Is Homosexuality Biologically Determined?/New Insight into Research

[InSearchofGrace]

So, I have never understood why exactly does it matter to people of faith if Homosexuality/ same sex attraction is caused by “nature or nurture”. Church teaching is pretty clear on the matter.
…

Nature or Nurture? Who Cares!!!

Thanks for sharing that wonderful post.

**This is the crux of the issue: for Catholics, homosexual activity is very wrong, and is separate, or includes more wrong with it, from heterosexual fornication. The inclination is “disordered” in that it is not ordered to the purpose of the act (procreation).
**
So, already we are at odds with the APA, in that they, against scientific findings (as outlined in the article), put forth that homosexual inclinations are OK.

You keep emphasizing that pedophilia also involves children, and of course that is yet another and horrendous wrong attached to acting out on the inclination. Let me first clarify that I am using pedophilia to refer to an almost or entirely exclusive sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children, as does the APA.

**You say that diagnosed pedophiles exhibit signs of mental illness apart from their attraction. **Since I have so often heard of the surprise people have upon hearing that So-and-so is a pedophile (which may have a looser meaning), it strikes me that pedophiles, too, may fall under the description of homosexuals as people who, other than their disordered inclination, do not necessarily show signs of mental illness.

[bolding added]

Indeed! Homosexuality and pedophilia belong in the spectrum of disorder, no matter how much homosexualists with the help of the mental health profession are trying to put distance between the two. Consent ability and law implications have become the sole boundaries to what is disordered (pedophilia) and not (homosexuality).

The profession may no longer classify homosexuality as a mental disorder, but it (homosexuality) continues to be associated with mental disorder. What is being advanced now is that stigma is the reason that many homosexuals manifest more depression, suicide ideation, drug use, etc. A claim without empirical evidence, that is, which the author of the article has pointed out, his words below:
Social stigma is the popular explanation, both in scientific studies and in mass media, for heightened psychological distress among homosexuals. The possibility that the orientation and all it entails cuts against a fundamental, gender-based given of the human condition, thus creating distress, is not raised. The correlation between social stigma and psychological problem is real, but the empirical case for the first causing the second has yet to be made. This has not stopped advocates, however, from battling alleged stigma by increasingly framing all “anti-gay sentiment” as a form of prejudice. This has led to the creation of new terminology: No matter how congruent with the scientific evidence, any belief that homosexuality is not a normal and positive variant of human sexuality is a manifestation of “homophobia” and “heterosexism,” a symptom of destructive “master narratives of normativity” (of which “heteronormativity” is a part).

The definition of “disordered” as I understand it is “it doesn’t work the way it’s supposed to.” We know that sexual attraction has a purpose: to find one a mate with complementary biological sexual characteristics for the sake of creating new human life. Both homosexuals and pedophiles, then, are aroused by persons to whom they biologically ought not to be attracted – neither children nor persons of the same sex are biologically appropriate objects for sexual desire, as they both lack complementary biological sexual characteristics for the sake of creating new human life – therefore the sexualities of homosexuals and pedophiles do not work the way they are supposed to, hence their sexualities are disordered. To say otherwise is to suggest that there is some sort of biological purpose served by a person’s sexual attraction to a child or to a person of the same sex, when clearly there is not.

See, what I hear you saying is that a pedophile’s desire to have sex with a child is not something intrinsically disordered – i.e., it is only because such an act would be damaging to the child that pedophilia constitutes a mental illness or sexual disorder, but the desire itself is a legitimate and normal biological expression of human sexuality.

You and St Francis did a nice job in unpacking the “disorder” and “mental illness” boxes to clarity, to the benefit of members in this forum, who wish to understand the mental health profession’s stand.

It would seem that the critique by featured author Stanton Jones should convince more Catholics in the mental profession field to step away from APA to join those who bucked the direction that they have taken the study of homosexuality.

From a thoughtful layperson’s view, the mental health profession could have stopped at the change or refinement of the diagnosis to ego-dystonic homosexual attraction so therapy can still continue for those who seek management of their unwanted same sex attraction. But the organization moved all the way to dropping the diagnosis from the DSM altogether and embrace of the “scientific finding” that expression of homosexual attraction is normal, something to be encouraged. The APA has taken a very inappropriate and extreme position of gay advocacy, to the point of signing onto the movement’s objective of legalizing same sex ‘marriage’ and adoption by homosexual couples. These are radical experiments projected to harm the future of society, with impact not to be realized for another generation or two.
,

 

[mpartyka]

Can you supply a scientific paper that supports your last paragraph?

Here is how the American Psychiatric Association defines Pedophilia:

dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=186

Thanks, that’s very helpful. The link says that a person can be diagnosed with pedophilia if these three conditions are met:

A. Over a period of at least six months, recurrent and intense sexual arousal from prepubescent or early pubescent children, as manifested by fantasies, urges, behaviors, or extensive use of pornography depicting children of this age.

B. The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

C. The person is at least age 18 years and at least five years older than the children in Criterion A or Criterion B.

So a person who has the desire to have sex with children, however strong, but doesn’t act on it or allow it to affect how he/she functions in other areas of his/her life, is not a pedophile and does not have a mental disorder? In other words, a person can see a six-year-old and want to bend him/her over a desk, but so far as the APA is concerned, that alone indicates nothing wrong with that person worthy of being called a “disorder”?

