I need help with something

[Michael19682]

@Michael19682

You post is again full of tangents and no direct answer.

You have tried to argue that a mental diagnosis of a mental health disorder is appropriate and justified for homosexuality, but when challenged to demonstrate this through teachings from the Catholic Church you have failed to answer.

Incidentally, essie7777, as a gesture of fellowship, and if that is at all allowable for you to accept here, I would exhort you to get out a copy of a good dictionary and look up the word ‘tangent’. A tangent touches the graph of a circle or other non function at exactly one point. When such a line touches the graph of a function, it is called a secant. Therefore you acknowledge in calling my responses to your advertisements ‘tangents’ that there is a unifying theme to what I say. The locus of all this discussion is the centrality of Jesus in the life of the Church.

You list no reason for joining CAF on your bio. You report your religion as Catholic. What type of Catholicism do you practice?

 

[rom422]

And no one has put together an appropriate Church based response that can justify this stance at all. That is all i have asked for. Instead of a direct response the general theme is to try a different track to justify it but none of them are based on Church teachings.

I think the Church does not agree with those psychiatrists who try to downplay the inherently disordered nature of homosexual tendencies. You want a Church document where the Church actually said that homosexual tendencies are disordered? Here it is, from a text that you have previously quoted:

CCC 2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial….

So, you see, the Church does consider homosexual tendencies, not as a sin, but as a disorder. The Church did not say that it was a physiological or a psychological disorder. But due to the psychosomatic nature of many human ailments, I think that it could be a combination of both.

 

[rom422]

There is no normal definition for sexual attraction. Put 10 people in a line and you will not find that every person says the same thing when you ask them “what do you find sexually attractive?”.

I didn’t ask for a normal definition of sexual attraction. I asked you for a definition of “normal”. Unless you define “normal”, then you can’t tell when an attraction is normal.

Yes and there lies the issue with blaze comment and opinion that homosexuality is a psychological disorder … It can not be if there is no standard normal clinical definition of what people find sexually attractive.

How can you legitimately say that there is no “standard normal clinical definition” if you do not first define what “normal” means? And there lies the issue with blaze comment and opinion that homosexuality is not a psychological condition. If you can’t tell what makes a person normal, then you can’t prove nor disprove that homosexuals are normal. If you don’t first define the meaning of your words, then you can’t prove nor disprove anything. If that is the case, then you might as well get out of this forum. Because this forum is a place where we prove and disprove our opinions. This is not a place to object or tell someone that he is wrong without proof.

The Church teachings are rational – and clearly your opinion is based on the teachings of the Catholic Church and as a Catholic we all follow (or should follow) the Church in our moral life.

So asking to keep the Church out of this seems very bizarre.

Non-sequitur. Church teachings are based on divine revelation (the Bible). I am trying to engage you in a purely rational discussion of homosexuality, without the aid of divine revelation. So, it is not bizarre to keep the Church out of this discussion.

Normal and appropriate are not interchangeable terms they don;t mean the same thing.

How can you tell that they don’t mean the same thing unless you first define what “normal” means?

By trying to insist that people who don’t agree with your opinions suffer a psychological condition and have mental health issue is stigmatizing.

Please don’t put words in my mouth that I never said. I never said that those who don’t agree with me suffer a psychological condition and have mental health issues. You, for example, are one person who don’t agree with me. Did I ever say that you are suffering from a psychological condition or that you have mental health issues? I never said anything like that. But, of course, if you don’t define for me what being “normal” means, then I will not be able to defend you and prove to others that you are normal.

No one asks you to be okay with it, that’s personal choice, however branding them in this manner is reminiscent of other situations where this has been done in history - think Europe 60 years ago. Isolating and making people be singled out based on prejudice and ignorance is unacceptable in any form – or should never be considered appropriate by anyone especially practicing Catholics.

Your idea that my opinion is based on prejudice and ignorance is an “extremely unsubstantiated statement.”

 

[essie7777]

With regard to your posts up to this above, please read through the text in these three links, which I raised in a related thread. You may have come across the material already but if you have not, please take your time. It’s a total of 24 pages and an estimated 17,000 words.

Hi, thank you for the posts i had seen some of it but not all - and did read it all.

