I need help with something

[essie7777]

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.

Your refusal to accept that there is much more than Hooker’s research that impacted on the removal of the content from the DSM is not factually based its is opinion.

Your ONE article is about ONE event in 20 years of work before the removal from the DSM. You are hooking your defense on one article written based not on being there but on their opinion as a granddaughter of the person who put the resolution to the vote.

Your continued statements of the openly gay and lesbian members is so far from the truth it becomes laughable. You have no evidence for this. There is no basis for what you are saying apart from the clearly biased opinion of one person’s granddaughter, who clearly from her own work on this has a issue with her grandfather’s homosexuality. Her opinion is just that, and it is so clearly biased.

This approach makes it too easy for those arguing for homosexual rights in society as it demonstrates a position to ignore what you don’t want to see. This only serves to alienate and turn people away from what you are trying to say.

I notice you have no comment and rebuttal to the other eventsand actions taking place in the 20 years before its removal from the DSM: the task force which was for keeping it in the DSM until faced with facts, the tested research that proved Hooker and Kinsey original results, the research that changed the populations of participants to settle disagreement with the results based on this issue…all of this concluded empirically the same as Hooker’s did. . This suggests you discount it as you have no basis to refute it.

Your 37,000 number is the present membership of APA, and its’ about 38,000 internationally]

This is unbelievably inaccurate. Please check the numbers here: apa.org/about/archives/membership/index.aspx

Current membership is just short of 95,000 of of 2010.

On April 9, 1974, the results of the vote were announced. … 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 to confirm the majority voted for its removal and your argument being that people didn’t send in a vote is simply demonstrative that it wasn’t responded to nothing more. If it was important enough for those voting they should have voted. This shows disinterest not support for either of our positions.

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.

Not sure at all how a marketing ploy, something used by catholic groups all the times, is really something that demonstrates anything more than that group was inclined to promote their position. Did those against its removal do the same?

The DSM-II diagnosis of Sexual Orientation Disturbance (SOD) …sniped for space…

These comments ignore the fundamental basis for inclusion of a condition in the DSM. Basically, it needs to have provable psychopathology and evident examples of maladjustment in society. Homosexuality itself does not fit the criteria at all. People who are homosexual do not have a psychopathology different to heterosexuals, they are not incapable of functioning in society. No evidence has ever been provided to sustain this culturally biased opinion. Hence its removal.

The evidence for psychopathology and functional maladjustment for people who struggle with their sexual orientation is extensive, however it is not empirically distinguishable between homosexuals and heterosexuals, hence its inclusions. As people suffering from this cross both groups. It is not a homosexual issue.

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

This is absolutely not true — the APA is not the publishers of all peer reviewed academic journals. This is a very naive perception and completely misleading. Academic journals DO NOT need APA approval for any of its content.

Are you familiar with the work of Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a Catholic psychiatrist?

I am, however its difficult to accept the work of someone who is that academically biased that he believes AIDS is down to homosexuals, promiscuity is a homosexual issue and that homophobia doesn’t impact on people. Sexually transmitted diseases are the homosexual communities issues, they don’t exist in heterosexual relationships. These are hardly opinions based on fact. None of these opinions are empirically justified anywhere. And they simply demonstrate his opinion. When you read his work he comments on papers that in their totality do not advocate his opinion at all.

His support of using psychiatry to “brain wash” people away from homosexual thoughts is fundamentally wrong. When would this ever be appropriate? Should we use psychiatry to convince people to be Catholic? Would this be appropriate?

 

[rom422]

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.

This may be off-topic so I’ll make this comment very short. But I always thought that kleptomania is a mental disorder because I found it in the Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders (minddisorders.com/Kau-Nu/Kleptomania.html#b), as well as in the DSM (behavenet.com/capsules//disorders/kleptomaniadis.htm). The second link also said that this is not better accounted for by conduct disorder. So, the DSM does not agree with you?

You are right. I am not a doctor, so I am using layman’s language most of the time. And I don’t really care what you call homosexuality - a personality disorder, a conduct disorder, a mental disorder, or whatever disorder. As long as you recognize that it is a disorder and not normal, then we have something in common. I am here not talking of the homosexual act, because we both agree that it is a moral disorder (or sin). I am talking of the simple fact of being sexually attracted to another person of the same sex. The Church says that this inclination is objectively disordered. I believe so, too. What about you, how do you stand on that? I know that you don’t think that this is a mental disorder. But do you think it is just another form of disorder, or do you think it is perfectly normal? That is the question.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

This is unbelievably inaccurate. Please check the numbers here: apa.org/about/archives/membership/index.aspx

Current membership is just short of 95,000 of of 2010.