I’m not arguing against this definition, only pointing out that this is a very clinical and detached definition that seems only to categorize a certain kind of behavior rather than mark what underlies the behavior as either inside or outside the norm of human design, and for this reason I don’t see why homosexuality could not also be classified a mental disorder simply by changing part A to read “recurrent and intense sexual arousal from persons of the same sex, as manifested by fantasies, urges, behaviors, or extensive use of pornography depicting same-sex models” and dropping part C.

Indeed, by this definition of pedophilia, one could argue that certain people can be classified as pedophiles only because society by fiat said, “For a 23-year-old to want to have sex with a 17-year-old is just wrong,” and invented a mental disorder to cover this behavior they didn’t like. That’s rather frightening. There is nothing so biologically different between a 17-year-old and an 18-year-old that should make it valid from any objective biological frame of reference for someone 23 or older to desire sex with the latter and not with the former, such that acting in the latter case is just fine but acting in the former case is indicative of a disorder. Whereas in the case of prepubescent children, there is an objective biological standard that says, “A prepubescent child – being yet incapable of reproduction – isn’t biologically ready for sex, and for that reason no one should want to have sex with that child.” And for the same reason one can objectively say, “A man isn’t biologically capable of reproduction with another man, nor a woman with another woman, and for that reason no man should want to have sex with another man, nor a woman with another woman.”

(Please note that I personally believe that people should be considered children until the age of 18 grants them adult status, and children should for no reason be legally permitted to have sex, nor should anyone who is an adult of any age be legally permitted to have sex with a child of any age. But this is based not really on biological considerations but simply on the social distinction between childhood, with its limited rights and privileges, and adulthood, with its expanded rights and privileges, and my feeling that our society would benefit most from a clear distinction between the two categories, especially as pertains to sex. In addition to this primary rule – “no sex before age 18, period” – I also add the biology-based objections stated above.)

I hope I am being clearer now. I do not view pedophilia to be a mental disorder because it hurts children or because society finds it revolting or because it could adversely affect other areas of a pedophile’s life. I view pedophilia to be a mental disorder because it is the desire to do something that by design – i.e., according to objective biology, not subjective morality – human beings ought not to desire. And the same thing goes for homosexuality. If it’s not the job of the APA and/or the DSM to classify behaviors as disorders according to objective biological standards alone, then perhaps I’m asking the APA and/or the DSM to do something it isn’t intended to do.

 

[maplebug55]

Your comment about heterosexuals living together has no bearing on the topic.

Peace,
Ed

As do many OTHER comments on here.

 

[maplebug55]

The community must consider them patients and must provide treatment for their cases not helping them to live in their disease and consider them normal being.

Good Luck with that!

 

[essie7777]

This is the crux of the issue: for Catholics, homosexual activity is very wrong, and is separate, or includes more wrong with it, from heterosexual fornication. The inclination is “disordered” in that it is not ordered to the purpose of the act (procreation).

This is a moral basis not scientific. The use of the word disorder here is not a medical term --trying to use it as such is fundamentally false. As the article very clearly states its time Christians and conservative started approaching this issue without trying to make homosexuality something it isn’t.

So, already we are at odds with the APA, in that they, against scientific findings (as outlined in the article), put forth that homosexual inclinations are OK.

You may well be at odds with them … but not on the issue of homosexuality as a mental disease as it has been proven not to be Jones is very emphatic that Hooker’s study was meticulous, empirical, stringent and CORRECT – homosexuality is not a mental disease, and this is where you have taken my comment from that discussion.

Beyond that i am not sure what the issue is here – i have never stated my opinion on this one way or the other. And a moral disagreement with the function of the APA is not the same as trying to create a mental disease where there isn’t one … so i have no issue with not agreeing with the APA.

You keep emphasizing that pedophilia also involves children, and of course that is yet another and horrendous wrong attached to acting out on the inclination. Let me first clarify that I am using pedophilia to refer to an almost or entirely exclusive sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children, as does the APA.

okay i will admit to a little confusion here i used the term children -you used the term pre-pubescent children --why the need to emphasis this; children are children.

There is a huge difference between the non consensual acts made against vulnerable children by adults and consensual relationships between homosexuals.

Trying to draw a parallel is one of those arguments that will as Jones stated:

… exposes us to derision in the public arena and weakens our capacity to engage this issue effectively.

Link here to the article in its fullest.

You say that diagnosed pedophiles exhibit signs of mental illness apart from their attraction.

Actually no what i stated was pedophiles “have distinct pathology and diagnosisable behaviors specific to this group of people”. You have made the leap here in interpreting that this way.

Since I have so often heard of the surprise people have upon hearing that So-and-so is a pedophile (which may have a looser meaning), it strikes me that pedophiles, too, may fall under the description of homosexuals as people who, other than their disordered inclination, do not necessarily show signs of mental illness.

Though that may be your opinion it has been proven by hundreds of studies to be empirically and scientifically incorrect.

 

[essie7777]

Thanks, that’s very helpful. The link says that a person can be diagnosed with pedophilia if these three conditions are met:

Actually it doesn’t say that at all … I would very politely advise than the DSM is designed for trained professional with a number of years experience in this field. You wouldn’t want to have a commercial jet flown by someone who has “read the manual highlights” rather than years of specialized training surely --so why expect to know how to use the DSM without appropriate training

Also two points:

• This is only the proposed amendment which hasn’t been decided on for the NEXT edition of the DSM.
• Most internet definitions from the DSM -include the criteria not the full content from the actual manual. – i haven’t found one yet that does both.

