Homosexuality and the Axis of Evil....

[DexUK]

Dex,

The ones filing court cases and going to the UN seem not to want to just sit and be left in peace.

Unlike you, I don’t tar an entire group of people with the same brush. I said ‘most’. Not ‘all’.

You make statements ascribing a communal motive to the whole population of LGBT people. An LGBT person who wished to make a similarly incendiary political point could use comments made by people who take your position as being representative of all straight people. That person would be as wrong to do so as you are.

In any case, you know that the majority of the medical world subscribes to the ‘not a choice’ point of view. Granted, not all of them, but “consensus” does not mean “unanimous”. It is a broad term and, to the impartial observer, simply means that the larger proportion of people holding the view do so in favour of the ‘not a choice’ argument.

Since you constantly hark back to the APA’s supposedly flawed acceptance of the proposition, let us look at that for a moment…

You state that the APA simply voted through a biased homosexual-agenda point of view, yes? Without argument, yes?

Why would that happen?

If the APA previously held that homosexuality was an illness or a mental disorder, why would all the members of the APA suddenly decided to vote ‘yes’ on a proposition that it wasn’t, if they weren’t presented any evidence or didn’t hear any argument? These were all intelligent people. They either came to the conclusion that the proposal was so self-evidently obvious that it didn’t need arguing, or, much more likely, the belief in the ‘not a choice’ proposition had built up, individually, amongst the majority of APA practitioners over time such that the vote that you report on was simply a rubber stamping of that which they already knew to be true out of the experience they had gained in clinical practise.

Instead of arguing that there was a vast homosexual conspiracy, which you do every time this topic is raised, instead… just for fun… go find out from some of those who voted for the proposition you reject just why they did so. Dig out some answers on that one and see what you think… it might be illuminating for you.

 

[CopticChristian]

PastorBonus:
Bonus,

It is hard to read when you put everything in quotes. You have no recollection from birth to 5 and you may never know how or where you got any of the meaning you have of the world in your head. No one has perfect recall from birth to now.

 

[edwest2]

Yes, hatred and fear are big motivators. Both are often linked to ignorance and often disguised as having some positive motivation and redeeming moral value.

Do you actually believe that? What is your evidence? The American Psychiatric Association listed homosexuality in their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual as a disorder based on years of research with homosexual persons. Do you believe it was a conspiracy? Do you believe they were ignorant? Do you believe they feared their patients or hated them?

Then, in 1973, gays in the APA and radical gay activists like Frank Kameny, ignored years of research and voted it out of the disorder category. So they could take their ‘victory’ to judges and overturn sodomy laws and push for what they call marriage.

amazon.com/Homosexuality-American-Psychiatry-Politics-Diagnosis/dp/0691028370

And in case you think this is just a Christian thing, I invite everyone to read the following:

jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby_gay_marriage.php3

Peace,
Ed

 

[CopticChristian]

Unlike you, I don’t tar an entire group of people with the same brush. I said ‘most’. Not ‘all’.

You make statements ascribing a communal motive to the whole population of LGBT people. An LGBT person who wished to make a similarly incendiary political point could use comments made by people who take your position as being representative of all straight people. That person would be as wrong to do so as you are.

In any case, you know that the majority of the medical world subscribes to the ‘not a choice’ point of view. Granted, not all of them, but “consensus” does not mean “unanimous”. It is a broad term and, to the impartial observer, simply means that the larger proportion of people holding the view do so in favour of the ‘not a choice’ argument.

Since you constantly hark back to the APA’s supposedly flawed acceptance of the proposition, let us look at that for a moment…

You state that the APA simply voted through a biased homosexual-agenda point of view, yes? Without argument, yes?

Why would that happen?

If the APA previously held that homosexuality was an illness or a mental disorder, why would all the members of the APA suddenly decided to vote ‘yes’ on a proposition that it wasn’t, if they weren’t presented any evidence or didn’t hear any argument? These were all intelligent people. They either came to the conclusion that the proposal was so self-evidently obvious that it didn’t need arguing, or, much more likely, the belief in the ‘not a choice’ proposition had built up, individually, amongst the majority of APA practitioners over time such that the vote that you report on was simply a rubber stamping of that which they already knew to be true out of the experience they had gained in clinical practise.

Instead of arguing that there was a vast homosexual conspiracy, which you do every time this topic is raised, instead… just for fun… go find out from some of those who voted for the proposition you reject just why they did so. Dig out some answers on that one and see what you think… it might be illuminating for you.

