Gay marriage... how we ended up where we are

[edwest2]

EXACTLY!
I get a kick out of posters that contend that they have known and worked with gay individuals for many years and everything was just perfect until those gays decided that they could actually be truthful about their sexual identity. So, evidently, it’s just fine to be LGBTQ, unless, you talk about it or have a life partner. One comment that I read stated that all was just fine until the gays started coming out of their closets and"forcing their gayness" on good upstanding straight people, who shouldn’t have to put up with someone else’s “choice”.

I saw it on CNN in my doctor’s office. An out athlete told everyone to “stop being homophobic” and he said it more than once. The whole world is homophobic unless they follow the new orthodoxy.

I could care less if half my neighbors are LGBT. As another poster wrote - they don’t dress different so I couldn’t tell anyway.

The media is 100% responsible for putting gay in everyone’s face.

And yes, I’ve known LGBT people. They didn’t make a big deal about being LGBT before, so what changed? OUT and LOUD 24/7.

Not my fault. And then adding words I never heard before like bigot. I remember that afternoon in the hospital when a lesbian was literally chasing a bisexual woman around. I found it amusing. The bisexual told me she refused her advances. My only thought was - “Oh well.”

Ed

 

[Galnextdoor]

The decision by the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the DSM was not just due to pressure from gay people. As noted by Dr. Gregory Herek, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Davis:

psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html

Your citation above says they used empirical data.

Empirical means depending on individual observation not using a scientific methodology.
In other words, they used unscientific studies and new moral norms in 1973 to withdraw homosexuality as a mental illness.

People with narcissistic personality disorders see absolutely nothing wrong with themselves. They think that they are normal and everyone else needs their head examined. It wouldn’t surprise me if one day they start lobbying to have their mental illness removed from the DMV. Just because people think they are normal doesn’t make it so.

 

[Galnextdoor]

All the same, I am curious as to how else someone would expect a gay person to dress in their everyday. Is typical wearing typical clothing seen as some form of “camouflaging” oneself?

The men who wrote the book were gay. It was their strategy. I think they were trying to discourage gay men from dressing like this:
avaxnews.net/disgusting/men_high_heels_is_new_fashion_trends.html?sa=X&ved=0CDAQ9QEwDThkahUKEwja7_iexf7GAhUEGJIKHbyWB60

and this:

chriskimdotcom.wordpress.com/tag/gay/?sa=X&ved=0CBoQ9QEwAji0AWoVChMI0MDwmcf-xgIVjVCSCh0mNgRt

They seem to think that gay men would be more accepted if they dress like straight men.

This was their agenda. If you have a problem with it, you can try to contact them.

 

[Thorolfr]

Your citation above says they used empirical data.

Empirical means depending on individual observation not using a scientific methodology.
In other words, they used unscientific studies and new moral norms in 1973 to withdraw homosexuality as a mental illness.

There is nothing unscientific about using empirical data. In fact, empirical data is used to test a hypothesis and is how science is advanced. Science is based on empirical evidence as opposed to making claims based on reason or reflection alone. As noted in Wikipedia’s article on “Empirical Evidence”:

Empirical evidence, data, or knowledge, also known as sense experience, is a collective term for the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation.

Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of a claim. In the empiricist view, one can claim to have knowledge only when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions.[2] The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory and the testimony of others, ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered secondary, or indirect.

In science, empirical evidence is required for a hypothesis to gain acceptance in the scientific community. Normally, this validation is achieved by the scientific method of hypothesis commitment, experimental design, peer review, adversarial review, reproduction of results, conference presentation and journal publication. This requires rigorous communication of hypothesis (usually expressed in mathematics), experimental constraints and controls (expressed necessarily in terms of standard experimental apparatus), and a common understanding of measurement.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

 

[Thorolfr]

The men who wrote the book were gay. It was their strategy. I think they were trying to discourage gay men from dressing like this:
avaxnews.net/disgusting/men_high_heels_is_new_fashion_trends.html?sa=X&ved=0CDAQ9QEwDThkahUKEwja7_iexf7GAhUEGJIKHbyWB60

and this:

chriskimdotcom.wordpress.com/tag/gay/?sa=X&ved=0CBoQ9QEwAji0AWoVChMI0MDwmcf-xgIVjVCSCh0mNgRt

They seem to think that gay men would be more accepted if they dress like straight men.

