Psychology, Vs. Relgion, Homosexuals

[edwest2]

Psychology is a real science and studies real and observable behaviors and such. It is not an art. However, I do believe the condoning of homosexuality truly is nothing more than outside influence and gay pride really setting its roots in society.

To say that psychology is not a real science is incredibly ignorant, since psychology is used pretty much everywhere. No psychology means no therapists and no understanding of the brain.

Unfortunately, psychology has also lead to bad things, such as the irritating belief that evil-doers are not responsible for their actions and it’s not their fault. Which leads me to believe that maybe it might be for the best that homosexuality is not listed as a disorder, since we’d just have even more people saying it’s not their fault. Sociology has this same problem too, in that it blames everything on the rich. Sociology, unlike psychology though, is a laughable attempt at science. It’s just pretentiously assigning words to common sense things that pretty much everybody already noticed.

I don’t think you’ve thought this through:

1. Homosexuality is inborn. “It’s not my fault if I’m gay.” While there is some scientific evidence that some people may have a propensity to drink alcohol, does that mean they should become drinkers? In the case of homosexuality, there may be a biological component but it seems to have to do with family interactions that occurred very early in life. No, I’m not saying all gay people were abused.
2. Homosexuality is a disorder in the fact that the same sex believes and feels the need to engage in sex acts that biology tells all of us are not ordered. Males and females have complementary sex organs.
3. If you read the psychiatric literature, it’s very clear that outside of hearing voices, or severe long-term depression or long-term anxiety, that disorders are defined as that which makes you uncomfortable or impaired. Translation: If what was once defined as a disorder makes you feel good then it’s not a disorder. Example:

"The DSM-5 draft continues: “This approach leaves intact the distinction between normative and non-normative sexual behavior, which could be important to researchers, but without automatically labeling non-normative sexual behavior as psychopathological. It also eliminates certain logical absurdities in the DSM-IV-TR. In that version, for example, a man cannot be classified as a transvestite—however much he cross-dresses and however sexually exciting that is to him—unless he is unhappy about this activity or impaired by it. This change in viewpoint would be reflected in the diagnostic criteria sets by the addition of the word “Disorder” to all the paraphilias. Thus, Sexual Sadism would become Sexual Sadism Disorder; Sexual Masochism would become Sexual Masochism Disorder, and so on.”[15]

Did you catch the part that basically says: You are a transvestite if it makes you happy, but you are not a transvestite if you are “unhappy about this activity or impaired by it.”?

Much has been made about treating gays to stop their behavior. In fact, a totally irrational ruling was made by the Governor of California regarding this:

cnn.com/2012/10/01/us/california-gay-therapy-ban/index.html

And yes, there are people who identify themselves as ex-gays:

pfox.org/about_us.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Julia_Mae]

The other group may be people who are antisocial in some way, who act out homosexuality and use others to this end. May may indeed be bisexual and use and abuse women and men without much care or concern. These are the ones I would call truly disordered.

I agree. And this also describes a lot of disordered straight people. But perhaps you are saying it isn’t their true orientation at all, but that they are willing to use sex, of any sort, to manipulate and use others? In which case they are sociopaths, I suppose.

 

[Baelor]

 Under which conditions or authority  does the American Psychology Institute

( assuming that is the leading authority.) have proof and reasoning over Christian Judea values.

Truth is not subject to interpretation, and so no authority can “have proof and reasoning” over another, just a better knowledge of the Truth.

Such as the most obvious is the normalization of homosexuality.

Not disordered =/= normal.

I feel that psychology is a pseudo science with no hard evidence to back up its theories such as mathematics or physics.

That is so embarrassing for you. Consider that psychology operates on studies. Do they always agree? No, not always. But neither do mathematicians or physicists. The truth remains the truth.

I find no logical arguments in most psychology only hypothesis that can not be proved or disproved for that matter.

Conducting studies, for one.

why the “accredited associational authority”;
(whom I assumed was APA but have been informed is a differn’t orginization)
which has made the decisions to normalize homosexuality; as no longer making it a mental disorder.