Dex,

It may take me some time. I previously posted the voting for this DSM. If you do not know about it I understand. You are wrong when you say majority, consensus, etc. This is what you believe however it is not correct. This is documented on NPR. Alex Spiegel is a reporter and her grandfather was a “gay” psychiatrist…listen. I will find the voting for you.

The story of how the American Psychiatric Association decided in 1973 that homosexuality was no longer a mental illness.

thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/204/81-Words

 

[DexUK]

Bonus,

It is hard to read when you put everything in quotes. You have no recollection from birth to 5 and you may never know how or where you got any of the meaning you have of the world in your head. No one has perfect recall from birth to now.

If you are genuinely proposing that a child of between 0 and 5 can be ‘turned gay’ then you are staining the bounds of credulity.

If you are suggesting that ALL gay people were ‘turned gay’ then there must surely be a highly visible causal factor that is common across all the various types of family environment.

The types of upbringing of children across the globe is so vastly different that there could never be a common thread. The laws of probability alone make it so. And if there was, it would, most certainly, have been found by now.

 

[edwest2]

Unlike you, I don’t tar an entire group of people with the same brush. I said ‘most’. Not ‘all’.

You make statements ascribing a communal motive to the whole population of LGBT people. An LGBT person who wished to make a similarly incendiary political point could use comments made by people who take your position as being representative of all straight people. That person would be as wrong to do so as you are.

In any case, you know that the majority of the medical world subscribes to the ‘not a choice’ point of view. Granted, not all of them, but “consensus” does not mean “unanimous”. It is a broad term and, to the impartial observer, simply means that the larger proportion of people holding the view do so in favour of the ‘not a choice’ argument.

Since you constantly hark back to the APA’s supposedly flawed acceptance of the proposition, let us look at that for a moment…

You state that the APA simply voted through a biased homosexual-agenda point of view, yes? Without argument, yes?

Why would that happen?

If the APA previously held that homosexuality was an illness or a mental disorder, why would all the members of the APA suddenly decided to vote ‘yes’ on a proposition that it wasn’t, if they weren’t presented any evidence or didn’t hear any argument? These were all intelligent people. They either came to the conclusion that the proposal was so self-evidently obvious that it didn’t need arguing, or, much more likely, the belief in the ‘not a choice’ proposition had built up, individually, amongst the majority of APA practitioners over time such that the vote that you report on was simply a rubber stamping of that which they already knew to be true out of the experience they had gained in clinical practise.

Instead of arguing that there was a vast homosexual conspiracy, which you do every time this topic is raised, instead… just for fun… go find out from some of those who voted for the proposition you reject just why they did so. Dig out some answers on that one and see what you think… it might be illuminating for you.

Your statements are not accurate.

amazon.com/Homosexuality-American-Psychiatry-Politics-Diagnosis/dp/0691028370

Peace,
Ed

 

[DexUK]

Your statements are not accurate.

amazon.com/Homosexuality-American-Psychiatry-Politics-Diagnosis/dp/0691028370

Peace,
Ed

I am just repeating back those arguments that have been made to me on this forum. If those arguments have now changed, then how am I to put any store by anything I am told in future by the people making them?

 

[CopticChristian]

If you are genuinely proposing that a child of between 0 and 5 can be ‘turned gay’ then you are staining the bounds of credulity.

If you are suggesting that ALL gay people were ‘turned gay’ then there must surely be a highly visible causal factor that is common across all the various types of family environment.

The types of upbringing of children across the globe is so vastly different that there could never be a common thread. The laws of probability alone make it so. And if there was, it would, most certainly, have been found by now.

Dex,

I never said that. I said that your experience of the world in your head is formed by what meaning you apply to the outside world either by you or someone else. This remains an area of interest and your discounting it means you don’t want to know. You already have a formed opinion based on information from Socieites…

Homosexual is fixed behavior
The only counseling that should be offered is that to accept your plight
Once homosexual always a homosexual

This is the Propaganda of the Psychiatric association, accepted by the British Society that you propagate quite well…there is no science behind it…

 

[CopticChristian]

I am just repeating back those arguments that have been made to me on this forum. If those arguments have now changed, then how am I to put any store by anything I am told in future by the people making them?

Dex,

Let me know when you have listened to This American Life on how the DSM was changed.

It was not based on any science known to man.

 

[meltzerboy]

Do you actually believe that? What is your evidence? The American Psychiatric Association listed homosexuality in their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual as a disorder based on years of research with homosexual persons. Do you believe it was a conspiracy? Do you believe they were ignorant? Do you believe they feared their patients or hated them?