So a person who has the desire to have sex with children, however strong, but doesn’t act on it or allow it to affect how he/she functions in other areas of his/her life, is not a pedophile and does not have a mental disorder? In other words, a person can see a six-year-old and want to bend him/her over a desk, but so far as the APA is concerned, that alone indicates nothing wrong with that person worthy of being called a “disorder”?

Let me ask you a question, say i went through a very bad divorce and fantasied about burying my now ex partner under a wall, or anything else to do with theire early demise … am i a murderer? Obviously not because i didn’t actually do it.

Again you are completely misreading even the proposed DAM criteria as you don’t undertsnad the way the criteria works and what information is provided beyond this list as well.

I’m not arguing against this definition,

Unfortunately you are.

All of your posts are different ways of saying the same thing. Trying so desperately to change FACT, that homosexuality is not a disease is not constructive, effective or even charitable.

I’ll post again from Jones Article the FIRST paragrapgh:

Homosexuality in particular, and sexual orientation, sexual identity and sexuality in general, are enormously complex topics, about which religious and social conservatives are prone to believe a number of falsehoods. This reality exposes us to derision in the public arena and weakens our capacity to engage this issue effectively. These false assertions include that:

• homosexuality is properly understood as a mental illness, and all homosexual persons are deeply psychologically disturbed (even if some are capable of hiding their pathology),
• the homosexual condition is fundamentally a choice, and the flurry of research suggesting genetic or biological causation of homosexuality is a fraud foisted upon the public by pseudo-science,
• all homosexual persons could change their sexual orientation and embrace their intrinsic heterosexuality if they simply willed the choice, or were truly open to pursuing psychological maturity, or truly repented, or truly opened themselves to possibilities of spiritual healing, and
• homosexual relationships are always disordered, unstable, emotionally abusive, or worse, and homosexual parenting is always distorted, abusive, predatory, and narcissistic

.

There comes the point where you simply need to focus on the discussion you can have affect and impact with. The morality of homosexual acts.

Surely it easy to see how trying to force a disease model on homosexuality is futile…it has long been proven that homosexuality is not a mental health disease, no matter how much you want it to be.

Focus this energy on educating and evangelicalising on the immorality of homosexual acts, explain why as Catholics we believe this.

Continuing down the path your are on will only enable people to easily ignore what you are saying as you are building it on a false assumption , see quote above.

Your further comment haven’t been ignored but are not relevant as they are not based on what the DSM says rather what it might say in about a year or so.

If it’s not the job of the APA and/or the DSM to classify behaviors as disorders according to objective biological standards alone, then perhaps I’m asking the APA and/or the DSM to do something it isn’t intended to do

And the post ends with your circular retreat back to the point that YOUR personal opinion conflicts with the scientific empirical results, including studies on “biological standards”.

Please read the Jones article fully – there is NO known biological explanation/cause/root of (any other words you can think of here) for homosexuality – just as there isn’t for heterosexuality.

The article link is again here – this explains all current thought.

 

[essie7777]

I don’t see or understand how that justifies her sampling or choice of subjects.

The thing is other homosexuality studies that pulled from prison and patient population were criticized for not drawing from the general population. But Hooker does the same, except going to the opposite corner by choosing only healthy happy homosexuals to test, weeding out the troubled and psychologically fragile. And her study became a debate ender, taken as a basis to conclude that homosexuality is no longer classifiable as a mental illness?

This is one of the common misunderstandings of what Hooker’s study actually did.

Hooker’s study attacked the myth that homosexuality was a disease model with intrinsic pathology.

Her study needed to exclude any part of the sample which would fall under the banner of being as you yourself state as “not drawing from the general population”. People who exhibited emotional fragility (from the the pre testing and observation) are not the general population. It is more than someone having a bad day per se, and as the general population don’t all have this fragility, in reality a very small percentage do, to debunk the medical model she needed to exclude them.

It makes perfect sense for her study, as Jones, and others have commented. That is why it had such a profound effect, the results have never been disputed, they are robust and stand up to a lot of scrutiny.

Jones may like what Hooker did, but her research shared with the other studies he cited with which he finds issues and it has to do with the problem of sample representatives.
,

I have to disagree with you here on Jones perception of the Hooker study --he doesn’t like it per se …he emphatically respects and wanted to make a point of emulation towards the professional who meticulously built an indisputable empirical study … his issue with sampling is not with Hooker’s study.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Saying Homosexuality is biologically determined would be the same like someone saying that Homosexuality is inherited. I don’t believe this. Homosexuality is a personal Choice.
I believe its the Homosexual Community at large that’s trying hard to convince society from a scientific biological level that certain men and women are born homosexual/lesbian.
My beliefs don’t mean I’m homophobic. Nor does it advocate bias as being against the person-hood of someone who is gay. Any act of sodomy by gays or heterosexuals is an abomination before God.

No. I believe homosexuality is based on a wrong education.
If we know that most of our growth happens within the first 2/4 years, knowing the dozens of variables that may influence character, knowing the 50 % divorce rate of the western world, knowing that 25% of the homes have only the mother raising the children, knowing the importance of the father presence, and I am saying just a few of the negative variables, I wonder how we do not have MORE homosexuality.