I’m pretty sure you don’t want to mount a full academic based rebuttal to these statements. I simply have two points to make.

**1) The route to removing homosexuality as the attraction to same sex partnerships being a mental disorder was not as quick as these contributions suggest. **

It did not happen because of a handful of people at a conference in 1973. Or even a larger group of supposed covert gay psychiatrists. this is completely unsubstantiated. That is both extremely naive and wishful thinking on the behalf of Robert Spitzer’s son.

It began with the Kinsey Reports in 1948 and ended in 1974 - if by the end you are looking at the removal of homosexuality from the DSM. The key points as i don’t want to write a HUGE list of what was done i will highlight it:
1948 - Kinsey Reports published on male sexuality.
1953 - National Institute of Mental Health grants Hookers Grant after extensive FBI review into her and her family … consider the political climate of McCarthyism at the time. Communism and gay were subjected to destructive witch hunts. This committee found no scientific flaw in her methods, confidentiality, research population etc. This is what they are designed to investigate.

1954 - Hookers data was given to THREE experts for them to decide the conclusions to avoid bias. The subjects as is standard were not identified on the papers sent to them their results based solely on data.
Bruno Klopfer (1900-1971) the foremost expert of the time on psychological personality testing, and was an important pioneer and innovator in the development, scoring and popularization of projective techniques, especially the Rorschach inkblot test. One of the test used in her study.
Edwin S. Shneidman (1918- 2009] was a American suicidologist and thanatologist. World renowned researcher and creator of one of the tests used by the Hooker study. A roman Catholic who was honored by the Marian College for his life’s work - a RC college.
Dr Mortimer Mayer another research expert who was very vocal about his ability to identify homosexuals from heterosexuals in this study that he went through it twice and still couldn’t tell the two groups apart.

1957 Hooker publishes having gone public with the result in 1956.

Between 1958-today … numerous research projects looking to duplicate the hooker study after removing rebuttal issues on the original parer are done --ALL WITH THE SAME RESULT … there is no difference between heterosexual and homosexual psychopathology. Key studies Dr Siegelman, Finn Carling, DofH UK,

From 1950 - today Extensive research and study on the Kinsey Report of 1948 that stated 37% of American men had at least 1 homosexual experience. This again was NEVER disproved, all the duplicated tests share the same data results. This statistic is correct.

1967-1969 - National Institute of Mental Health created a 14 expert task force to evaluate the issue of homosexuality inclusiveness in the DSM. Basically, it was to identify if there was a psychopathology basis for this diagnosis. After 2 years they recommended it be removed. It is important to note that of the 14 members - most were against Hooker’s hypothesis- so it was thought that the group would recommend to keep the DSM as it was …this was not the case -suggesting that the basis for this decision was well supported and documented to convince the non believers in Hooker’s work.

1973 Spitzer did table the resolution but the APA trutees all 13 voted in favor based not on his resolution alone but 20 years of research, data analysis and peer review and the results from the Blue Panel Group (described above).

1974 The membership of the APA 37,000 people then agreed with the trustees recommendations – i think it would be hard to argue that these were all “closet gays”?

**2) The work presented by Thomas Landess is as flawed as he suggest Hooker’s work is. **
However there is little point going through this to highlight the glaring errors et al. As explained above any credible rebuttals to Hooker’s work(and there was a flurry to begin with) has been proven time and time again to be unfounded. Critics of the sample, the maths, the test, the experts TBH you name it t was looked at. As the results came back supporting her conclusion unsurprisingly the critics slowed and stopped.

Additionally a search on Thomas Landess shows one academic in ENGLISH LITERATURE. i am not going to assume that is the author --but if it was hardly surprising his statements on qualitative research techniques and statistics are a little worrying. His expertise is not in evaluating research studies data.

If this isn’t the author please forward me to information on who is?
…
The basis for inclusion in the DSM would need to demonstrated by proven psychopathology and maladjustment behavior in society at a minimum.

No research has been provided that has been duplicated successfully stating this -a inital key test that the processes used in the research were sound and the results can be replicated.

All research proving this is not the case has been duplicated, tested, reworked and challenged on all levels and still ends with the same results.