Then, in 1973, gays in the APA and radical gay activists like Frank Kameny, ignored years of research and voted it out of the disorder category. So they could take their ‘victory’ to judges and overturn sodomy laws and push for what they call marriage.

amazon.com/Homosexuality-American-Psychiatry-Politics-Diagnosis/dp/0691028370

And in case you think this is just a Christian thing, I invite everyone to read the following:

jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby_gay_marriage.php3

Peace,
Ed

I always find it fascinating, as I’ve noted on other threads, how science is readily endorsed by some when it happens to support their own views, but labeled hogwash, as in the case of evolution, when it runs contrary to them. The nature of science is change, not constancy. Psychiatrists and clinical psychologists used to treat gay people by means of aversion therapy, which was based on Pavlovian conditioning (associative learning). One particular advocate and practitioner of this form of treatment was Dr. Evelyn Hooker (I know, what a name for a sex therapist!). After many years of use, it was eventually found that aversion therapy did NOT transform gay people to straight but instead made them asexual. Thereafter, the therapy was not used. This is but one example of change due to the observation of the effects of a kind of reparative therapy. My point is it is not that ridiculous to see that psychiatrists follow the scientific approach in making their decisions. Now, there is no doubt also a political component to these changes, as science is never totally “pure” as some might believe, but there is nonetheless a scientific protocol that must be followed in making changes to the classifications in the DSM.

 

[CopticChristian]

I always find it fascinating, as I’ve noted on other threads, how science is readily endorsed by some when it happens to support their own views but labeled hogwash, as in the case of evolution, when it runs contrary to them. The nature of science is change, not constancy. Psychiatrists and clinical psychologists used to treat gay people by means of aversion therapy, which was based on Pavlovian conditioning (associative learning). One particular advocate and practitioner of this form of treatment was Dr. Evelyn Hooker (I know, what a name for a sex therapist!). After many years of use, it was eventually found that aversion therapy did NOT convert gay people to becoming straight but instead made them asexual. Thereafter, the therapy was not used. This is but one example of change due to the observation of the effects of a kind of reparative therapy. My point is it is not that ridiculous to see that psychiatrists follow the scientific approach in making their decisions. Now, there is no doubt also a political component to these changes, as science is never totally “pure” as some might believe, but there is nonetheless a scientific protocol that must be followed in making changes to the classifications in the DSM.

Meltzer,

Aversion therapy is still practiced today at Schick Shadel for addiction.

There was no scientific protocol in removing homosexuality from the DSM.

 

[meltzerboy]

Meltzer,

Aversion therapy is still practiced today at Schick Shadel for addiction.

There was no scientific protocol in removing homosexuality from the DSM.

The aversion therapy that was used to treat gays consisted of injecting them with a nausea-eliciting medication coupled with showing them porno films of gay men having sex, so that they would learn to associate gay sex with feeling ill. It worked, but too well. Instead of becoming straight, these male patients lost all desire for sex. In the case of drug addiction, it MAY be more effective in that losing the desire for drugs would be beneficial.

You are simply wrong about the lack of scientific protocol in removing homosexuality–all but ego-dystonic homosexuality, that is–from the DSM.

 

[CopticChristian]

The aversion therapy that was used to treat gays consisted of injecting them with a nausea-eliciting medication coupled with showing them porno films of gay men having sex, so that they would learn to associate gay sex with feeling ill. It worked, but too well. Instead of becoming straight, these male patients lost all desire for sex. In the case of drug addiction, it MAY be more effective in that losing the desire for drugs would be beneficial.

You are simply wrong about the lack of scientific protocol in removing homosexuality–all but ego-dystonic homosexuality, that is–from the DSM.

Meltz,

Show me the articles and studies that were used in removing homosexuality from the DSM. I am all ears.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

The aversion therapy that was used to treat gays consisted of injecting them with a nausea-eliciting medication coupled with showing them porno films of gay men having sex, so that they would learn to associate gay sex with feeling ill. It worked, but too well. Instead of becoming straight, these male patients lost all desire for sex. In the case of drug addiction, it MAY be more effective in that losing the desire for drugs would be beneficial.

You are simply wrong about the lack of scientific protocol in removing homosexuality–all but ego-dystonic homosexuality, that is–from the DSM.

Seems like every version of this perverted so-called “therapy” they are touting involves pornography in one way or another.

