I need help with something

[essie7777]

As much as i admire your attempts to distract from what you originally asked … allow me to remind you of your comments back in post #42 …

OK. If you do not want to call it a psychological condition, then what do you want to call it? … If you intend to prove to me that homosexuality is a normal human behavior, you must start by defining for me what you mean by “normal.”

I answered this in post #44, There isn’t a normal definition of what is attractive sexually to people, the factors are too varied all explained and defined for you, so logically there isn’t an abnormal definition of what is attractive sexually.

You clearly didn’t like that answer than have gone on a “round robin” of asking what “normal” is in your posts following, completely ignoring the actual question context and content.
And as pointed out before homosexuality does not refer to the sex act itself only the sexual desire to same sex. You seem to be jumbling what you actually mean and interchanging it at will, whilst only using one word to describe what you mean.

So i don’t need your pity, its misplaced. And i find that comment uncharitable and unbecoming to a Catholic, who by his own words wants to keep the Church out of it to have a rational conversation! The post you clearly stated this in #46, although you have mentioned it a few times!

Like I said earlier, let’s keep the Church out of this for now. I want to see how far I can defend my position on homosexuality without recourse to religion or divine revelation. So, I will answer your objections on purely rational grounds for now.

The only rational response is the Church, and unfortunately for you the Church doesn’t agree with homosexuality being diagnosed as a mental health issue but does state:

"[homosexuality’s] psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. . . . 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. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s cross the difficulties that they may encounter from their condition.

“Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection” (CCC 2357– 2359).

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

kleptomania is a maladjusted social behavior, its a conduct disorder … i get the distinct impression you don’t understand the definition requirements for a mental health condition to be accepted in medical terms.refer to posts previous in the thread that explain this. Post #63 and #64 i think

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

I presumed you were reading the thread … post #63 explains the issues with placing mental health diagnosis onto homosexuality … it has NEVER been able to be proven to have the psychopathology and behavioral indicators required to be defined as such … however there is a huge number of extensive research tested and qualified that proves that it doesn’t have these attributes and there is NO WAY to distinguish based on required terms the difference between gender sexuality attraction.

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

Even you yourself seem to grasp the differnce between peoples desires and acts: your post #24

…This goes to show that Christ was tolerant of sinners, but He did not tolerate their sins. Therefore, we must do the same. We must be tolerant of homosexuals, because they, too, are children of God. But we must not tolerate their sins and homosexual activities (e.g., sodomy).

There’s a distinct difference between homosexuality and homosexual acts — maybe its a case you don’t appreciate these and are using one term to describe both meanings?

Not sure you are actually reading the thread content as i have made myself clear on this but in the interests of speed find my previous post from #64 below.

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 mentally ill, simply explain how they can still live in full communion with the Catholic Church by following the teachings.

 

[Nate13]

I’m not questioning your motivations or knowledge – i’m questioning your comments.

Well then why would you suggest that in your own words a “handicap” of homosexuality IS a clinically medically diagnosisable disorder/disease? Is this question is obvious why not simply answer it then, as this is the discussion that is being had on this thread.

Haha could you please explain what the alternative to it not being a disorder of some sort? I have completely left it up in the air as to whether its completely mental or there is something physically different in the brain or the develop of the person.

Are you arguing that there is absolutely nothing wrong, and homosexuality is completely a choice?

Its either a disorder (as in not ordered) of some sort or purely a choice. Take your pick.

 

[essie7777]

Haha could you please explain what the alternative to it not being a disorder of some sort? I have completely left it up in the air as to whether its completely mental or there is something physically different in the brain or the develop of the person.

Are you arguing that there is absolutely nothing wrong, and homosexuality is completely a choice?

Its either a disorder (as in not ordered) of some sort or purely a choice. Take your pick.

grr i wish the posts actually got read … i do feel like i’m repeating myself a little …

1)To be clear: … this conversation track began with whether homosexuality should be listed in the DSM – the reference book of medically diagnosisable mental health disease/disorders for all mental health professional. According to mental health, scientific and medical determinations homosexuality does not meet any criteria for inclusion. Very basically this is based on psychopathology and social adjustment behaviors. in very brief terms it need to be identifiable in a medical way and exhibit social maladjustment. ALL STUDIES,including research by people advocating naming this a mental health disease have FAILED to meet criteria. ALL studies that meet criteria state that there is no way to discern psychopathology between homosexuals and heterosexuals…hence no diagnosis criteria or disease/disorder exists.