Were we not talking about the American Psychiatric Association in all the referenced materials? Go ahead, read back the references. The American Psychological Association has the membership as you pointed out.

You are just too quick to the draw … I cautioned you about knee jerk replies on my first post to you.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
I am, however its difficult to accept the work of someone who is that academically biased that he believes AIDS is down to homosexuals, promiscuity is a homosexual issue and that homophobia doesn’t impact on people. Sexually transmitted diseases are the homosexual communities issues, they don’t exist in heterosexual relationships. These are hardly opinions based on fact. None of these opinions are empirically justified anywhere. And they simply demonstrate his opinion. When you read his work he comments on papers that in their totality do not advocate his opinion at all.

His support of using psychiatry to “brain wash” people away from homosexual thoughts is fundamentally wrong. When would this ever be appropriate? Should we use psychiatry to convince people to be Catholic? Would this be appropriate?

So the mental health professional with whom the Vatican is in consultation and for whom it has high esteem is biased? Are you saying your being a psychologist precludes you from opening your mind to views outside what the dominant faction among psychiatrists and psychologists now espouse?

You conclude wrongly that what is being postured here is that we should use psychiatry to convince people to be Catholic. What I postured is there is a way to live one’s faith while pursuing a profession or in the course of one’s occupation. For instance, Catholic nurses who take their calling to be a nurse and as a member of the Catholic faith seriously do not participate in any abortion procedure.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

— the APA is not the publishers of all peer reviewed academic journals. This is a very naive perception and completely misleading. Academic journals DO NOT need APA approval for any of its content.
…

/QUOTE

Okay, let me rephrase:

The APA Committee, as you know, decides which researches get peer reviewed, which leads to researches and position papers being published.
,

 

[essie7777]

So the mental health professional with whom the Vatican is in consultation and for whom it has high esteem is biased? ,

Dr Fitzgibbons is not a consultant to the Congregation for the Clergy based on his beliefs on homosexuality. He is a consultant because of his Institute of Marriage Healing and thework on forgiveness in marriage. That is his area of expertise and knowledge that the Congregation of the Clergy consult with him on.

Suggesting that the Vatican supports his beliefs on homosexuality is simply ridiculous and totally unsupported. Especially when you only need to read the words of the Catholic Church teachings and especially the works of the Pope, both present and past, to show that these Church does not support in any way what Dr Fitzgibbons says on homosexuality.

Are you saying your being a psychologist precludes you from opening your mind to views outside what the dominant faction among psychiatrists and psychologists now espouse?

Wow – not sure how you conclude this as it has never been said or suggested …simply maybe because you are desperate to make my opinion unfounded?

I am open to your point of view – i simply can not accept that your point of view should be the basis of cruel behavior to label a person as mentally ill because they are attracted to same sex. Please don’t even insult my intelligence by suggesting this isn’t cruel.

In the US your medical records and especially diagnosis of a mental health disease are available to employers, disclosed to rent a house for example. This “brand” you want to give people can follow them their whole live. It’s discriminatory. Your suggestion is cruel and prejudiced. You want to punish people. However your opinion is just that, an opinion. The Church does not advocate this, at all. The Church does advocate that you don’t discriminate.

“Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” CCC 2358

It really is very simply – you want me to as a professional accept that the attraction to same sex is a medically diagnosis-able mental disease --PROVE that it has abnormal psychopathology and exhibits maladjusted issues with interaction in society. Unfortunately for you and Dr Fitzgibbons this has never been done BECAUSE its not a disease.

It doesn’t matter how much rhetoric you put behind your opinion, this desire and behavior to make it a mental health disease is still against the Catholic Church, and that’s what i am uncomfortable with.

You conclude wrongly that what is being postured here is that we should use psychiatry to convince people to be Catholic.

Your response is based on the content as to why i find it difficult to accept Dr Fitzgibbons as a person from which to base my opinions and beliefs … you seem to have chosen not to answer the questions i actually put, but rather to go with something else entirely. I have repeated them below again:

“His support of using psychiatry to “brain wash” people away from homosexual thoughts is fundamentally wrong. When would this ever be appropriate? Should we use psychiatry to convince people to be Catholic? Would this be appropriate?”