That is not the same thing as normalization.

Thus having superior authority in their reasoning over Christian Judea values. By what proof does their studies supercede Chrstian Judea law?

You are making no sense. The APA is not interested in pushing morality, only in determining empirical truth. Thus, they would not claim to have superior authority over anyone’s values. Furthermore, Judeo-Christian law deals with morality, and is thus outside the purview of the APA.

And yes, there are people who identify themselves as ex-gays

That does not make them ex-gays, nor is every gay person potentially an ex-gay.

 

[Jessup]

Truth is not subject to interpretation, and so no authority can “have proof and reasoning” over another, just a better knowledge of the Truth.

You are making no sense. The APA is not interested in pushing morality, only in determining empirical truth. Thus, they would not claim to have superior authority over anyone’s values. Furthermore, Judeo-Christian law deals with morality, and is thus outside the purview of the APA.

Hence, the status of the act, being a mental disorder or not a mental disorder.
To say something is not a disorder means it is normal.
“cultural awareness or enlightenment” has proven most psychology studies to be the leading authority on some matters as homosexuality. Similiar to the elightment and slavery.
Furthermore mathmaticians and physicist; being as the example used can not disagree as you stated on proven theorems, which in psychology is non existant I think calling psychology a science is like calling political science a science, there isn’t any proof, just ideas based on observation. But the psychological or psychiatric authorities in which whom, name such things as not being a disorder are influential in the “normalization” and hold authority in the normalization in the homosexual agenda in society.
Take a look around any college campus, at all the homosexual “pride” how its celibrated and how widley its been accepted in society by the enlightened, the enlightend who hold so much strength in psychology, or psychiatry.

Cheers!

 

[Baelor]

To say something is not a disorder means it is normal.

It does not. Someone who is exclusively attracted to blondes is not disordered, but is also not normal.

Homosexuality is disordered, but not classifying it as a disorder is NOT the same as normalizing it at a moral level.

Furthermore mathmaticians and physicist; being as the example used can not disagree as you stated on proven theorems, which in psychology is non existant

That is not quite the case. Mathematics is not a science because it is not empirical; no other science can have proof like those in that field. Physicists still operate on conjecture, hence the development of the field since the time of Zeno. Psychology certainly has a body of knowledge that has not yet been refuted.

I think calling psychology a science is like calling political science a science, there isn’t any proof, just ideas based on observation.

That is all science.

But the psychological or psychiatric authorities in which whom, name such things as not being a disorder are influential in the “normalization” and hold authority in the normalization in the homosexual agenda in society.

Saying it is not disordered is not the same as saying it is morally permissible or normal.

 

[Bradski]

Nice try

Nice try? It was a question. Which you didn’t answer. So I’ll ask again:

Have all the organisations in all parts of the civilsed world (places where we wouldn’t mind living) that have any expertise in the matter changed their minds on an extremely important matter due to pressure from outside groups?

If you think they have, can you tell me how you think it was done to every single one?

The problem is these groups are not simply science based organizations but they have a large political component as well.

Every single one? And they all have exactly the same political leanings? Are you suggesting that the ones in places like Sierra Leon, Iraq and Afghanistan have not succumbed to this political pressure?

And what is your definition of ‘political leanings’? Something tells me it’s based on decisions that don’t match your particular political beliefs.

