science of Desire", 1992, Dean Hamer
I have read the sexual orientation of monozygotic twins, unfortunately the author failed to find the so-called 'Gay gene', his is a mere unproven and unsubstantiated explanations of some aspect of the natural world. I am not convinced!
I have a book here written by a highly respected psychiatrist from Johns Hopkins where homoeroticism described just like other said 'philias' and his is actually very objective read written from a medical stand point.. he wasn't trying to make sale at amazon
I'll include a couple of books on the bottom for those interested!
Perhaps you'd also be interested in the findings that homosexual relationships also occurs in other animals; for example, rats, sheep, ram, seagulls, hanuman langurs, bonobos, etc...
If you'd just like one book I could suggest starting off with "Queer Science: The use and abuse of research into homosexuality" by Simon LeVay, a neuroanatomist.
Funny how you suppose for other people, all the while wishing to exclude yourself from certain stereotypes that can easily be attributed to you simply by virtue of what you write, which is so visible to the naked eye.. in fact when you try to take us on a detour, you end up digging a deeper hole for yourself---Indeed in 'animals' homosexuality is found.. as well as in humans with such maladies as Klüver-Bucy syndrome, as in those suffering from brain damage, those who can't make executive decisions yield in to their 'animal' instincts!
Neither of us I can tell is interested in the other person's book collection.. But if it comes down to 'my books can beat your books A$$' then, there is plenty out there that will support the original designation Sexual deviance
by Dr. Marmer, a psychiatrist from Johns Hopkins who wrote extensively on the topic..
I can't find his book on google but here is a list of others though not as good as his will suffice
Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis By Ronald Bayer
A personal note:
I have covered all that needs to be on the topic, though I find going into deep details on any forum to be a painful waste of time.
Your take home message from what I wrote is:
Homosexuality is not normal! It is deviance, it is a Sexual Orientation Disturbance, and should be viewed as a mental illness ---It is no different than any of the other deviant 'philias' those that in many other cases, have led others (who couldn't help their attraction) to be incarcerated!
The subject of religion hasn't come up so far on this topic though I'd like to tie it in out of respect for the forum on which we type, I am trying to keep this strictly in the realm of psychopathology, but from a moral stand point ' we are not animals
, you'll forgive me for supposing in advance, that to an atheist being a parasitic protozoa or an un-segmented worm doesn't differ much from being a human being. Thus what you deem 'normal' in animal behavior and rightfully so, and witnessed like wise in diseased states, in brain damage with such conditions as Klüver-Bucy or others that afflict the frontal lobe or amygdala; shouldn't and doesn't apply to healthy conscionable individuals.
On the level of cognition, one can be forgiven as is with Islamic jurisprudence ' layes 3la almareed haraj' i.e. those who are diseased aren't accountable!
However, thinking, reflecting human beings are in fact accountable by the choices they make. A homosexual who acts on his lusting instincts, differs not much from a heterosexual who acts on his in non lawful way!
That is where religious morality comes in, to define for us what is and what isn't appropriate. I'll not make another supposition of your person as with your afore strict warning, but will state this much, a young man such as yourself might lust after an endowed woman walking down the streets, but he if has some morals will not be dragging her to some corner to assuage his painful sexual desires. And it wouldn't matter then what doctor came out with a best seller, to speak of the Norepinephrine, various other catecholamine and let's not forget testosterone and the genetic predisposition found in that extra aberrant and anomalous Y chromosome leading some hyper hormonal young men to relieve themselves in an immoral manner so the rest of us can bow aside accepting of medical jargon
--whatever your level of education, we call that making excuses for unforgivable behavior!...and still will not be acceptable socially or morally! such people are usually imprisoned or in the case of pederast priests, given some reprieve by papal order-- the way things are going-- those too might become 'normal' in the future with enthusiastic young men such as yourself trying to come to teach in that subtle civilized way to leave our antiquated ways behind in favor of glossy new and improved books?
In homosexuality, there are animal urges indeed I can accept that... but there is also the refinement and acculturation that comes with the 'Human condition' and aspiration to not be a carnal skulking animal there for the sole purpose of allaying the desires of the lower self!.. The choice and free will is up to the individual, but please don't impose on me last night's head line news as lobbied for by homos, or because you were particularly touched by someone's convincing writing-- ( I personally know of two psychiatrists) who still don't understand why homosexuality is no longer classified with other forms of sexual deviance as it once was, neither has any religious affiliations.
Don't quote for me your own personal understanding of a particular condition-- that basically wastes both our time and on a level countermines your objectivity.. I might be backwards and archaic as far as you are concerned, but I can still keep on top of modern studies and reason without personal prejudices!
If one has strong faith, one doesn't need to over and over, reconcile his beliefs with what is politically correct.. what is ethical will always be evident from the get go!