This was their agenda. If you have a problem with it, you can try to contact them.

This might be news to you, but most gay men do not wear high heals or feminine clothing. Most gay men do dress just like straight men (although they might have better fashion sense).

 

[Galnextdoor]

There is nothing unscientific about using empirical data. In fact, empirical data is used to test a hypothesis and is how science is advanced. Science is based on empirical evidence as opposed to making claims based on reason or reflection alone. As noted in Wikipedia’s article on “Empirical Evidence”:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

If you read what you quoted, than you should understand that empirical data or evidence is an individuals observation that has yet to be tested scientifically.

So when they used empirical data, according to your citations mentioned above, it was observations that had not yet been tested scientifically.

They removed it because of some people’s observations and pressure from gay lobbyists.
Your ucdavis citation also mentions Sigmund Frued and the zoologists.

Maybe we should get zoologists together to do study on psychopathy to determine whether it should be included in the DSM.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

…]If you have a problem with it…]

Having curiosity isn’t problematic from my perspective. I’m sure it’s not a problem from yours either.

 

[Thorolfr]

If you read what you quoted, than you should understand that empirical data or evidence is an individuals observation that has yet to be tested scientifically.

So when they used empirical data, according to your citations mentioned above, it was observations that had not yet been tested scientifically.

They removed it because of some people’s observations and pressure from gay lobbyists.
Your ucdavis citation also mentions Sigmund Frued and the zoologists.

Maybe we should get zoologists together to do study on psychopathy to determine whether it should be included in the DSM.

But scientists like Hooker did test their theories by administering the same tests to both homosexuals and heterosexuals and, according to what Herek wrote, "Unaware of each subject’s sexual orientation, two independent Rorschach experts evaluated the men’s overall adjustment using a 5-point scale. They classified two-thirds of the heterosexuals and two-thirds of the homosexuals in the three highest categories of adjustment. When asked to identify which Rorschach protocols were obtained from homosexuals,** the experts could not distinguish respondents’ sexual orientation at a level better than chance**.

Also, according to Herek, “Hooker’s findings have since been replicated by many other investigators using a variety of research methods.”

It is the scientific method to make a hypothesis and then confirm it by testing it. Good scientific conclusions will be replicated and confirmed by other studies.

 

[Bradski]

Everybody doing it is not a justification.

Every expert organisation relevant to the matter in every civilised country on the planet has made a considered decision and has come to a conclusion that is universally accepted by all other relevant organisations in all other countries.

And sorry, what is your position? Oh yeah. You’re just going to ignore that. Just post a single line non sequitur in response and we can all move on. Best brush that under the table. Anyway…where were we…?

Ah yes, we were discussing a single organisation that decided waaay back in the last century that homosexuality wasn’t an illness. Now if the jury was still out on this, then your rather flaccid argument that the organisation may have been taken over by the gay agenda might have been worth a cursory investigation. But it isn’t. The jury is in. All the juries are in. Every single one of them. Unless, of course, you’d like to list the countries that still consider it a problem. Are you game? I doubt it.

And saying ‘Everybody doing it is not a justification’ is not an answer to my post. In fact, I’m not sure what it is an answer to. Everybody doing what? Deciding that it isn’t a problem? Well, OK. At least you agree that everyone HAS decided. But ‘not a justification’ for what? Homosexuality? Well, unstoppable, that’s a different question. Now that we have an absolute, undeniable, universal expert opinion on whether it is a problem, you are free to discuss whether it is justified in itself.

Off you go…

 

[Rau]

I volunteer in a Catholic food pantry. Everyone who volunteers there is Catholic. I am the only person who says that gay marriage is wrong. The other volunteers feel sorry for gays and feel that gay marriage is harmless.

I was shocked.

How has it come about that misguided Catholics can see nothing wrong with gay marriage?

Is it your assessment that those favouring it also view sexual acts between two persons of the same sex as perfectly fine?