As you can tell i use the second question to put the first into perspective for you. Please answer them rather than rewrite what i said.

What I postured is there is a way to live one’s faith while pursuing a profession or in the course of one’s occupation. For instance, Catholic nurses who take their calling to be a nurse and as a member of the Catholic faith seriously do not participate in any abortion procedure.

Absolutely – and as you have yet to offer anything but rhetoric for your position on this issue, whereas the Catholic faith position is determined by the Church. My position on this issue is in full accordance to those teachings. I am therefore unsure why you need to suggest that i need to know this.

 

[essie7777]

This may be off-topic so I’ll make this comment very short. But I always thought that kleptomania is a mental disorder because I found it in the Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders (minddisorders.com/Kau-Nu/Kleptomania.html#b), as well as in the DSM (behavenet.com/capsules//disorders/kleptomaniadis.htm). The second link also said that this is not better accounted for by conduct disorder. So, the DSM does not agree with you?

Actually, i am not sure how to put this without being perceived as rude, so i am simply going to state upfront this is not meant to cause offense.

Basically you are misreading what you have linked here. The two posts sustain and agree with my statement that it is a maladjusted social behavior. It does fall under the umbrella of conduct disorder, and what you incorrectly interpret from the second link is simply based on lack of training and experience in using the DSM and the diagnostic complexities. The link is to the end of a two page diagnostic guideline for kleptomania. Your specific reference point is actually a diagnostic criteria question which must be answered – so it doesn’t state that it isn’t a conduct disorder, simply that you need to be sure that it fulfills the diagnosis of kleptomania rather than not just conduct disorder but a manic episode or antisocial personality disorder.

Layman use of the DSM is not recommended because of this type of mis interpretation:

"The DSM-IV-TR states, because it is produced for the completion of federal legislative mandates, its use by people without clinical training can lead to inappropriate application of its contents. Appropriate use of the diagnostic criteria is said to require extensive clinical training, and its contents “cannot simply be applied in a cookbook fashion”.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders

You are right. I am not a doctor, so I am using layman’s language most of the time. And I don’t really care what you call homosexuality - a personality disorder, a conduct disorder, a mental disorder, or whatever disorder. As long as you recognize that it is a disorder and not normal, then we have something in common. I am here not talking of the homosexual act, because we both agree that it is a moral disorder (or sin). I am talking of the simple fact of being sexually attracted to another person of the same sex. The Church says that this inclination is objectively disordered. I believe so, too. What about you, how do you stand on that? I know that you don’t think that this is a mental disorder. But do you think it is just another form of disorder, or do you think it is perfectly normal? That is the question.

I think and believe that the attraction to same sex is not in line with my Catholic beliefs of couples and marriages and raising children. It is not however a mental illness of any description.

I believe that any person including homosexuals should live according to the moral teachings of the Catholic Church, and if they don’t then they are in “objective disorder” with the Church.

They need to be offered a route back to the grace of God. And the only place to find the answer is through God, and through the Catholic Church. (Though this is the same if a person is heterosexual for that matter).

Does that answer your question?

 

[rom422]

I think and believe that the attraction to same sex is not in line with my Catholic beliefs of couples and marriages and raising children. It is not however a mental illness of any description.

I believe that any person including homosexuals should live according to the moral teachings of the Catholic Church, and if they don’t then they are in “objective disorder” with the Church.

They need to be offered a route back to the grace of God. And the only place to find the answer is through God, and through the Catholic Church. (Though this is the same if a person is heterosexual for that matter).

Does that answer your question?

No, Essie, you did not answer my question. And the whole world knows it again. Because I did not ask you about homosexuals who don’t live according to the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. Those homosexuals are called sinners. And we both agree on that. So, I’ll rephrase and simplify the question for you: The CCC said that homosexual inclinations, - or feelings of sexual attraction toward a person of the same sex, - are objectively disordered. Do you agree?

 

[Nate13]

No, Essie, you did not answer my question. And the whole world knows it again. Because I did not ask you about homosexuals who don’t live according to the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. Those homosexuals are called sinners. And we both agree on that. So, I’ll rephrase and simplify the question for you: The CCC said that homosexual inclinations, - or feelings of sexual attraction toward a person of the same sex, - are objectively disordered. Do you agree?