 

[Nimzovik]

Gay people, Christian or not, simply seek to better their lives and practice what they believe. The lifestyle of course is wrong, but doesn’t mean homosexuals are actively establishing some sort of world dominion. This kind of rhetoric kinda remind me of things like “The protocols of the elder of Zions” where a minority group is branded as an evil organization conspiring to conquer the world. The result isn’t too pretty.

Bolding Mine:

Conspiricy? Conquer the world? Such expressions only serve to mock and devalue the ideals of whomever it is applied to.

Perhaps to say such people ‘have an agenda’ as opposed to such overused expressions.

Communication enhancement regards,
Nim.

 

[CopticChristian]

The aversion therapy that was used to treat gays consisted of injecting them with a nausea-eliciting medication coupled with showing them porno films of gay men having sex, so that they would learn to associate gay sex with feeling ill. It worked, but too well. Instead of becoming straight, these male patients lost all desire for sex. In the case of drug addiction, it MAY be more effective in that losing the desire for drugs would be beneficial.

You are simply wrong about the lack of scientific protocol in removing homosexuality–all but ego-dystonic homosexuality, that is–from the DSM.

Here is the data concerning the voting, not science, that took homosexuality out of the DSM

Only 10,555 of the 17,905 APA members voted in the election. The results were as follows,

Total APA members eligible to vote: 17,905

Number of APA members that actually voted: 10,555

Number of members that “Abstained”: 367

Number of “No” votes -votes to keep “homosexuality” in the DSM as a mental disorder: 3,810

Number of “Yes” votes-votes to remove “homosexuality” from the DSM as a mental disorder: 5,854

It should be noted that the number of “Yes” votes, 5,854, made up only 32.7 percent of the total membership of the APA. Only slightly less than one-third of the APA’s membership approved the change. It should be further noted that the vote was partially controlled by the “National Gay and Lesbian Task Force” (NGTLF). The “NGTLF” was able to obtain APA member addresses and with-out identifying itself as an organization send out letters to all members urging them to vote to remove “homosexuality” from the DSM. Bruce Voeller, the head of the “NGTLF” admits, “Our costly letter has perhaps made the difference.”

and

Finally, why must the APA pretend to know more than it does? DSM IV is the fabrication upon which psychiatry seeks acceptance by medicine in general. Insiders know it is more a political than scientific document. To its credit it says so — although its brief apologia is rarely noted. DSM IV has become a bible and a money making best seller — its major failings notwithstanding. It confines and defines practice, some take it seriously, others more realistically. It is the way to get paid. Diagnostic reliability is easy to attain for research projects. The issue is what do the categories tell us? Do they in fact accurately represent the person with a problem? They don’t, and can’t, because there are no external validating criteria for psychiatric diagnoses. There is neither a blood test nor specific anatomic lesions for any major psychiatric disorder. So, where are we? APA as an organization has implicitly (sometimes explicitly as well) bought into a theoretical hoax. Is psychiatry a hoax — as practiced today? Unfortunately, the answer is mostly yes.

and

Dr. Neil Whitehead
www.mygenes.co.nz

Quote:
12. Therapy producing change in sexual orientation is damaging

The best longitudinal study (backed up by many others) shows most people change to some extent - from slightly to 100%. Positive and negative effects are typical of outcomes for most other therapies. Re-orientation therapies also decrease depression, and substance abuse.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

So you’re mad that people lobbied for a scientific position now? Isn’t that what you claim to be doing? Just doesn’t make any sense, man.

 

[meltzerboy]

Meltz,

Show me the articles and studies that were used in removing homosexuality from the DSM. I am all ears.

You can look up the empirical evidence provided by Dr. Evelyn Hooker herself. There was, as always, heated discussion among the psychiatrists and some dissenters, even to the present day. Also check out Dr. Robert Spitzer (of recent controversy), who had spearheaded the change originally, as well as Drs. Gold, Fryer, Spiegel, Marmor, Bieber. Sorry, but you’ll have to do your own research!

 

[CopticChristian]

I am just repeating back those arguments that have been made to me on this forum. If those arguments have now changed, then how am I to put any store by anything I am told in future by the people making them?

Dex,

Societies do not make policy they speak for themselves…

The relevance to the AMA and its opinions are only matters for uninformed consumers.

scienceblogs.com/corpuscallos…o-irrelevancy/

While membership has shrunk since the 1980s, the group still
describes itself as the “house of medicine” with a membership of about
236,000 physicians from a wide swath of specialties– but 30% of them
are students, who don’t pay dues, and only about 50% are practicing
physicians.