 

[St_Francis]

This is a moral basis not scientific. The use of the word disorder here is not a medical term --trying to use it as such is fundamentally false. As the article very clearly states its time Christians and conservative started approaching this issue without trying to make homosexuality something it isn’t.

I was trying, by using quotation marks and the words the CCC uses, to show that I was using the words in a Thomistic sense rather than as medical terms.

The CCC states that “the inclination is disordered.” They are not making a diagnosis, they are stating a truth. I tried to briefly explain that truth and why it was reached as well.

You may well be at odds with them … but not on the issue of homosexuality as a mental disease as it has been proven not to be Jones is very emphatic that Hooker’s study was meticulous, empirical, stringent and CORRECT – homosexuality is not a mental disease, and this is where you have taken my comment from that discussion.

Well, this is what we are trying to figure out. Hooker’s study did not prove that homosexuality is not a mental illness in and of itself; it proved that homosexuals did not necessarily exhibit signs of other, testable psychological problems, and even there, as was shown by the article linked in the previous thread, there actually were problems with the way the test was rated.

Beyond that i am not sure what the issue is here – i have never stated my opinion on this one way or the other. And a moral disagreement with the function of the APA is not the same as trying to create a mental disease where there isn’t one … so i have no issue with not agreeing with the APA.

I think the crux of the problem for me is that I do not understand what all the vague “other criteria” you mention are. What is it, aside from the object of their inclination, that makes pedophilia a mental illness and homosexuality not a mental illness? Is the only reason that we see pedophilia as a mental illness and homosexuality as not a mental illness the idea that since only presumably consenting adults are involved in the latter that it is not a mental disease, or is there some other diagnotic criteria that we don’t know about?

okay i will admit to a little confusion here i used the term children -you used the term pre-pubescent children --why the need to emphasis this; children are children.

Oh, I wasn’t correcting you or anything. I was just clarifying because in other discussions the undefined use of the word became a problem and I wanted to eliminate that at the outset.

There is a huge difference between the non consensual acts made against vulnerable children by adults and consensual relationships between homosexuals.

Yes!!! I totally agree!!! :lightbulb: But the fact that one contains the desire for something *morally * worse does not mean that that the other is different *in kind. *And *that *is what we are trying to understand.

Trying to draw a parallel is one of those arguments that will as Jones stated:

Link here to the article in its fullest.

I forget what you put here, but I know that one is that it “makes [the perpetrator of the horrible crime of questioning the APA] look ignorant.” And frankly, I thinknit’s insulting to insinuate that people with a thought-out idea which differs from the APA are considered more ignorant than a dope-smoking high school drop-out who happens to agree with the APA and the homosexual activists.

Actually no what i stated was pedophiles “have distinct pathology and diagnosisable behaviors specific to this group of people”. You have made the leap here in interpreting that this way.

Yes, you have mentioned the “distinct patholgy and diagnosable behaviors” and we want to know what they are.

Though that may be your opinion it has been proven by hundreds of studies to be empirically and scientifically incorrect.

I don’t actually have an opinion at this point. What I am trying to do is learn why the APA holds the idea it holds. This means understanding the parameters of what is considered a mental illness and why. At this point, I have outlined my understanding of what the APA thinks, but the logic behind the APA’s thinking escapes me.

Jones outlined in his articles the deficiency of current scientific thought about homosexuality, and there have been so many problems with so many of the studies that I am not really swayed by appeals to their authority.

 

[essie7777]

Indeed! Homosexuality and pedophilia belong in the spectrum of disorder, no matter how much homosexualists with the help of the mental health profession are trying to put distance between the two. Consent ability and law implications have become the sole boundaries to what is disordered (pedophilia) and not (homosexuality).

If you are talking about morality as the basis yes, if not you are perpetuating the falsehood that homosexuality is a disease then not at all as it has been proven that homosexuality is not a disease or mental health illness.

The profession may no longer classify homosexuality as a mental disorder, but it (homosexuality) continues to be associated with mental disorder.

Rewording the sentiment does not hide the fact the your post seems to be pushing for homosexuality to be a disease …it isn’t.

What is being advanced now is that stigma is the reason that many homosexuals manifest more depression, suicide ideation, drug use, etc. A claim without empirical evidence, that is, which the author of the article has pointed out, his words below

Can you point where this quote is i have read the full article a number of times and do not see what you have quotes as part of Jones’ work???:

It would seem that the critique by featured author Stanton Jones should convince more Catholics in the mental profession field to step away from APA to join those who bucked the direction that they have taken the study of homosexuality.

Not at all, the article says no such thing.

It also does not in any way suggest that there is some break away band of professionals in opposition to the APA.

From a thoughtful layperson’s view, the mental health profession could have stopped at the change or refinement of the diagnosis to ego-dystonic homosexual attraction so therapy can still continue for those who seek management of their unwanted same sex attraction.

I am not sure you fully appreciate that unwanted sexual attraction ARE dealt ith under mental health care, it simply does not diagnosis different based on gender attraction.

This post AGAIN suggests that you personally believe that homosexuality is a mental health disease, stand alone, separately diagnosisable from any sexual identity issues anyone could have including heterosexuals.