As i have stated numerous times it is not the responsibility of the medical profession to educate people on Catholic teachings … so this is a social issue that needs to be dealt with by Catholic Church out reach etc. to reach the people currently living without God’s grace and love.

2357 CCC: Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.

2) The Church supports this position and does not condemn a homosexual person at all. There is a difference between a person being attracted to same sex people and acting on it. It is homosexual acts that are disordered not the person.

2357 CCC: (continued immediately from above quote)…Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved

.
3) The Church directly instructs Catholics not to act with prejudice towards homosexuals. attempting to characterize them as having a medically diagnosised mental illness for this is prejudicial and dangerous. Let’s not forget homosexuality is an attraction not the act of sex. Additionally the CCC also specifies the distinction for those who will follow the right path, Christians.

2358 CCC 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. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

4) Church teachings on homosexual sex, stand firm and are morally applicable whether someone is homosexual or not. Catholics do not have pre marital sex! So homosexual or not it is still a sin. This is a SOCIAL issue.
5) The sacrament of marriage is sacred and clearly defined as one man one woman, the Church is very clear on this. So based on moral teaching gay marriage is unacceptable – but this is a SOCIAL issue.

Both of these points in respect to this topic are combined in the CCC as it outline some can be homosexual and in communion with Catholic faith:

2359 CCC: Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

…

My sole issue with the subject of homosexuality is this insensitive, prejudical and uncharitable attempt to diagnosis homosexuality as a medical mental health disease. The Church Teachings directly sates "Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained"CCC, so now one can attempt to then make it a psychological MEDICALLY DIAGNOSIS DISEASE, and neither does the Church instruct to do this.

The Church teachings are my guidance, and as the CCC its the act of same sex sex which is the mortal sin.

So the issue become not who finds same sex people attractive, but rather how do we turn non believers to the Catholic way of life … something we don’t leave in the hands of doctors.

I really can’t make it any clearer.

 

[rom422]

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

When I made my statement about the possession of homosexual tendencies being a “psychological condition,” I simply meant that it refers to the state of a person’s sexuality. Likewise, when you have a headache, it is a state or condition of your health. If you don’t have a headache and feeling well, that also is a state or condition of your health. Therefore, a person’s possession of, or lack of, homosexual tendencies refers to the person’s sexual state or condition. You might want to call it “sexual orientation” if you wish, but I certainly did not mean to say that a homosexual person is a lunatic. It is you, not me, who said that I suggested that “psychological condition” means mentally sick. You are reading more from my statement than what I actually meant.

However, now that you’ve suggested it, and now that we have started talking about it, I wanted to know if it really was a mental disorder or not. It is, if it is not normal. So I asked you to define what you mean by being “normal”. But to this time, I did not get a straight answer. You gave me answers, yes, but not to the question I asked. My question basically was: What is normal? What makes a person normal? Telling me that 10 people cannot agree on what they find as sexually attractive does not answer my question. Nope, not even close! Telling me that there is no normal definition of attraction does not answer the question either. My question is simply, What is normal? You can play round robin with me as much as you please. You can go round and round in circles without ever answering my questions. And you know what? The whole world reading this thread knows that you are losing this debate. My advice: Answer the question!

I read some of your other Posts, mainly as your responses to other people’s posts. And I see that you are holding the idea that homosexuality is no longer a mental illness because the APA removed it from its list of medical diagnosis diseases. Now my next question to you is, Is the APA infallible? Prior to the 1970’s it was widely held that homosexuality is a form of mental illness. And the APA also regarded it as a mental illness. But now the APA has changed its view about that. OK. But how do you know that 50 years later the APA will not change its view again? So, you see, this is the reason why you should not be following their views blindly. Things don’t become right just because a medical association changed its view about homosexuality.