It is has simply been shown that the inclusion pre1974 was based on prejudice, bias and social pressure and no evidence of deviant social behavior, no inability to function in society and no identifiable psychopathology.

CONT ON NEXT POST

 

[essie7777]

CON"T

I hope you won’t misunderstand my defense of this as others on here have.

I am a Catholic and believe in what we are taught. I simply believe that this attempt to identify attraction to the opposite sex as a mental health disorder is unfounded, unbelievably uncharitable and completely unsupported by the Church.

The issues surrounding homosexual acts and homosexual marriage are however dealt with by the Church and they more than stand up to scrutiny. These though are social issues not mental health diseases. The same as pre-marital sex, divorce and remarriage, IVF in certain forms, even dare i say it but the huge one abortion. I don’t see campaigns to have these activites categorized as mental health diseases as they accepted to be social.

I see a difference between these two things.
The Role of faith is not to condemn or punish but to guide people through the social function of faith to the right path of action -again though this does not mean tell them they are wrong, simply explain how they can still live in full communion with the Catholic Church by following the teachings.

Note i can provide sources for all information if you would like it --they are mostly books so i could not add links to anything.

I’m off to Mass then errands, so I am in no hurry to get a reply, which I hope will be a careful articulation and not a knee-jerk response by one from your field. Please don’t take anything in the previous sentence to be meant as an insult.
,

I presume you aren’t referring to the fact i’m Catholic.
There seems to be a lot of people on here who are making assumptions about me based on the qualifying statement i made stating i know what the DSM is as i’m a Phd student in clinical psychology.

Although you did not mean anything as insulting it’s difficult not to take it as such as you are being very assumptive with no foundation and you clearly aren’t acknowledging my academical creditably or such like.

 

[essie7777]

I think the Church does not agree with those psychiatrists who try to downplay the inherently disordered nature of homosexual tendencies. You want a Church document where the Church actually said that homosexual tendencies are disordered?So, you see, the Church does consider homosexual tendencies, not as a sin, but as a disorder

.

Seriously this is a stretch? Disordered does not mean its a MENTAL HEALTH DISEASE as you well know.

The Church did not say that it was a physiological or a psychological disorder. But due to the psychosomatic nature of many human ailments, I think that it could be a combination of both.

Ah so you admit the Church does not say its a MENTAL HEALTH DISEASE but you still persist in saying it is.

That’s absolutely fine, but it is nothing more than your personal opinion, based outside and against Church teachings.

 

[essie7777]

I didn’t ask for a normal definition of sexual attraction. I asked you for a definition of “normal”. …snip snip for space”

You asked numerous times in your post for “normal” definition and AGAIN you seem to have completely bypassed the point. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are definitions of sexual desire. Look them up in any dictionary: I used Merriam-Webster online.

Definition of HOMOSEXUAL
1: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex

Definition of HETEROSEXUAL
1: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward the opposite sex

What you seem completely unable to understand is that there is no normal definition of attraction as it varies so dramatically person to person: people can be attracted to: blondes, brunettes, sporty people, model looking people, bigger people, blue eyes, muscular types etc.

Are you starting to see the issue? I am not trying to be annoying i am simply stating a fact. You identify between people as being homosexual and heterosexual by the differences in what they are attracted to.

The problem is gender is only one variable hence there isn’t a normal to give you.

This in itself is one of many reason that you can not diagnosis homosexuality as a MENTAL HEALTH DISEASE because it does not have a psychopathology that can be identified by testing, a blood test, a brain scan, a bone scan. Before you start arguing about just ask if they are attracted to same sex people, maladjustment behavior another element need to substantiate a MENTAL HEALTH DIAGNOSIS has been disproved numerous times. Gay people function normally in society they don’t exhibit maladjusted behaviors that make then abnormal in psychopathology. Its a social issue.

 

[essie7777]

Incidentally, essie7777, as a gesture of fellowship, and if that is at all allowable for you to accept here, I would exhort you to get out a copy of a good dictionary and look up the word ‘tangent’. A tangent touches the graph of a circle or other non function at exactly one point. When such a line touches the graph of a function, it is called a secant. Therefore you acknowledge in calling my responses to your advertisements ‘tangents’ that there is a unifying theme to what I say.