I’m a very severe critic of what AMA has
done. And it’s worth noting that AMA membership has dropped
from some 90 percent of doctors when I started out a half-century ago,
and now about a third of America’s doctors do belong.

The AMA does not speak for all Physicians, since not all Physicians belong to the AMA. Their opinions are reflective of a minority of Physicians.

In any case, it is clear the the AMA is waning in influence.
They are at risk of becoming marginalized. In a
way, it is like what is happening to the RNC. The membership
is declining. The members who are left, are those who are
most extreme in their positions. As they become relatively
more extreme, they become less relevant, easier to ignore.

I’ve not been a member of the AMA for a long time, maybe 15 years.
I still get a lot of mailings and emails from them, exhorting
me to join again. Sometimes they offer me a special deal,
half-price for a six-month membership. Cripes, they think I’m
smart enough to be a doctor, but not smart enough to do arithmetic.
But the most common pitch is that they would represent me in
Washington DC. My suspicion is that it is the political
iinfluence that persuades many MDs to join.

The AMA adopted the American Psychiatric agenda without science, just adopted it and not all Psychiatrists belong to the American Psychiatric Association nor do they speak for all Psychiatrists. Many have resigned from the organization.

You seem to do a good job promoting their views…

 

[DexUK]

Dex,

I never said that. I said that your experience of the world in your head is formed by what meaning you apply to the outside world either by you or someone else. This remains an area of interest and your discounting it means you don’t want to know. You already have a formed opinion based on information from Socieites…

Homosexual is fixed behavior
The only counseling that should be offered is that to accept your plight
Once homosexual always a homosexual

This is the Propaganda of the Psychiatric association, accepted by the British Society that you propagate quite well…there is no science behind it…

My information is formed by discussing this issue with many real life people who are LGBT. Genuine flesh and blood people, not just pixels on a computer screen.

Not one of them has ever been able to identify any moment where they were anything other than what they are. There has never been an element of choice about their orientation. They have all suffered discrimination in the world because of their orientation. One of them even committed suicide as a result of his inability to deal with the abuse that the world heaped on him as a result of its perception of who and what he was and his inability to change that which he found unchangeable.

You entitle this thread ‘homosexuality and the axis of evil’. You are fairly explicitly calling homosexual people evil. That is a big and bold claim to make in relation to a population of people who are simply homosexually inclined. Any LGBT person reading this will come away, if they accept what you propose, believe that they are evil simply for what they are, howsoever caused.

I will not let you get away with that unchallenged.

There are people on this forum who are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender. They strive to live within the teachings of the Church by living chaste lives of disinterested friendship with others of the same and opposite genders. They must not be told that they are, in some way, part of an ‘axis of evil’. It is a horrific evil thing to tell someone who is trying their hardest to be good. Is it any wonder that after trying so hard and being told for so long that their orientation is a choice and that such a choice is therefore an act of evil, that they eventually despair so much at having failed to reverse that choice that they give up on the Church entirely? If they’re going to be damned in the next life, they might as well have a peaceful, happy and fulfilling, albeit homosexual, existence in this one.

One of the drawbacks of debating on a computer forum is that it is possible to forget who else is reading the argument. Your words - and mine - are seen by more than just your eyes and mine. We - both of us - have a responsibility to measure what we say against the effects it might have on people who are unknown to us. In every regard, I try to think about those LGBT people who would be discouraged and downhearted by the constant drip-drip-drip of disapproval that comes from those who insist that they either chose their orientation or can change it or that they are suffering from some sort of curable pathology. You won’t ‘cure’ them by arguing that they can be cured. You will simply drive them away from the Church.

The Church is far more than this. It is the enduring eternal merciful love of Christ. It is the balm for the souls of people, all of whom, you and me alike, are sinners. We get nowhere by judging and everywhere by accepting our LGBT brothers and sisters (and those in between) with love and compassion not judgement or condemnation. When we say someone can ‘change’ their orientation we judge them culpable for their condition. If ‘change’ is to come upon them, then it is a change you and the world cannot give… it is the change wrought by the peace of Christ in the heart, as He calms fears and promotes charity of heart not just for the world but for oneself as well. As recipients of that peace and that calm our LGBT friends would feel love for the first time in the arms of the Church, whereas you simply promote trauma and chaos in their hearts by telling them that everything they ever knew about themselves was a lie and their fault if they ‘allow’ it to continue.

Where is your charity?