You asked for a Church document that speaks of the condition of homosexuals. The Church is actually very respectful and sympathetic to the homosexuals, but I quoted the CCC to you that says unequivocally that those homosexual inclinations and tendencies are objectively disordered. Then you told me that the Church did not say that homosexuality is a mental health disease, and that a disorder is not a disease. OK, but do you accept that homosexual tendencies are objectively disordered, as the CCC says? If you do, then to make you happy, I can always modify my statement to read like this: “Having homosexual tendencies is not a sin, but is objectively disordered.” Is that now more acceptable to you? Is it less stigmatizing now than calling these inclinations a “psychological condition”?

 

[TheRealJuliane]

It is not prejudicial, biased, bigoted or any of a thousand other inflammatory words you choose to use to label homosexual behavior abnormal, deviant, or disordered. It is, according to the definitions of those words, all of the above.

We as Catholics know that we are to love the sinner, but hate the sin (because God does). Same sex attraction is homosexuality without the sex act. Usually the world homosexual is applied to people who are actively practicing their same sex attraction and having deviant (deviating from the norm) sexual relations. We can love someone who is controlling their urges to homosexuality as well as loving the people who are succumbing to those deviant (deviating from the norm) desires.

If I read you correctly, you are asserting that there is no normal of sexual attraction? That polling individuals comes up with an infinite variation across the human spectrum? And based on that, homosexuality is but one of those infinite variations and is not deviant from the norm (which happens to be male-to-female attraction and vice versa)?

Just trying to understand what you are stating is true about same sex attraction. Please clarify.

 

[Nate13]

My sole issue with the subject of homosexuality is this insensitive, prejudical and uncharitable attempt to diagnosis homosexuality as a medical mental health disease. The Church Teachings directly sates "Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained"CCC, so now one can attempt to then make it a psychological MEDICALLY DIAGNOSIS DISEASE, and neither does the Church instruct to do this.

There is a difference between saying it remains unexplained and saying it does not exist I don’t care how you crack it, something is going wrong either mentally or physically. It is entirely possible that it will eventually be explained as a mental health disease, but you are right in saying that assuming so at this point is wrong.

1. The Church supports this position and does not condemn a homosexual person at all. There is a difference between a person being attracted to same sex people and acting on it. It is homosexual acts that are disordered not the person.

Here is where you are getting confused. We are talking about “disordered” in a medical sense, but the CC is referring to “disordered” in a moral sense here. The acts are what are morally wrong, not the attraction. The attraction is still a disorder from a medical standpoint though, and that was the perspective we were talking from.

 

[Michael19682]

My part in this discussion is bascially over, but as I have been partially following some of the lengthy posts as best I could, may I offer for your citation or full reading Chapter 1 from the 3rd Edition of the Disability Studies Reader, Edited by Lennard J. Davis. The Chapter is an essay by Lennard J. Davis entitled Constructing Normalcy, in which the author argues “that the concept of normalcy was invented during the nineteenth century. [He] explores how both eugenic science and the literary structures of the novel emerged as ways to construct and promote the notion of the ‘average man.’”
Please note this is merely the caption of the Chapter and does not represent the full article, which is very nuanced.

Best to you all.

 

[Nate13]

My part in this discussion is bascially over, but as I have been partially following some of the lengthy posts as best I could, may I offer for your citation or full reading Chapter 1 from the 3rd Edition of the Disability Studies Reader, Edited by Lennard J. Davis. The Chapter is an essay by Lennard J. Davis entitled Constructing Normalcy, in which the author argues “that the concept of normalcy was invented during the nineteenth century. [He] explores how both eugenic science and the literary structures of the novel emerged as ways to construct and promote the notion of the ‘average man.’”
Please note this is merely the caption of the Chapter and does not represent the full article, which is very nuanced.

Best to you all.

We are talking about normal in way that can only be appreciated if the concept of natural law is understood. Natural law is about as far opposite as you can get from eugenics. When you let your opponent define the terms you are speaking in, you give them the game before you have even started. I’m sure John Locke was also using the language of “normalcy” in a much different manner than eugenic science.