We could also say that concupiscence is objectively disordered, correct?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
Your ONE article is about ONE event in 20 years of work before the removal from the DSM. You are hooking your defense on one article written based not on being there but on their opinion as a granddaughter of the person who put the resolution to the vote.
…
There is no basis for what you are saying apart from the clearly biased opinion of one person’s granddaughter, who clearly from her own work on this has a issue with her grandfather’s homosexuality. Her opinion is just that, and it is so clearly biased.

You skipped the other sources I cited. You also failed to appreciate the reason I provided the 81 Words link, which is to portray what really happened in the removal of the diagnosis of homosexuality as a disorder from the DSM, from an insider perspective. Alix Spiegel, if you actually read the transcript, interviewed not just her granddad Dr. John Spiegel, but also the APA movers and shakers then, including Dr. Charles Socarides, Dr. Robert Spitzer, and Dr. Ronald Bayer of GAYPA.

In Alix’s words:

*This is the story of a definition. Three single sentences composed of 81 words. It’s the story of how this particular definition became another definition, nine sentences, composed of 237 words. Now according to some parties, this change-- from 81 words to 237 words-- liberated an entire category of humanity. According to other parties, it undermined the basic family unit, compromised the scientific authority of psychiatry, and quote “tampered with the basic code and concept of life.” [italics mine]
…
My family always told me that my grandfather single-handedly changed the DSM. But what’s striking is all the different forces that had to be in place in order to make this happen. It took both Evelyn Hooker and Dr. Anonymous, John P. Spiegel and Ronald Gold. People on the outside, people on the inside, and people at every point in between.

The change happened partly through scientific debate, and partly, simply because psychiatrists got to know gay men.
*
I take issue with this part of your post

Your continued statements of the openly gay and lesbian members is so far from the truth it becomes laughable. You have no evidence for this.

This approach makes it too easy for those arguing for homosexual rights in society as it demonstrates a position to ignore what you don’t want to see. This only serves to alienate and turn people away from what you are trying to say.

You are confused about what we are debating (history of the removal of the diagnosis, not my position or yours on homosexual rights) and your argumentation is bordering on ad hominem attacks. I want our homosexual brothers to have rights in society, but I will not sign on to same sex ‘marriage’ and parenting/adoption! I happen to have a homosexual sibling who led an openly gay lifestyle for a decade. He was not shunned by me and my family during and after that period of his life.

Now, in considering

These comments ignore the fundamental basis for inclusion of a condition in the DSM. Basically, it needs to have provable psychopathology and evident examples of maladjustment in society. Homosexuality itself does not fit the criteria at all. People who are homosexual do not have a psychopathology different to heterosexuals, they are not incapable of functioning in society. No evidence has ever been provided to sustain this culturally biased opinion. Hence its removal.

The evidence for psychopathology and functional maladjustment for people who struggle with their sexual orientation is extensive, however it is not empirically distinguishable between homosexuals and heterosexuals, hence its inclusions. As people suffering from this cross both groups. It is not a homosexual issue.

Perhaps it is only appropriate to re-classify and/or remove the diagnosis if there were or are really unbiased, agenda free studies, from funding to formulation of interview questions to sampling to execution to people who are actually doing the survey. Is this possible? In considering the substance of a number of materials, I do not think that the APA should have been forced by the gay psychiatrists and activists, choosing for convenience the Hooker and Kinsey studies as justification.

Since the etiology of homosexuality is still unknown other than there is a list of probabilities and that there was no gay gene discovered even after DNA has been mapped, how about NOC or “not otherwise classified” disorder that the APA leadership could have considered instead of outright removal? How about being neutral instead of serving as an advocacy profession for homosexuality?

The Church, which has looked to psychiatry in the past for its own issues on homosexuality and hebephilia / ephebophilia, appears content to say that the psychological genesis of homosexuality remains largely unexplained.

I don’t think there is anything wrong for experts even in the mental health profession to admit it does not know and cannot point to a pathology.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

[con’t of post to essie777]

I notice you have no comment and rebuttal to the other eventsand actions taking place in the 20 years before its removal from the DSM: the task force which was for keeping it in the DSM until faced with facts, the tested research that proved Hooker and Kinsey original results, the research that changed the populations of participants to settle disagreement with the results based on this issue…all of this concluded empirically the same as Hooker’s did. . This suggests you discount it as you have no basis to refute it.