What will it take for acceptance of the empirically proven, constantly demonstrated to be thus, that homosexuality is not a mental health illness. Continuing to push this agenda is perpetuating a fundamental falsehood of the ill informed.
From the Jones article again, the first paragraph with highlighted points that seem to be continuously ignored
Homosexuality in particular, and sexual orientation, sexual identity and sexuality in general, are enormously complex topics, about which religious and social conservatives are prone to believe a number of falsehoods. This reality exposes us to derision in the public arena and weakens our capacity to engage this issue effectively. These false assertions include that:

• homosexuality is properly understood as a mental illness, and all homosexual persons are deeply psychologically disturbed (even if some are capable of hiding their pathology),
• the homosexual condition is fundamentally a choice, and the flurry of research suggesting genetic or biological causation of homosexuality is a fraud foisted upon the public by pseudo-science,
• all homosexual persons could change their sexual orientation and embrace their intrinsic heterosexuality if they simply willed the choice, or were truly open to pursuing psychological maturity, or truly repented, or truly opened themselves to possibilities of spiritual healing, and
• homosexual relationships are always disordered, unstable, emotionally abusive, or worse, and homosexual parenting is always distorted, abusive, predatory, and narcissistic.

But the organization moved all the way to dropping the diagnosis from the DSM altogether and embrace of the “scientific finding” that expression of homosexual attraction is normal, something to be encouraged. The APA has taken a very inappropriate and extreme position of gay advocacy, to the point of signing onto the movement’s objective of legalizing same sex ‘marriage’ and adoption by homosexual couples. These are radical experiments projected to harm the future of society, with impact not to be realized for another generation or two.
,

Unfortunately your bias is showing here with your comments. The removal from the DSM of homosexuality was appropriate, proven and not even questioned by Christian psychologists specialist in the arena and ethics…
An issue with the advocacy of the APA should be dealt with in the “battlefield” of morality - as well as empirical study (see point below though).

However you fail to mention one big thing --NO ONE is doing the research to disprove this POV. As Jones states very clearly there is plenty of research about sexual stigma, abuses against homosexuals … strangely though nothing from the conservative anti-marriage side.

So when the position is being fought on a “scientific battlefield” the Catholic opinion is therefore always going to sound ill informed and a case of “sour grapes” – as even Jones admitted there are plenty of studies which back their opinion --maybe not to the great extent they claim, but they exist. The silence though is from “our” side. With nothing to defend or promote the standard is to decry as all false and as Jones says this is wrong and doesn’t make our role in the debate effective.

 

[essie7777]

I was trying, by using quotation marks and the words the CCC uses, to show that I was using the words in a Thomistic sense rather than as medical terms.

Ahh not clear so i apologize. the discussion was on the medical defintion so without knowing where this was from and no citation i presumed it was words in quotes --like when kids do the hand signs of quote marks??

The CCC states that “the inclination is disordered.” They are not making a diagnosis, they are stating a truth. I tried to briefly explain that truth and why it was reached as well.

I completely agree with the CCC … in terms of the moral basis of that truth for Catholics. Non Catholics aren’t going to agree. As you say though this is not meant to be transposed as justifying a medical disease diagnosis. Otherwise the DAM would be full of Catholic moral disorders -adultery, sex before marriage, divorce, etc etc.

Well, this is what we are trying to figure out. Hooker’s study did not prove that homosexuality is not a mental illness in and of itself; it proved that homosexuals did not necessarily exhibit signs of other, testable psychological problems, and even there, as was shown by the article linked in the previous thread, there actually were problems with the way the test was rated.

Hooker’s Study did prove that homosexuality was not distinguishable from heterosexuality in a persons psychological make up and function psychological behaviors.

How is this not proving homosexuality isn’t a mental illness unless of course we add heterosexuality to the DSM as well and then we’re all mentally ill.

If you read Jones original -long but informative original article, he goes to great lengths to explain how well put together and indisputable;e Hooker’s study is. As a leading Psychologist and eminent ‘go to’ person on Christian ethics – this is highly significant. I am not 100% sure which other thread you are referring to …can you post a link?

CONT NEXT POST

 

[essie7777]

CONT FROM PREVIOUS POST

I think the crux of the problem for me is that I do not understand what all the vague “other criteria” you mention are.

With no rudeness intended i think this is the issue with laymen reading the DSM without the years of training to be a professional in the arena.

You have to remember that the DSM is a diagnosis criteria for US medical billing. Although it includes extensive notes and guidance under the more complicated disorders (medical disorders here) the full awareness of the diseases, potential dual diagnosis, full behaviors, treatments, exceptions, medication etc are taught in years of study and internship --the same as most traditional doctors.

As such its very easy to over simplify and misconstrue what the DSM criteria actually means and also what it does.

.

What is it, aside from the object of their inclination, that makes pedophilia a mental illness and homosexuality not a mental illness? Is the only reason that we see pedophilia as a mental illness and homosexuality as not a mental illness the idea that since only presumably consenting adults are involved in the latter that it is not a mental disease, or is there some other diagnotic criteria that we don’t know about?

Pedophilia is a highly complicated disorder traditionally exhibited with other disorders, such as compulsive behavior, anti-social factors, an inability to function in ‘normal’ society, excessive hyper arousal (which is a disorder), sleep disorders, excessive fantasy and then looking to live the fantasy out… TBH i could keep going. But these may be generalizations for specific examples each case would be as unique as the person.