 

[Michael19682]

We are talking about normal in way that can only be appreciated if the concept of natural law is understood. Natural law is about as far opposite as you can get from eugenics. When you let your opponent define the terms you are speaking in, you give them the game before you have even started. I’m sure John Locke was also using the language of “normalcy” in a much different manner than eugenic science.

I agree as far as I can understand your terms. But such as strategy may prove useful if you know the terms which they have chosen to speak in are in fact inherently flawed and that such flaw will be obvious as the light of the truth in the discussion shines brighter, or is revealed upon the fallacy of their error being removed. In that way, they lose the entire basis of their speech and become silent - at which point either someone more learned in the matter than we, or God himself instruct them in that silence. Best to you.

 

[essie7777]

It is entirely possible that it will eventually be explained as a mental health disease, but you are right in saying that assuming so at this point is wrong.

No one stated that it couldn’t become one, simply that it isn’t.

Here is where you are getting confused. We are talking about “disordered” in a medical sense, but the CC is referring to “disordered” in a moral sense here. The acts are what are morally wrong, not the attraction.

Pretty sure ive agreed with this statement — more than once.

The attraction is still a disorder from a medical standpoint though, and that was the perspective we were talking from.

This seems to contradict your first part of this quote.?

 

[essie7777]

It is not prejudicial, biased, bigoted or any of a thousand other inflammatory words snip snip for space!

It can be a little frustrating when a poster clearly hasn’t read what had been put before.

I would strongly recommend that you READ OR REREAD them; as your first sentence of your post, demonstrates that you have simply “jumped” feet first and are sounding uninformed of this thread’s content and the opinions of the posters.

All of your points have been answered in previous posts.

 

[Nate13]

No one stated that it couldn’t become one, simply that it isn’t.

Pretty sure ive agreed with this statement — more than once.

This seems to contradict your first part of this quote.?

Uh we were talking about whether homosexuality was a psychological disorder correct? That is talking about it in a medical sense was it not? If there was just some confusion as to the sense in which we were calling homosexuality a disorder, then lets move on. I’ll assume it was just confusion since you agreed with this statement.

Here is where you are getting confused. We are talking about “disordered” in a medical sense, but the CC is referring to “disordered” in a moral sense here. The acts are what are morally wrong, not the attraction.

I’m still confused though as to how you would explain the condition if it is not a psychological disorder of some sort though (not specific)? Yes I realize you believe that attraction cannot be defined, but that is just a lot of googly glop rhetoric that doesn’t get anywhere. I don’t see how saying “attraction cannot be defined” is an alternative to the idea that homosexuality is either a medical disorder of some sort, purely a choice, or somewhere in between.

There isn’t a normal definition of what is attractive sexually to people, the factors are too varied all explained and defined for you, so logically there isn’t an abnormal definition of what is attractive sexually.

This is ridiculous if this is your position. Just because something cannot be defined does not mean a difference does not exist. It just means our language fails to provide a way to explain the difference clearly. There is a difference between not being able to explain something and it not existing. A difference in attraction does exist whether you think it can be explained or not.

 

[essie7777]

When I made my statement about the possession of homosexual tendencies being a “psychological condition,” I simply meant that it refers to the state of a person’s sexuality. Likewise, when you have a headache, it is a state or condition of your health. If you don’t have a headache and feeling well, that also is a state or condition of your health. Therefore, a person’s possession of, or lack of, homosexual tendencies refers to the person’s sexual state or condition. **You might want to call it “sexual orientation” if you wish, but I certainly did not mean to say that a homosexual person is a lunatic. ** It is you, not me, who said that I suggested that “psychological condition” means mentally sick. You are reading more from my statement than what I actually meant.

Seems we agree then, someone isn’t mentally insane to be feeling homosexual thoughts. I apologize if i misunderstand your initial statement, considering the content of this thread i would suggest it was hardly a huge misunderstanding though …

However, now that you’ve suggested it, and now that we have started talking about it, I wanted to know if it really was a mental disorder or not. ,snip snip for space …My advice: Answer the question!

Answered more than once, defended more than once … if you don’t like the answer that is not my responsibility. I am sure people reading this thread are more than intelligent enough to see there is a difference between your initial question, and then your dogged insistence that you want the one word normal defined.