No basis? I already provided you a few on the Hooker study. As for the Kinsey original study being an empirical conclusion, please read this from CAF tract on Homosexuality. You know, Catholic Answers, this site, to which you signed up as a member?

It stems from the 1948 report by Alfred Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. The study was profoundly flawed, as later psychologists studying sexual behavior have agreed. Kinsey’s subjects were drawn heavily from convicted criminals; 1,400 of his 5,300 final subjects (twenty-six percent) were convicted sex offenders—a group that by definition is not representative of normal sexual practices.

Furthermore, the ten percent figure includes people who are not exclusively homosexual but who only engaged in some homosexual behavior for a period of time and then stopped—people who had gone through a fully or partially homosexual “phase” but who were not long-term homosexuals. (For a critique of Kinsey’s research methods, see Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud, by Dr. Judith Reisman and Edward Eichel [Lafayette, Louisiana: Lochinvar & Huntington House, 1990].)

Here’s another: Talking About Sex Kinsey Style

The oft-repeated claim that 10 percent of the population is homosexual -“a cornerstone of the ‘gay’ rights movement” - comes directly from Kinsey’s published research.

Perhaps most unsettling of all were his claims that children are sexual from birth, and that youngsters as young as a few months of age have the capacity for a pleasurable and healthy sexual life (David Kupelian, Selling sex in the U.S.A., WorldNetDaily.com).

Kinsey’s findings have been credited with the tumultuous sexual revolution of the 60s and its disastrous after-effects-legalized abortion; premarital sex; marriage breakdown and divorce; child illegitimacy and unwed mothers; pornography; pedophilia; homosexuality, STDs, etc. Kinsey set out to change America’s sex laws and he succeeded, so much so that those industries and persons who have relied on Kinsey’s research results for their own legitimacy are loathe to admit that Kinsey was a fake, a deviant sexual psychopath who should have been incarcerated along with his active collaborators for this shameful, illegal manipulation of children, and for passing fraudulent findings to the influential fields of medicine, education, psychiatry, psychology, and even the criminal justice system.
…

Kinsey’s death

Alfred Kinsey’s death was due, at least partly, to his sexual proclivities. Reisman describes it thus: “An early adherent and advocate of masturbation, Kinsey suffered an untimely death due, at least in part, to ‘orachitis,’ a lethal infection in his testicles that followed years of sadistic, orgiastic ‘self-abuse.’ Kinsey’s obsessive, brutally masochistic masturbation methods appear to have assisted in his early demise” (Kupelian, p. 11).

Kinsey debunked, again

Washington-A subcommittee of the American Legislative Council (ALEC) has released a report on the “junk science” of sexologist Dr. Alfred Kinsey. Released in late April 2004, the report, State Factor, was commissioned “because of widespread use of ‘junk’ science to misdirect legislatures, courts, and education,” as a result of Kinsey’s fraudulent research and findings.

Intended as a reference for legislators, the report provided them “with history and current information. for any informed understanding of many public issues crucial to the protection of America’s families and young people.” (The Wanderer, June 24, 2004).

 

[essie7777]

No, Essie, you did not answer my question. And the whole world knows it again. Because I did not ask you about homosexuals who don’t live according to the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. Those homosexuals are called sinners. And we both agree on that. So, I’ll rephrase and simplify the question for you: The CCC said that homosexual inclinations, - or feelings of sexual attraction toward a person of the same sex, - are objectively disordered. Do you agree?

Spiritually yes, as a mental health disease no.

 

[Nate13]

Spiritually yes, as a mental health disease no.

Natural law is not a “spiritual” construct. Homosexual attraction, whatever the cause, is contradictory to natural law and the obvious purposes of our bodies. In other words something has gone wrong; is disordered. If everyone was solely attracted to the opposite sex we would die out, unless artificial means were used to make things work. It cannot get any clearer than that.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
Wow – not sure how you conclude this as it has never been said or suggested …simply maybe because you are desperate to make my opinion unfounded?

I am open to your point of view – i simply can not accept that your point of view should be the basis of cruel behavior to label a person as mentally ill because they are attracted to same sex. Please don’t even insult my intelligence by suggesting this isn’t cruel.