It really is too complicated to try and explain in a few words, consider as well the abnormal behavior of people who manipulate, dominate and over power vulnerable people for their own satisfaction and personal benefit–not just children, maybe think of rapists for example, that pathology is also mirrored in pedophile and ‘added’ to their assessment as the issues on control that come around in situations like this are very similar irrespective of the age of the victim.

Even from this very rudimentary look the diagnosisable pathology of a pedophile is already looking pretty ‘heavy’ on content.

Also a key reminder as well the DSM diagnosis is used heavily in decisions to hospitalize someone, voluntarily through Baker act or in criminal matter (although this is not something the APA thinks is right), homosexuality is not a reason to ever hospitalize some one.

Oh, I wasn’t correcting you or anything. I was just clarifying because in other discussions the undefined use of the word became a problem and I wanted to eliminate that at the outset.

Yes!!! I totally agree!!! :lightbulb: But the fact that one contains the desire for something *morally * worse does not mean that that the other is different *in kind. *And *that *is what we are trying to understand.

Again though you refer to morality not empirical science which is what the DSM is.

The difference between moral behavior (or immoral behavior) and diagnosis of this as disease is what is at the crux of the issue and most of the misunderstanding on this issue.

This is exactly why the Hooker study was so emphatic in its affect. It proved that cultural and societal perception and belief have no founding in empirically researched disease diagnosis. Basing disease diagnosis on one groups perception of morality is unbelievably flawed, especially in respect to the DSM.

I forget what you put here, but I know that one is that it “makes [the perpetrator of the horrible crime of questioning the APA] look ignorant.” And frankly, I thinknit’s insulting to insinuate that people with a thought-out idea which differs from the APA are considered more ignorant than a dope-smoking high school drop-out who happens to agree with the APA and the homosexual activists.

Not all the point i was referring to was stating pedophilia and homosexuality are BOTH mental health diseases … and the Jones article starts with outlining how the false myths perpetuated by the religious and conservative community only open us up to derision and prevent us from being able to engage in the discussion appropriately.

It wasn’t insulting as in the next part of the introduction Jones lists the myths for the pro-homosexual “side” of the issue. It was simply that being on a forum called Catholic Answers and looking at the positions and beliefs of the posters – this link was relevant to the falsehood being presented.

Jones outlined in his articles the deficiency of current scientific thought about homosexuality, and there have been so many problems with so many of the studies that I am not really swayed by appeals to their authority.

Jones did in fact point out not a deficiency but a big huge gaping hole in studies. And that hole is where there are hardly any, pretty much no studies looking to prove a hypothesis based on religious or social conservative viewpoints.

As he stated there are a lot of studies about homosexuality, their behaviors, their abuses in society etc. what is missing is a research that would look at whether psychological issues for LGBT people is based on the fundamental moral wrongness of homosexuality as well as social bullying, prejudice etc.

Its worth noting that he is critical of the both the emphasis and some of the studies methodologies, but emphatically states that these POVs have all been proven in significant studies before.

His issue is in people spring boarding of already proven concepts and not being as thorough in the methods as the original researchers.

 

[St_Francis]

Essie7777 wrote
Pedophilia is a highly complicated disorder traditionally exhibited with other disorders, such as compulsive behavior, anti-social factors, an inability to function in ‘normal’ society, excessive hyper arousal (which is a disorder), sleep disorders, excessive fantasy and then looking to live the fantasy out… TBH i could keep going. But these may be generalizations for specific examples each case would be as unique as the person.

Ahhhh, this is why I was perplexed before; thank you.

I have to leave in a while for the rest of the day, but I did want to thank you for answering this question, which has puzzled me for some time, but I can’t write everything else I want to right now…

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Actually it doesn’t say that at all … I would very politely advise than the DSM is designed for trained professional with a number of years experience in this field. You wouldn’t want to have a commercial jet flown by someone who has “read the manual highlights” rather than years of specialized training surely --so why expect to know how to use the DSM without appropriate training
…

Increasingly, people are realizing that the DSM is not serving lofty ideals and how it is put together brings serious questions.

I would not hang my hat on such a manual if I were you, which I know would be difficult because of your chosen field of study in psychology. Take a read of this revealing piece by a practicing psychotherapist: Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness, written by Gary Greenberg. 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 some 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 more interesting. The DSM, as other professionals say, serves only the pharmaceutical industry and therapists.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Social stigma is the popular explanation, both in scientific studies and in mass media, for heightened psychological distress among homosexuals. The possibility that the orientation and all it entails cuts against a fundamental, gender-based given of the human condition, thus creating distress, is not raised. The correlation between social stigma and psychological problem is real, but the empirical case for the first causing the second has yet to be made. This has not stopped advocates, however, from battling alleged stigma by increasingly framing all “anti-gay sentiment” as a form of prejudice. This has led to the creation of new terminology: No matter how congruent with the scientific evidence, any belief that homosexuality is not a normal and positive variant of human sexuality is a manifestation of “homophobia” and “heterosexism,” a symptom of destructive “master narratives of normativity” (of which “heteronormativity” is a part).

It should be in that article, but I don’t have time to scroll to the lengthy document, but it is also in the submission of Stanton Jones to First Things with a shortened version, titled Same Sex Science, 9th paragraph down:

It would seem that the critique by featured author Stanton Jones should convince more Catholics in the mental profession field to step away from APA to join those who bucked the direction that they have taken the study of homosexuality.