I read some of your other Posts, mainly as your responses to other people’s posts. And I see that you are holding the idea that homosexuality is no longer a mental illness because the APA removed it from its list of medical diagnosis diseases.

I suggest you read all the posts as they state my position very clearly.

Now my next question to you is, Is the APA infallible? Prior to the 1970’s it was widely held that homosexuality is a form of mental illness. And the APA also regarded it as a mental illness. But now the APA has changed its view about that.

Erm certainly not infallible, since when they were challenged and presented with over 20 yrs of MEDICAL RESEARCH, all of which showed that the original inclusion was based on society bias, no medical basis but rather there was a HUGE stack of evidence against their original belief, proven, checked and double checked by the biggest skeptics in the APA on this issue …(see previous posts) they changed.

OK. But how do you know that 50 years later the APA will not change its view again? So, you see, this is the reason why you should not be following their views blindly. Things don’t become right just because a medical association changed its view about homosexuality.

You clearly haven’t read all of my posts, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH is my guide in my opinions. The Church states NOWHERE that homosexuality is a medically diagnosisable mental health disease …i have simply given both the CHURCH and SECULAR arguments, which on this issue actually agree. Which is a rarity!

You asked for a Church document that speaks of the condition of homosexuals. The Church is actually very respectful and sympathetic to the homosexuals, but I quoted the CCC to you that says unequivocally that those homosexual inclinations and tendencies are objectively disordered. Then you told me that the Church did not say that homosexuality is a mental health disease, and that a disorder is not a disease. OK, but do you accept that homosexual tendencies are objectively disordered, as the CCC says?

I have MORE THAN ONCE offered a post to this question … please read back rather than having me repeat again!

If you do, then to make you happy, I can always modify my statement to read like this: “Having homosexual tendencies is not a sin, but is objectively disordered.” Is that now more acceptable to you? Is it less stigmatizing now than calling these inclinations a “psychological condition”?

My whole argument revolved around the inappropriately prejudiciacal and unjustified attempts to label homosexuals as in your words “lunatics” … so if that’s not your intent with these words, and you acknowledge that the issue is a SOCIAL and MORAL one not a medical one…then we actually completely agree…scary huh?

 

[Michael19682]

Essie7777, Rom, Nate and others, it occurred to me that in this discussion we have all been using the word “mental disorder”. This implies the word ‘mind’. If I am not mistaken, this word ‘mind’ is actually uncommon, if not rarely used in the NT, particularly in the gospels. From the OT the verse “Who knows the mind of the Lord…” is almost formulaic. But in the gospels, I think it is written in reference to Judas that Satan entered his ‘mind’. I couldn’t find this exact translation in the Bible i received at confirmation, but I recall it from another English copy of the text, possibly a St Joseph’s edition that I have lost. The point is that the words “mental” and “mind” have had a long history of negative connotation in English; so naturally, it seems like it would hurt someone doubly to be labeled ‘mentally disordered’. Likewise, it explains the obsession with expert ism that comes with the turf of studying psychology. Psychologists have made their staple in studying the minds of people. Since mind is not a frequent or perfect word in scripture, psychologists are guilty I think of generally feeling as though they know something about the mind that others don’t know nor that others can not comprehend - hence they appear as if they are holders of an essential esoterica that they dole out (often parsimoniously) to the otherwise ‘mindless’ adherents of religious doctrine.

 

[rom422]

Seems we agree then, someone isn’t mentally insane to be feeling homosexual thoughts. I apologize if i misunderstand your initial statement, considering the content of this thread i would suggest it was hardly a huge misunderstanding though …

I am accepting your apology. I hope you see now what I mean when I said that the having of homosexual feelings is not a sin, but a psychological condition (I did not say pathological condition). However, the CCC (paragraph 2358) says that these feelings and inclinations are “objectively disordered,” which means that they point to something that is wrong, unnatural or abnormal, in the psyche or the soul. Now be careful. I did not say that this is a mental disorder, but it is definitely a psychological disorder, but not a moral disorder. It can’t be a moral disorder because a moral disorder is SIN, and we just said that the having of homosexual feelings is not sin. The homosexual act is a sin, a moral disorder; but the mere possession of homosexual tendencies is not a sin or moral disorder, but a psychological disorder.