 

[Rau]

Just for reference:…

…“In removing homosexuality per se from the nomenclature we are only recognizing that by itself homosexuality does not meet the criteria for being considered a psychiatric disorder. We will in no way be aligning ourselves with any particular viewpoint regarding the etiology or desirability of homosexual behaviour”

What’s interesting about this is the matter of “criteria”, and the fact that what underpins the removal of homosexuality from the DSM does not rest on scientific conclusions, but a rather more nuanced assessment about whether we (the medical community) can or should do anything about the condition.

A comparison with pedophilia is interesting. The medical condition of Pedophilia has much in common with homosexuality:

• It is discovered, not chosen;
• The cause is not known;
• There is no evidence that it is curable;

The medical profession consider this a psychiatric condition, not because there is clearly something “amiss” in this person’s makeup, but because such a person might be drawn to engage with (abuse) a child which would be unacceptable to everyone.

The following also illuminates why a condition might be included or not in the DSM:

*"…pedophilia has been described as a disorder of sexual preference, phenomenologically similar to a heterosexual or homosexual sexual orientation. These observations, however, do not exclude pedophilia from the group of mental disorders because pedophilic acts cause harm, and pedophiles can sometimes be helped by mental health professionals to refrain from acting on their impulses which cause harm to children.

In response to misinterpretations that the American Psychiatric Association considers pedophilia a sexual orientation because it renamed the disorder pedophilic disorder in its DSM-5 manual, the association stated: “’exual orientation’ is not a term used in the diagnostic criteria for pedophilic disorder and its use in the DSM-5 text discussion is an error and should read ‘sexual interest.’”*

The last paragraph suggests a delicate dance around issues of “political correctness”.

[en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia])

The fundamental takeaway is that the exclusion of homosexuality from the DSM is not a scientific statement that it is “normal” to experience SSA. It is justified (rightly or wrongly) on the basis that nothing is going to be served by classifying a condition as a medical condition when:

• most individuals experiencing it do not believe they are in need of a “cure”;
• there is a widespread view that the condition does not itself place anyone at risk;
• there is limited, if any at all, viable treatment available.

 

[SavannahGal]

What’s interesting about this is the matter of “criteria”, and the fact that what underpins the removal of homosexuality from the DSM does not rest on scientific conclusions, but a rather more nuanced assessment about whether we (the medical community) can or should do anything about the condition.

A comparison with pedophilia is interesting. The medical condition of Pedophilia has much in common with homosexuality:

• It is discovered, not chosen;
• The cause is not known;
• There is no evidence that it is curable;

The medical profession consider this a psychiatric condition, not because there is clearly something “amiss” in this person’s makeup, but because such a person might be drawn to engage with (abuse) a child which would be unacceptable to everyone.

The following also illuminates why a condition might be included or not in the DSM:

*"…pedophilia has been described as a disorder of sexual preference, phenomenologically similar to a heterosexual or homosexual sexual orientation. These observations, however, do not exclude pedophilia from the group of mental disorders because pedophilic acts cause harm, and pedophiles can sometimes be helped by mental health professionals to refrain from acting on their impulses which cause harm to children.

In response to misinterpretations that the American Psychiatric Association considers pedophilia a sexual orientation because it renamed the disorder pedophilic disorder in its DSM-5 manual, the association stated: “’exual orientation’ is not a term used in the diagnostic criteria for pedophilic disorder and its use in the DSM-5 text discussion is an error and should read ‘sexual interest.’”*

The last paragraph suggests a delicate dance around issues of “political correctness”.

[en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia])

The fundamental takeaway is that the exclusion of homosexuality from the DSM is not a scientific statement that it is “normal” to experience SSA. It is justified (rightly or wrongly) on the basis that nothing is going to be served by classifying a condition as a medical condition when:

• most individuals experiencing it do not believe they are in need of a “cure”;
• there is a widespread view that the condition does not itself place anyone at risk;
• there is limited, if any at all, viable treatment available.

Your assessment begs the question: Are you advocating the re-criminalization of homosexual sex on par with child sexual abuse?

I will give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you do recognize a legal distinction here. However, if that is true, I would ask you how it is that you allow yourself permission to make such distinctions when it comes to legal consideration, but attempt to discredit such distinctions in the assessment of diagnostic criterion?

 

[Rau]

Your assessment begs the question: Are you advocating the re-criminalization of homosexual sex on par with child sexual abuse?