In the US your medical records and especially diagnosis of a mental health disease are available to employers, disclosed to rent a house for example. This “brand” you want to give people can follow them their whole live. It’s discriminatory. Your suggestion is cruel and prejudiced. You want to punish people. However your opinion is just that, an opinion. The Church does not advocate this, at all. The Church does advocate that you don’t discriminate.

It really is very simply – you want me to as a professional accept that the attraction to same sex is a medically diagnosis-able mental disease --PROVE that it has abnormal psychopathology and exhibits maladjusted issues with interaction in society. Unfortunately for you and Dr Fitzgibbons this has never been done BECAUSE its not a disease.

It doesn’t matter how much rhetoric you put behind your opinion, this desire and behavior to make it a mental health disease is still against the Catholic Church, and that’s what i am uncomfortable with.
…

Actually, it is you who sound desperate and shrill.

Show me where I said or indicated that homosexuality is or should be a mentally diagnoseable disease and that I want you to discriminate or I approve any cruel and discriminatory behavior towards homosexuals.

Your post is uncharitable.
,

 

[Michael19682]

In the US your medical records and especially diagnosis of a mental health disease are available to employers, disclosed to rent a house for example. This “brand” you want to give people can follow them their whole live. It’s discriminatory. Your suggestion is cruel and prejudiced. You want to punish people. However your opinion is just that, an opinion. The Church does not advocate this, at all. The Church does advocate that you don’t discriminate.

If you are from the English Isles, then you should understand that this statement in bold on US laws and customs is complete RUBBISH!
We have here very explicit laws and customs (though NOT in the sense of OT customs, uh hum) prohibiting disclosure of medical records to employers or any others without the voluntary consent of the patient. I just recently rented an apartment in a multiple unit dwelling and experienced no discrimination at all - however, the law was violated in that I was asked what my disability is and was insulted and harassed because a portion of my income derives from disability insurance.
When one thinks about it in the context of law, giving a person with homosexuality a diagnosis can actually serve to shield them from much discrimination; we also have here in the US crimes categorized at hate crimes, which mandate extra sentencing time upon ‘the perps’ and were enacted with the ostensible purpose of making a legal testament against the old and barbaric ways of treating people who have been cruelly marginalized by society.

 

[essie7777]

… snipped for spaceYou skipped the other sources I cited…

I read everything you posted, however i don’t read ignoring the flaws. i asked you about them, you failed to answer.

Seriously you offered three citations -two were on the same content alex Spiegel’s and one you failed to answer my questions on – as his comments are jumbled and inconsistant showing a lack of knowledge about statistics and he himself is listed as LITERATURE professor…i asked if this is the wrong person redirect me to the right one. Strangely you never bothered to?

With Alix Speigel’s artcle and content you are guilty of what you accuse the homosexuals of doing, hanging your argument on one flawed article. No matter how many times you try to force the point from her own account, she has an agenda --her grandfather’s homosexual relationships - which is clouding her sperception. This is not a factually evidenced discussion at all.

I take issue with this part of your post …You are confused about what we are debating (history of the removal of the diagnosis, not my position or yours on homosexual rights) and your argumentation is bordering on ad hominem attacks.

I am not confused at all. You continously state the gay psychiatrists (quote from further along this post to prove it) are responsible for the change. It is unsubstantiated and ridiculously narrow minded.

I do not think that the APA should have been forced by the gay psychiatrists and activists

You have failed to consider any of the history which disputes your assertion that your perception is incorrect. There was 20 years of research, numerous studies, task forces with out spoken opponents of the change on (who ultimately die to the PROOF agreed with the change) all of which combined to change the inclusion. Because you have an article that says it was done in one meeting you are ignoring the tide of opinion which was already impacting and being listened to by the members of the APA.

I want our homosexual brothers to have rights in society, but I will not sign on to same sex ‘marriage’ and parenting/adoption! I happen to have a homosexual sibling who led an openly gay lifestyle for a decade. He was not shunned by me and my family during and after that period of his life

No where have i suggested you sign off on homosexual marriage or adoption – so not sure where you got this from! Nor have i suggested you don’t want to give them rights in society.

I have clearly, more than once said your argument for inclusion of homosexuality in the DSM as a mental health disease is wrong, uncharitable, prejudiced and not founded on empirical data but homophobic cultural discrimination of the time.