Can you see the tangent here!!!

You are using an attempt to now debate the use of the word tangent to get away from the point. That’s called a digression see Nbr 3 in the definition of TANGENT below from Merriam-Webster online:

Definition of TANGENT
1a : the trigonometric function that for an acute angle is the ratio between the leg opposite to the angle when it is considered part of a right triangle and the leg adjacent
b : a trigonometric function that is equal to the sine divided by the cosine for all real numbers θ for which the cosine is not equal to zero and is exactly equal to the tangent of an angle of measure θ in radians
2: a line that is tangent; specifically : a straight line that is the limiting position of a secant of a curve through a fixed point and a variable point on the curve as the variable point approaches the fixed point
3: an abrupt change of course : digression

The discussion Micheal that you joined in on was the inclusion of homosexuality in the DSM. I’m still waiting for the Church doctrine, dogma, teachings anything that says that homosexuality is a MENTAL HEALTH DISEASE. This is the point you are now running very fast from as you don’t seem to have an answer for it.

If as you say you have answered this, i apologize i must have missed please repost?

The locus of all this discussion is the centrality of Jesus in the life of the Church.

Absolutely. In the life of the Church not in the DSM!

I have not once stated anything that sugests i don’t believe and live the teachings of the Church.

You list no reason for joining CAF on your bio. You report your religion as Catholic. What type of Catholicism do you practice?

My reason for joining: the group i am in at my church are doing a course on apologetics and they recommended it.

I am a Roman Catholic and have been my whole life.

 

[Michael19682]

Can you see the tangent here!!!

points] is the equivalent of our discussion, which you claim has denigrated to a collection of random tangents all pointing in different directions. Please stick to your own points, or else point out error in mine: How is the DSM not part of the life of the Church prior to 1973? There are those on whom it has left an indelible impression that is not easily erased. Or do you wish to reengender homosexual tendencies in anyone reading this discussion that may have been extinguished by that previous tome you say is in no wise part of the life of the Church?

You are using an attempt to now debate the use of the word tangent to get away from the point. That’s called a digression see Nbr 3 in the definition of TANGENT below from Merriam-Webster online:

The first listed definition of a word is the conventional usage. Just as the DSM prior to today’s version listed the condition as abnormal, so it is in the lives of many the convention of their thought!

This is the point you are now running very fast from as you don’t seem to have an answer for it

.
You presume that you know what I am thinking and doing.

If as you say you have answered this, i apologize i must have missed please repost?

Already answered.

Absolutely. In the life of the Church not in the DSM!

The DSM referred to is not a living document. However, the Church is a living and eternal body. If there are among the faithful that adhere to what it said and yet remain in communion with the Lord, that is something which needs to be addressed. If these faithful have found genuine peace in the Lord as a result of thinking themselves disordered, and thus do take up a chaste life with abstinance from homosexual activities, then the DSM in question is worthy of revisiting, and, by extension, so is the logic and theory which led its authors to make their operative statements. In a certain sense, then, it is a living document. For the sake of those assisted in their salvation by its psychology, it would seem a cruel hoax to attempt to relegate it to the back shelves of state libraries; in the same way that you claim my emotions on this issue are what cause me to abhor the relegation of actual people to the backwards of state hospitals.

I have not once stated anything that sugests i don’t believe and live the teachings of the Church.

Not explicitly. But mind reading is a belief that, depending on its definition, is against Church teaching. Whether you have attempted that is not for me to say or judge.

My reason for joining: the group i am in at my church are doing a course on apologetics and they recommended it.

I am a Roman Catholic and have been my whole life

Very admirable. What do you think, has your church group well advised you on this matter?

.

 

[essie7777]

Michael19682:
The DSM isn’t part of the Church at all.

This site is good – there’s lots of information, lots of good stuff, so yep it was a good suggestion

 

[Sarahforgiven]

I read only really the first OP here, but it made me think of a conversation I had w my husband after Mass today, where Fr. gave some great points about how sadly pop culture has twisted sex.
I was born in 1965 & remember when tv shows had twin beds for married people.
Then we were sold the whole divorce, blended, single parent, living together family thing: think Brady Bunch, partridge family, the show with Suzanne Sommers forgot the name with the mixed sex room mates, & many others. Now they are selling homosexuality as normal with a new bunch of tv shows.
It is all about selling/ marketing. And don’t forget if you are drinking beer beautiful bikini clad women will instantly appear & your life will be perfect, yes you can have it all with no consequence

 

[Michael19682]

The DSM isn’t part of the Church at all.