I will give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you do recognize a legal distinction here. However, if that is true, I would ask you how it is that you allow yourself permission to make such distinctions when it comes to legal consideration, but attempt to discredit such distinctions in the assessment of diagnostic criterion?

My assessment begs no such thing. Discussing SSA and Pedophilia together ought not encourage a legal comparison to be drawn, when the context is medical disorders. I clearly addressed both as medical conditions.

My point is that the removal of the SSA condition from the DSM is often quoted as “proof” that medical science sees no “abnormality” in SSA. That is a flawed conclusion as I explained in my post.

 

[frobert]

Former president of APA says organization controlled by ‘gay rights’ movement.

Commings did say that but he also was the author of the motion.

The Truth About Reparative Therapy From A Former APA President

Cummings says that he personally is not in opposition to the homosexual movement, including gay “marriage,” pointing out that he was the author of the motion to strike homosexuality from the APA’s list of mental illnesses.

From personal experience:

One of my mentors and personal friend was a young psychoanalyst and APA member who voted in for the resolution told me that leading up to the vote both sides of were totally out of control.

 

[frobert]

A comparison with pedophilia is interesting. The medical condition of Pedophilia has much in common with homosexuality:

• It is discovered, not chosen;
• The cause is not known;
• There is no evidence that it is curable;

By being both weak and false, your analogy falls in the category of logical fallacy .

Pedophilia is ALWAYS ABUSIVE and DAMAGING to the victim as well as to the perpetrator.

 

[frobert]

I saw it on CNN in my doctor’s office. An out athlete told everyone to “stop being homophobic” and he said it more than once. The whole world is homophobic unless they follow the new orthodoxy.

The media is 100% responsible for putting gay in everyone’s face.

And yes, I’ve known LGBT people. They didn’t make a big deal about being LGBT before, so what changed? OUT and LOUD 24/7.
Ed

You must not be aware that the media thrives on controversy. As long as there are people on both sides who go to extremes there will be controversy feeding the media.

 

[Rau]

By being both weak and false, your analogy falls in the category of logical fallacy .

Pedophilia is ALWAYS ABUSIVE and DAMAGING to the victim as well as to the perpetrator.

In so far as scientific enquiry into etiology is concerned, Pedophilia and SSA have long been viewed as similar. Both were long viewed as disorders. Pedophilia is a medical disorder which presents a universally accepted clear and present danger, and it is that fact that sees it remain on the books and SSA not. I agree with your last para.

 

[Galnextdoor]

This might be news to you, but most gay men do not wear high heals or feminine clothing. Most gay men do dress just like straight men (although they might have better fashion sense).

No they don’t. The gay agenda has discouraged it. It is a way of attracting others to their side of the issue. Also, it would be difficult to find employment if they dressed like that on the job.

 

[Galnextdoor]

But scientists like Hooker did test their theories by administering the same tests to both homosexuals and heterosexuals and, according to what Herek wrote, "Unaware of each subject’s sexual orientation, two independent Rorschach experts evaluated the men’s overall adjustment using a 5-point scale. They classified two-thirds of the heterosexuals and two-thirds of the homosexuals in the three highest categories of adjustment. When asked to identify which Rorschach protocols were obtained from homosexuals,** the experts could not distinguish respondents’ sexual orientation at a level better than chance**.

Also, according to Herek, “Hooker’s findings have since been replicated by many other investigators using a variety of research methods.”

It is the scientific method to make a hypothesis and then confirm it by testing it. Good scientific conclusions will be replicated and confirmed by other studies.

Hookers study simply said that other than homosexuality, homosexuals didn’t have any other mental issues. That’s like saying other than being bipolar, people who are bipolar don’t have any other mental issues so lets not call it a mental illness. I know lots of bipolar people who are beautiful, loving, popular people who appear well adjusted as long as they are on their medication. You would never know they were bipolar unless they told you. That doesn’t mean they don’t have a mental illness.

 

[Galnextdoor]

Is it your assessment that those favouring it also view sexual acts between two persons of the same sex as perfectly fine?

They say that the church is only against sex outside of marriage. If the church would allow them to marry, than there would be no problem.

The thing that they don’t think about is how sodomization over a number of years can be harmful to the body. Even if you forget about Sodom and Gomorrah, the Church can not condone something that is harmful to the body that God created.