Perhaps it is only appropriate to re-classify and/or remove the diagnosis if there were or are really unbiased, agenda free studies, from funding to formulation of interview questions to sampling to execution to people who are actually doing the survey. Is this possible?

Welcome to peer review and academic research. This is what it does. Hence the studies need to be examined tested retested, expanded et al. The problem you have though, is those who share your assertion haven’t done this at all. They offer no proof, no peer reviewed research that-- nothing but the fact they say so.

And the research, tested and re-tested and challenged as above firmly agrees with the conclusion homosexuality is not a mental health disease as it does NOT demonstrate a psychopathology maladjustment criteria.

You simply refuse to accept this because it does not agree with your position.

Since the etiology of homosexuality is still unknown other than there is a list of probabilities and that there was no gay gene discovered even after DNA has been mapped, how about NOC or “not otherwise classified” disorder that the APA leadership could have considered instead of outright removal? How about being neutral instead of serving as an advocacy profession for homosexuality?

The APA and the DSM do not listed everything that may one day be considered this is the most bizarre suggestion. The whole point is that it lists what can be proven and diagnosised. You’re forgetting the purpose of the DSM is your zealous push to argue your position. It is not a “everyone use to see what mental health could be” book. It is the “federally recognized criteria for diagnosis of established mental health disease/disorders” book.

Let me ask you this, if the DSM included Catholicism as a mental health conduct disorder, based on the cultural perception that we are all a little bit odd, old fashioned, disconnected from the "real(secular) world, refusing to accept the “norm” of society (please note not my beliefs ) would you be so insistent then that the old content remain included because maybe they’ll prove it later?

This is in essence what you are suggesting for homosexuality.

The Church, which has looked to psychiatry in the past for its own issues on homosexuality and hebephilia / ephebophilia, appears content to say that the psychological genesis of homosexuality remains largely unexplained.

I don’t think there is anything wrong for experts even in the mental health profession to admit it does not know and cannot point to a pathology.

Aren’t you missing the point --this is exactly what they have done. In a book which contains evidence based disease and disorders, where there is no evidence they have excluded it. The DSM is not a list of suggestions its a list of provable, tested, empirically based (ie research as explained above) diagnosises.

 

[essie7777]

If you are from the English Isles, then you should understand that this statement in bold on US laws and customs is complete RUBBISH!
We have here very explicit laws and customs (though NOT in the sense of OT customs, uh hum) prohibiting disclosure of medical records to employers or any others without the voluntary consent of the patient. I just recently rented an apartment in a multiple unit dwelling and experienced no discrimination at all - however, the law was violated in that I was asked what my disability is and was insulted and harassed because a portion of my income derives from disability insurance.

Your post demonstrates the point i was making … a diagnosis is used as an excuse to mistread people.

Additionally if you apply for a job and do not declare when asked if you have a medical disease, mental or not, usually wrapped in questions about insurance, lets me honest the liklihood of getting past a paper sift is very very low. Thats discrimination as well.

So the more you examine what you say the more the reality of my point is further proven.

When one thinks about it in the context of law, giving a person with homosexuality a diagnosis can actually serve to shield them from much discrimination; we also have here in the US crimes categorized at hate crimes, which mandate extra sentencing time upon ‘the perps’ and were enacted with the ostensible purpose of making a legal testament against the old and barbaric ways of treating people who have been cruelly marginalized by society.

I don’t think this in anyway is true as i’m pretty sure there isn’t a DSM mental health criteria for being a woman or African-american or blind or native american or illegal immigrants or … you can see the list could go on. The point all of these were and even are marginalized by society even today.

So trying to suggest that DSM inclusion of homosexuality is actually a social kindness is and protects them is beyond bizarre and not at all befitting any modern society.

 

[Michael19682]

essie7777:

Additionally if you apply for a job and do not declare when asked if you have a medical disease, mental or not, usually wrapped in questions about insurance, lets me honest the liklihood of getting past a paper sift is very very low. Thats discrimination as well.

In our country one is asked such a question in violation of the law. How can you be so uninformed of the law? Is one of your purposes on these forums to alter the course of US lawmaking and interpretations by the courts? I saw in another of your posts that you denied being a lawyer sounding out Catholic opinion. Is this true?

So the more you examine what you say the more the reality of my point is further proven.

Your point cannot be further proven, as it has not been proven as of yet.