Not at all, the article says no such thing.

It also does not in any way suggest that there is some break away band of professionals in opposition to the APA.

I did not say it was from the article by Jones. That’s what I take away from it and I have no problem owning the view for others to read. You don’t have to agree, of course.

About the breakaway band of professionals (your phrasing here, not mine), you have ignored the Catholic Medical Association and the group of Dr. Fitzgibbons who do not agree with the 'research" and guidelines that the APA has laid out for mental health professionals, particularly on the subject of help to those struggling with same sex attraction and homosexuality.

We have been down this road, and it’s clear you do not agree with said group of Catholic mental health professionals.
,

 

[edwest2]

The article is incredibly misleading. You might as well throw the DSM out the window, and leave diagnosis and treatment to general practitioners. I know people who have gone through obvious depressive episodes, uncontrollably anxiety and hearing voices. I have spoken to these people at two support groups at two different locations. They are suffering, a few cannot drive or even work.

amazon.com/Homosexuality-American-Psychiatry-Ronald-Bayer/dp/0691028370/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328379831&sr=1-1

This book should help others to examine the political forces behind the change to the DSM in 1973. And the DSM, like any other standard reference used by doctors in other fields, is not just for medical billings purposes. It helps to define an illness or disorder. It greatly helps the patient to know he is suffering from “generalized anxiety disorder” or depression or some type of psychosis. The psychiatrist carefully evaluates the patient and determines the best course of treatment, including medication. This is especially true of patients who literally have never experienced such feelings before.

Peace,
Ed

 

[InSearchofGrace]

If you are talking about morality as the basis yes, if not you are perpetuating the falsehood that homosexuality is a disease then not at all as it has been proven that homosexuality is not a disease or mental health illness.

We can go round and around on this as you have in exchanges with some posters in this and other threads. I understand you are aligned with the now mainstream mental health profession in the dislike for the word ‘disease’ and ‘mental disorder’ or ‘mental illness’ to apply to homosexuality. I think I and a host of others get it (it is not diagnoseable by testing, it does not have clear pathology, etc. etc.) and would like to understand the phenomenon more. It would be gross simplification and unfair accusation to say this means we are perpetuating myth.

No matter how you slice it, homosexuality is regarded as a disorder in the common meaning of the word. Sustained homosexual inclination and sexual expression thereof is disordered, out of order, notwithstanding mainstream mental health professionals falling in line with homosexualists that such is a normal and natural variant of sexuality.

In the social context that we are to regard the implication of the science, my view is we do not disagree. As Jones said, the social sciences cannot settle the moral status of homosexuality. One of the conclusions in his essay at the end:

The contributions of science to this complicated area, however, remain sketchy, limited and puzzling. It is remarkable how little scientific humility is in evidence given the primitive nature of our knowledge.

Unfortunately your bias is showing here with your comments. The removal from the DSM of homosexuality was appropriate, proven and not even questioned by Christian psychologists specialist in the arena and ethics…

Bias? And your comments are free of bias? It could be said you, being in the field of psychology, don’t acknowledge the errors of the APA and their mistakes in dealing with the relevant classification in the DSM.

I am saying the removal of homosexuality from the DSM should have been approached differently. I stated this upthread and hereby repeat:

The mental health profession could have stopped at the change or refinement of the diagnosis to ego-dystonic homosexual attraction so therapy can still continue for those who seek management of their unwanted same sex attraction. Dropping the diagnosis from the DSM altogether in the manner it did as a result of political pressure and embrace of “scientific finding” that expression of homosexual attraction is normal and to be encouraged was and remains problematic for society. So it’s clear, I am not proposing it be put back in pre-1973 nomenclature.

I will also repeat that the APA has inappropriately taken an extreme position with its gay advocacy, to the point of signing onto the movement’s objective of legalizing same sex ‘marriage’ and adoption by homosexual couples. These are radical experiments projected to harm the future of society, with impact not to be realized for another generation or two.

In the interest of making the arguments easier to read, I will come back to your other remarks in another post or so.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
From the Jones article again, the first paragraph with highlighted points that seem to be continuously ignored …

Flooding the thread with repetition works, in addition to use of magenta color to the fonts. And I have an agenda and you don’t.

An issue with the advocacy of the APA should be dealt with in the “battlefield” of morality -

It’s a morality and societal issue, the reason it is a huge discussion at CAF.

However you fail to mention one big thing --NO ONE is doing the research to disprove this POV. As Jones states very clearly there is plenty of research about sexual stigma, abuses against homosexuals … strangely though nothing from the conservative anti-marriage side.

You mean anti-gay-marriage side? Should not the side that claims stigma be done by the side that is advancing it? Further, you might note that Jones stated
"The correlation between social stigma and psychological problem is real, but the empirical case for the first causing the second has yet to be made. This has not stopped advocates, however, from battling alleged stigma by increasingly framing all “anti-gay sentiment” as a form of prejudice."

So when the position is being fought on a “scientific battlefield” the Catholic opinion is therefore always going to sound ill informed and a case of “sour grapes” – as even Jones admitted there are plenty of studies which back their opinion --maybe not to the great extent they claim, but they exist. The silence though is from “our” side. With nothing to defend or promote the standard is to decry as all false and as Jones says this is wrong and doesn’t make our role in the debate effective.