Answered more than once, defended more than once … if you don’t like the answer that is not my responsibility. I am sure people reading this thread are more than intelligent enough to see there is a difference between your initial question, and then your dogged insistence that you want the one word normal defined.

I still insist that you did not answer my question properly. However, to help you out let me tell you my opinion as to how we might define “normal” in the context of the present discussion. I know of two ways, but I like the second better than the first.

The first way is by giving a statistical definition. By this I mean that the “normal” is the mathematical average. Now, statisticians actually have many definitions of “normal”. For example, some statisticians use the “median” rather than the average to designate the normal. But let us use the average for simplicity. This means that, if the average height of the members of a class is 5’-5”, for example, then you could say that statistically the normal height is 5’-5”. Now, in the case of the sexuality of the human population, the total number of homosexuals is known to constitute only 3% of the total human population. The percentage actually varies, depending on the researcher. Some got a value as high as 10%. However, if the number of homosexuals around the globe constitutes no more than 10% of the total population of the world, then at least statistically, the homosexuals would hardly be considered as “normal.”

The second way and, in the context of the present discussion, my preferred way of defining the normal is by a functional definition, or a definition that relates the “normal” to the natural function or design of the object. According to this definition, the “normal” for any object is* that which functions according to its design.* In the case of natural objects something is not normal when it does not function, or is not used, according to its natural design. This means, for example, that if the natural design of the eye is ordained toward vision, any eye that fails to see clearly is not normal. Now, let us apply this to human sexuality. We know that human sex is intended by nature toward procreation or the preservation of the human species. Therefore, any use of sex that incapacitates its function, or that deviates from its natural purpose or design, is unnatural or abnormal. Based on this definition it is easy to see why homosexual acts are inherently unnatural and abnormal, because there is no way that the human species can be preserved through the sexual act of two persons of the same sex.

Perhaps there are other ways of defining the “normal”. But since you did not give me a definition, we cannot evaluate to see how good your definition is. I personally find the functional definition workable in many cases. You can see why, for example, even homosexual tendencies (not just the homosexual act) are disordered, because they lean away from the natural purpose of human sexuality. Based on the functional definition of “normal”, the normal sexual orientation would therefore be toward heterosexuality rather than homosexuality.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

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

Your defense is not surprising to me. However, you made inaccurate or misleading statements. The removal of the APA of homosexuality as a disorder was more about political pressure than scientific evidence, as you can easily glean from the first link I provided, an interview of Alix Spiegel, who works on the Science and Psychology desk of NPR. Notably she is the granddaughter of Dr. John Spiegel who figured in the ‘storming’ of APA by gay psychiatrists.

An example of a misleading statement from you:

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”?

The APA Board of Trustees adopted Spitzer’s resolution to remove homosexuality as disorder in the convention on December 15, 1973, downgrading the illness to ‘Sexual Orientation Disturbance,’ giving only 15 minutes to those who dissented. After the vote by the Board, there were members of the APA who did not agree to changing psychiatry as a result of political pressure. In response to the Board’s decision, the dissenting psychiatrists, led by Dr. Charles Socarides filed a petition for a referendum to reverse the action of the Board. They called for a full vote by the APA’s 17,905 members. Your 37,000 number is the present membership of APA, and its’ about 38,000 internationally] On April 9, 1974, the results of the vote were announced. There were 17,905 total APA members eligible to vote, and 10,555 actually sent in their votes. 367 abstained. 3,810 voted to keep homosexuality as a mental disorder in the book. 5,854 voted to remove it. So, that’s 32.7% of the total APA membership at that time. Further, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force purchased the APA’s mailing list and sent out a letter to the APA members urging them to vote to remove homosexuality as a disorder. No APA member was informed that the mailing had been funded by this homosexual activist group.

Sources of these details: the book Long Road to Freedom The Advocate History of the Gay and Lesbian Movement by Mark Thompson, and independent accounts of Dr. Jeffrey Satinover in his book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, and Dr. Charles Socarides in Sexual Politics and the Scientific Logic, The Issue of Homosexuality.