I don’t think this in anyway is true as i’m pretty sure there isn’t a DSM mental health criteria for being a woman or African-american or blind or native american or illegal immigrants or … you can see the list could go on. The point all of these were and even are marginalized by society even today.

These categories you mention are protected by other statutory sections.

So trying to suggest that DSM inclusion of homosexuality is actually a social kindness is and protects them is beyond bizarre and not at all befitting any modern society

.

The law prohibits discrimination. And it was definitely suggested as a form of social kindness. I noted also that you did not attempt to refute my informal citation of US laws; that was very unwise - as to do so would have exposed the fraudulency of attempting to make legitimate a moral law that has been accepted by all for as long as history has had any sense; and we all need to be on the side of truth.

 

[essie7777]

@Michael19682

Your post is riddled with inconsistency, on one hand you state that marginalized populations of society are protected by “other statutory section” ( i presume here you are not referring to the DSM) and then in your following point you suggest its human kindness to discriminate and label someone mentally ill if there are a population marginalized by society, homosexual.

I have no idea what you are actually trying to say at all as it makes little sense … you experienced discrimination in your earlier post than naively state discrimination is illegal as if that stops it. You yourself have proven it doesn’t prevent it, so why expose others to this unnecessarily?

In respect to US laws and practices, i have lived here permantly for over 3 years and worked here and abroad for Us companies for my whole career - over 14 years, so yes i do know whats on forms for employment. If you apply for a job you can be asked to give permission for your medical record to be accessed as deemed necessary by the employer, usually as stated for jobs with benefits including insurance. Applying for a house/apartment you can be asked do you have a medical condition for health and safety reasons… not fully disclosing the information becomes a potential legal lawsuit for you if you are found out to have omitted information on legal forms.

And as your previous post demonstrates you are asked to declare income and can be further questioned on it as you were and mistreated. Hardly appropriate behavior is it? So i am unsure how you can use an example of your medical history/conditions being a label and issue in normal everyday life and then say oh but it doesn’t happen there are strict laws! (i am paraphrasing here)

If having an analytic approach to topics suggests i am a lawyer i would argue you need to meet more people. To me it makes perfect sense to know all sides of a discussion before i make my own opinion, therefore ensuring that i am not narrow-minded or completely biases. It helps to defend my point of view if i can intelligently understand the opposite point of view. So, no i am not a lawyer --and how this is at all relevant is beyond me.

 

[Michael19682]

@Michael19682

Your post is riddled with inconsistency, on one hand you state that marginalized populations of society are protected by “other statutory section” ( i presume here you are not referring to the DSM) and then in your following point you suggest its human kindness to discriminate and label someone mentally ill if there are a population marginalized by society, homosexual.

The DSM protects people from discrimination in different ways than the Law does. The DSM can be used as a basis for one or more physicians rendering a medical opinion. That opinion can become a kind of law, but any subsequent physician examining the same patient can in effect change that law. I don’t actually know that a crime against a mentally ill person is grounds for prosecution of a hate crime.
So yes, it is human kindness to protect someone; even if that means throwing them in jail to get them out of harms way! For someone being persecuted by Them, a well secured and guarded jail is likely a safer abode than the streets.

I have no idea what you are actually trying to say at all as it makes little sense … you experienced discrimination in your earlier post than naively state discrimination is illegal as if that stops it. You yourself have proven it doesn’t prevent it, so why expose others to this unnecessarily?

I did not note in this example being discriminated against. I said I was harassed and asked an illegal question. I got the apartment. I do not wish to make a mountain out of a molehill.

… not fully disclosing the information becomes a potential legal lawsuit for you if you are found out to have omitted information on legal forms.

Lying has temporal as well as moral consequences. You know that already.

And as your previous post demonstrates you are asked to declare income and can be further questioned on it as you were and mistreated.

Mistreatment does not prove discrimination. It proves either a malicious spirit or incompetent soul. Possibly even mere anger.

If having an analytic approach to topics suggests i am a lawyer i would argue you need to meet more people. To me it makes perfect sense to know all sides of a discussion before i make my own opinion,

It seemed as though you have not wavered one iota from your initial opinion; which suggests that you believe yourself in possession of a morally one-sided truth. That may be true since there is hopefully a line of demarcation between truth and falsehood. But if that latter is true (the absolute line), how does it make a discussion such as this one polygonal?

So, no i am not a lawyer --and how this is at all relevant is beyond me.