Ill informed and sour grapes, you say. Why are you distancing yourself from Catholic opinion when you are one? It is curious. It is also curious that you are skipping important portions of what Jones has said about Hooker’s study, such as
*“Perhaps she would have wanted to displace the yoke of pathologization onto stigmatizers, perhaps not. In her wake, though, a) claims that “being gay is just as healthy as being straight” are remarkable in that they are contradicted by all of the best scientific studies, and b) claims that homosexuality is a “normal and positive variant of human sexuality,” that the demonstrable negative correlations of homosexuality with psychological distress and diminished physical health are clearly and only the result of sexual stigma, and that anti-gay sentiment is itself a manifestation of pathology, together are remarkable for their expansiveness and their lack of clear rootedness in anything remotely resembling scientific method.”*Since you will probably ask where exactly I lifted this, you can go to Page 7 of the original article. It is just above the paragraph The Biological Determination of Homosexual Orientation. I hope that helps.

The essay is a monster, very hard to read in its PDF format, so I just now converted it into a word processed document. 15,693 words on 31 pages!
,

 

[michelleds]

Originally Posted by essie7777
If you are talking about morality as the basis yes, if not you are perpetuating the falsehood that homosexuality is a disease then not at all as ***it has been proven ***that homosexuality is not a disease or mental health illness.

[emphasis mine]

I find it fairly incredible that you are making such an incredible claim. “Proven” you say, like water is H2O, or proven like Charlie Manson was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or maybe proven like gravity, e.g., that which goes up, must come down.

What is the point of your clinging adamantly to this thought? is it to justify homosexuality as natural and normal? is it to align yourself with the gay agenda? perhaps its to work your way around to the ever-so-popular “if it’s natural/genetic/not a disorder, then it must be okay”?

In the end, the etiology of homosexuality, homosexual inclinations, homosexual tendencies, and the all-too-often resulting homosexual actions, does not change the moral analysis. the inclination is disorder in that it is not ordered appropriately. to be ordered rather than disordered is to be of a condition in which each thing is properly disposed with reference to other things and to its purpose.

Harmony is implied in that order. homosexuality is not in harmony with God’s will.

To the extent that the APA and DSM say that homosexuality is natural and ordered, then those organizations are not in harmony with God’s will.

 

[John21652]

And some of the most brilliant people have been heterosexual.
And some of the most creative people have been homosexual.
And some of the most creative people have been heterosexual.

And the conclusion is…?

(Wait, that’s right: there is no conclusion.)
Not to mention, your statement has nothing to do with the title of the thread.

Elizabeth502 it is quite interesting that many postes here are relying on the posted article by Wheaton Professor Stanton Jones, titled Sexual Orientation and Reason: On the Implications of False Beliefs about Homosexuality to either bolster or refute arguments pertaining to homosexuality.

Jones points out that homosexuals are a very, very small proportion of the total population.

the 3.5% of adults in the United States, Canada and Europe that identify as GLB should be broken down roughly as 1.8% bisexual men and women, 1.1% gay men, and 0.6% lesbians.

On those figures alone we would have to conclude, statistically, that very few homosexual people have been amongst the most creative and the most intelligent of people. Unless that is, homosexuals can be identified as being overly represented in the ranks of the most intelligent and the most creative. That is very unlikely.

What is important, though, is how a group that is almost statistically insignificant by any measure has come to hold such sway over the debates regarding accepted moral and social issues. In the process of vociferously demanding not only ‘equality’ they have created inequality. That inequality is in fact their demand that homosexual acts be considered as ‘normal’ and to be respected, even appreciated. In the process, the so called ‘gay lifestyle’ is shoved down the throats of the general population in the forms of mass media communications and overt displays of their sexual proclivities in public in the form of ‘gay parades’, which, if done by heterosexuals, would just about land them in court on charges of indecency!

Most people are fed up to the back teeth with this ‘gay lifestyle’ being rammed down their throats. That ‘gay lifestyle’ includes a self proclaimed promiscuity and general hedonism that most people find repugnant. And what is worse, in the name of ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’ this ‘gay lifestyle’ is rammed down the throats of children in schools, despite the loud protestations from parents. Has it ever happened before, in the history of the human race, that such a small percentage of a population has managed to carry so much sway?

And why is it that they have been able to have such influence? Because, as Jones points out in his article, there have been manipulations of scientific data to prove the arguments put forward by the vociferous protagonists of the ‘gay lifestyle’. Jones also points out on a few occasions that there has been an insidious manipulation of the public presentation of facts which destroy the homosexual arguments for normalcy. In fact, he points out that invidiously the mere use of normative ethics is frowned on by the ‘gay brigades’ because of the stigmatisation of minorities of which they are one.

The danger in this approach is that the mores, conventions and laws of all societies are in fact designed to stigmatise those who transgress the socila construct and the social compact. That’s why jails and prisons are built! Without the constraining norms of law and morality, there is no society. Without laws and morality there can be no social cohesion. What is truly sad in the modern era is that social cohesion now seems to rely on statistical studies of what has been considered as right and wrong for countless millenia. With that reliance comes a shifrt away from human moral and philosophical dialogue and an unhealthy reliance upon ‘science’, whatever that is!