The DSM-II diagnosis of Sexual Orientation Disturbance (SOD) replaced homosexuality. Accordingly, individuals comfortable with their homosexuality were no longer considered mentally ill. Only those who were “in conflict with” their sexual orientation had a mental disorder (SOD). In the early 1980’s DSM-III where SOD was replaced by ego-dystonic homosexuality (EDH). During the revision process of DSM-III in the mid 1980’s EDH also engendered enormous controversy. In these debates openly gay and lesbian members of the APA played a decisive role in bringing about change. Again. Those on the APA Advisory Committee working on the revision who wanted to retain the EDH category argued that they believed the diagnosis was clinically useful and that is was necessary for research and statistical purposes. The opponents noted that making a patient’s subjective experience of their own homosexuality the determining factor of their illness was not consistent with the ‘new evidence-based approach’ that psychiatry had embraced. They argued that empirical data do not support the diagnosis and that it is inappropriate to label culturally induced homophobia as a mental disorder. The APA Committee agreed with the opponents and the diagnosis of ego-dystonic homosexuality was removed from DSM-III-R in 1987. It potentially remains in the DSM-IV under the category of “sexual disorder not otherwise specified” including "persistent and marked distress about one’s sexual orientation”.

The APA Committee, as you know, decides which researches get peer reviewed and which studies get the benefit of publication.

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.

Yes, I noted your bring a Catholic with a clinical psychology background.

Are you familiar with the work of Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a Catholic psychiatrist? If not, you can google him and Catholic Medical Association. He believes that homosexuality is no longer in the DSM because of political pressure as well, and that homophobia is not the cause of major depression, suicidal ideation and attempts, anxiety disorders, substance abuse, conduct disorder, low self-esteem in males and sexual promiscuity with an inability to maintain committed relationships.

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.

Another inaccuracy.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

[con’t of post to essie7777]

You are too defensive about Hooker’s study. The most important criticism was that she selectively chose apparently healthy homosexuals for her research, hence making the same mistake that was somewhat similar – but in the opposite direction – to the mistake made by previous researchers who claimed to prove that homosexuality was a mental illness by conducting studies using self identified homosexual patient population or those identified by others with mental problems.

From Dr. Satinover:

The study’s subjects were selected entirely by the Mattachine Society, a group that Hooker herself admitted in the report had “as its stated purpose the development of a homosexual ethic…”. In the same section she concedes the possibility that homosexuals are indeed pathological. The inadequacy of her methodology was acknowledged by the Journal of Projective Techniques that published it.

In the study, “The adjustment of the male overt homosexual”, Hooker administered three standard personality tests to two groups of 30 men, one homosexual and screened by the Mattachine Society and the other heterosexual. Despite the fact that the purpose of the study was ostensibly to examine the possibility of mental instability in homosexuals, individuals who showed signs of mental instability were removed from the groups, which further predetermined the study’s conclusion.

To this day, the Hooker study is the only paper referenced in detail on the main website of the American Psychological Association in its discussion of Gay and Lesbian issues.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
… Now my next question to you is, Is the APA infallible? Prior to the 1970’s it was widely held that homosexuality is a form of mental illness. And the APA also regarded it as a mental illness. But now the APA has changed its view about that. OK. But how do you know that 50 years later the APA will not change its view again? So, you see, this is the reason why you should not be following their views blindly. Things don’t become right just because a medical association changed its view about homosexuality.
…

Exactly.

Just a reaction to this part of your post and all these posts about mental illness. This might serve as an interesting read to you and those following this thread: Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness, written by Gary Greenberg, a practicing psychotherapist. It is a searing account of the politics that still goes inside the APA, leading to changes in the DSM, from DSM 1 to DSM 5 (which is in draft form for release).

In the article, there is only a little mention of the event in 1973, when gay psychiatrists, in Dr. Greenberg’s words, after years of loud protest, finally forced a reluctant APA to acknowledge that homosexuality was not and never had been an illness. And another sentence saying that one psychiatrist wrote after the APA voted homosexuality out of the DSM, “there is a terrible sense of shame among psychiatrists, always wanting to show that our diagnoses are as good as the scientific ones used in real medicine.”