Indubious.

 

[essie7777]

Indubious.

Don’t think i’d want to play you at scrabble!!!1 lol

 

[Michael19682]

Don’t think i’d want to play you at scrabble!!!1 lol

Oh dear. I’m not canarsicistic, am I?

 

[essie7777]

Oh dear. I’m not canarsicistic, am I?

No idea what that is?

 

[Michael19682]

No idea what that is?

 

[rom422]

.Seriously this is a stretch? Disordered does not mean its a MENTAL HEALTH DISEASE as you well know.

Seriously? This disorder is not a disease? But you admit that it is a disorder? If this disorder is not a disease, then what do you call it?

Ah so you admit the Church does not say its a MENTAL HEALTH DISEASE but you still persist in saying it is.

I did not admit that. I only admit that the Church did not use precisely those words (“mental health disease”) to describe this disorder. I, too, did not use precisely those words in my post. I called it a “psychological condition,” yet you interpreted it as implying a mental health disease.

 

[essie7777]

I, too, did not use precisely those words in my post. I called it a “psychological condition,” yet you interpreted it as implying a mental health disease.

Okay so in the interests of clarity what exactly do you mean by a psychological condition?

 

[rom422]

You asked numerous times in your post for “normal” definition and AGAIN you seem to have completely bypassed the point. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are definitions of sexual desire. Look them up in any dictionary: I used Merriam-Webster online.

You completely bypassed the point again. I didn’t ask for a definition of homosexuality and heterosexuality. I asked for your definition of “normal.”

What you seem completely unable to understand is that there is no normal definition of attraction as it varies so dramatically person to person: people can be attracted to: blondes, brunettes, sporty people, model looking people, bigger people, blue eyes, muscular types etc.

Are you starting to see the issue? I am not trying to be annoying i am simply stating a fact. You identify between people as being homosexual and heterosexual by the differences in what they are attracted to.

The problem is gender is only one variable hence there isn’t a normal to give you.

What you seem completely unable to understand is that I am not asking you for a normal definition of attraction, but for the definition of “normal”? In the same way, if I ask you for the meaning of “beautiful”, I am not asking you for the definition of “beautiful woman”. Are you starting to see the issue? You will not be able to see that homosexuality is a disorder or a disease until you see it as a departure from the normal. That is why you must first define what is meant by “normal.”

No, you are not annoying me. However, I pity you because the more your respond to my post by evading my question, the more ridiculous your position appears to the readers in this thread.

This in itself is one of many reason that you can not diagnosis homosexuality as a MENTAL HEALTH DISEASE because it does not have a psychopathology that can be identified by testing, a blood test, a brain scan, a bone scan.

You cannot diagnose kleptomania by a blood test, brain scan or bone scan either. So, it is not a mental health disease?

Before you start arguing about just ask if they are attracted to same sex people, maladjustment behavior another element need to substantiate a MENTAL HEALTH DIAGNOSIS has been disproved numerous times. Gay people function normally in society they don’t exhibit maladjusted behaviors that make then abnormal in psychopathology. Its a social issue.

How do you know gay people function normally unless you first define the meaning of “normal”?

Also, are you telling me that homosexuals who engage in homosexual sex do not exhibit maladjusted behaviors?

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Same sex attraction is by definition “ab-normal,” because it is a deviation from what is normal among human beings. Yes, I used the word “deviant,” because this abnormal attraction deviates from normal.

1ab·nor·mal
adj (ˌ)ab-ˈnȯr-məl, əb-
Definition of ABNORMAL
: deviating from the normal or average : unusual, exceptional
— ab·nor·mal·ly -mə-lē\ adverb
See abnormal defined for English-language learners »
See abnormal defined for kids »
Examples of ABNORMAL

1. The results of the blood test were abnormal.
2. <a completely abnormal school day, because half of the kids were out sick>

Where’s that ruffled feathers smiley anyway?