The rest of what he says in his piece is actually very interesting.

The DSM, as what other professionals would say, serves only the pharmaceutical industry and the therapists.

By the way, before I am accused of being too cynical on the mental health profession, I am not. One of my two brothers who are physicians is a psychiatrist. And there are psychiatrists such as Dr. Fitzgibbons who practice their profession in consonance with their faith.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Your defense is not surprising to me. However, you made inaccurate or misleading statements. The removal of the APA of homosexuality as a disorder was more about political pressure than scientific evidence, as you can easily glean from the first link I provided, an interview of Alix Spiegel, who works on the Science and Psychology desk of NPR. Notably she is the granddaughter of Dr. John Spiegel who figured in the ‘storming’ of APA by gay psychiatrists.

An example of a misleading statement from you:

The APA Board of Trustees adopted Spitzer’s resolution to remove homosexuality as disorder in the convention on December 15, 1973, downgrading the illness to ‘Sexual Orientation Disturbance,’ giving only 15 minutes to those who dissented. After the vote by the Board, there were members of the APA who did not agree to changing psychiatry as a result of political pressure. In response to the Board’s decision, the dissenting psychiatrists, led by Dr. Charles Socarides filed a petition for a referendum to reverse the action of the Board. They called for a full vote by the APA’s 17,905 members. Your 37,000 number is the present membership of APA, and its’ about 38,000 internationally] On April 9, 1974, the results of the vote were announced. There were 17,905 total APA members eligible to vote, and 10,555 actually sent in their votes. 367 abstained. 3,810 voted to keep homosexuality as a mental disorder in the book. 5,854 voted to remove it. So, that’s 32.7% of the total APA membership at that time. Further, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force purchased the APA’s mailing list and sent out a letter to the APA members urging them to vote to remove homosexuality as a disorder. No APA member was informed that the mailing had been funded by this homosexual activist group.

Sources of these details: the book Long Road to Freedom The Advocate History of the Gay and Lesbian Movement by Mark Thompson, and independent accounts of Dr. Jeffrey Satinover in his book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, and Dr. Charles Socarides in Sexual Politics and the Scientific Logic, The Issue of Homosexuality.

The DSM-II diagnosis of Sexual Orientation Disturbance (SOD) replaced homosexuality. Accordingly, individuals comfortable with their homosexuality were no longer considered mentally ill. Only those who were “in conflict with” their sexual orientation had a mental disorder (SOD). In the early 1980’s DSM-III where SOD was replaced by ego-dystonic homosexuality (EDH). During the revision process of DSM-III in the mid 1980’s EDH also engendered enormous controversy. In these debates openly gay and lesbian members of the APA played a decisive role in bringing about change. Again. Those on the APA Advisory Committee working on the revision who wanted to retain the EDH category argued that they believed the diagnosis was clinically useful and that is was necessary for research and statistical purposes. The opponents noted that making a patient’s subjective experience of their own homosexuality the determining factor of their illness was not consistent with the ‘new evidence-based approach’ that psychiatry had embraced. They argued that empirical data do not support the diagnosis and that it is inappropriate to label culturally induced homophobia as a mental disorder. The APA Committee agreed with the opponents and the diagnosis of ego-dystonic homosexuality was removed from DSM-III-R in 1987. It potentially remains in the DSM-IV under the category of “sexual disorder not otherwise specified” including "persistent and marked distress about one’s sexual orientation”.

The APA Committee, as you know, decides which researches get peer reviewed and which studies get the benefit of publication.

Yes, I noted your being a Catholic with a clinical psychology background.

Are you familiar with the work of Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a Catholic psychiatrist? If not, you can google him and Catholic Medical Association. He believes that homosexuality is no longer in the DSM because of political pressure as well, and that homophobia is not the cause of major depression, suicidal ideation and attempts, anxiety disorders, substance abuse, conduct disorder, low self-esteem in males and sexual promiscuity with an inability to maintain committed relationships.

Another inaccuracy.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
Yes, I noted your bring a Catholic with a clinical psychology background.

This should read as:

Yes, I noted your being a Catholic with a clinical psychology background.

Sorry for the editing lapse.
,