 

[kbwall]

I don’t think you’ve thought this through:

1. Homosexuality is inborn. “It’s not my fault if I’m gay.” While there is some scientific evidence that some people may have a propensity to drink alcohol, does that mean they should become drinkers? In the case of homosexuality, there may be a biological component but it seems to have to do with family interactions that occurred very early in life. No, I’m not saying all gay people were abused.
2. Homosexuality is a disorder in the fact that the same sex believes and feels the need to engage in sex acts that biology tells all of us are not ordered. Males and females have complementary sex organs.
3. If you read the psychiatric literature, it’s very clear that outside of hearing voices, or severe long-term depression or long-term anxiety, that disorders are defined as that which makes you uncomfortable or impaired. Translation: If what was once defined as a disorder makes you feel good then it’s not a disorder. Example:

"The DSM-5 draft continues: “This approach leaves intact the distinction between normative and non-normative sexual behavior, which could be important to researchers, but without automatically labeling non-normative sexual behavior as psychopathological. It also eliminates certain logical absurdities in the DSM-IV-TR. In that version, for example, a man cannot be classified as a transvestite—however much he cross-dresses and however sexually exciting that is to him—unless he is unhappy about this activity or impaired by it. This change in viewpoint would be reflected in the diagnostic criteria sets by the addition of the word “Disorder” to all the paraphilias. Thus, Sexual Sadism would become Sexual Sadism Disorder; Sexual Masochism would become Sexual Masochism Disorder, and so on.”[15]

Did you catch the part that basically says: You are a transvestite if it makes you happy, but you are not a transvestite if you are “unhappy about this activity or impaired by it.”?

Much has been made about treating gays to stop their behavior. In fact, a totally irrational ruling was made by the Governor of California regarding this:

cnn.com/2012/10/01/us/california-gay-therapy-ban/index.html

And yes, there are people who identify themselves as ex-gays:

pfox.org/about_us.html

Peace,
Ed

I fail to see how you don’t think I thought this through. We don’t even disagree. Not once did I condone homosexuality, and I in fact straight out said that I think the APA is wrong for taking homosexuality off the disorder roster. I believe that gays can change. Trust me.

On the topic of transvestites, I find it even more irrtating that they are not a disorder, since they experience anxiety unless they have surgical mutilation on their genitalia. How that is not a disorder is beyond me.

 

[Jessup]

I fail to see how you don’t think I thought this through. We don’t even disagree. Not once did I condone homosexuality, and I in fact straight out said that I think the APA is wrong for taking homosexuality off the disorder roster. I believe that gays can change. Trust me.

On the topic of transvestites, I find it even more irrtating that they are not a disorder, since they experience anxiety unless they have surgical mutilation on their genitalia. How that is not a disorder is beyond me.

That is absolutley mind blowing, that its not considered a disorder. When I applied for school, I had the option to choose transexual as my gender I optioned out and picked male

 

[CopticChristian]

Evens out. The way it was included didn’t involve any scientific research, either.

Julia,

Then you agree that the DSM has no science at all that it is based on…even steven…

 

[CopticChristian]

Look, what I’m asking is,

why the “accredited associational authority”;
(whom I assumed was APA but have been informed is a differn’t orginization)
which has made the decisions to normalize homosexuality; as no longer making it a mental disorder. **Thus **having superior authority in their reasoning over Christian Judea values. By what proof does their studies supercede Chrstian Judea law?
I believe if it was statistical sampling of behavior as what is given in the kinsley report, then the null hypothesis could be directed to say that much of the population suffers from this disorder, rather then this disorder is normal.

Jessup,

Explain how you went from no longer a mental disorder and then conclude thus having superior authority. How is it this is superior authority and to whom is it superior authority?

 

[CopticChristian]

I am a therapist who has spent my whole life studying and learning psychology up through the graduate level and beyond. Not all of psychology is emperically proven, but some is. There are studies that demonstrate that certain theoretical approaches, i.e. Cognitive Behavior Therapy and Rational Emotive Behavior, are effective treatments for mental disorders.

It is difficult to throw hard science down against something as fluid and complex as mental health. As a psychotherapist, I am infinitely grateful for the psychocological theorists who have come before me who offer guidance as I work with client toward better mental health, better interpersonal effectiveness, and a higher quality of life. Hard evidence or not, many theories and techniques work for many people. I tend toward an Integrative theoretical orientation so as to find the best of techniques to apply to individual clients and their specific situations. I am also a very strong Christian and have not struggled too much to integrate spiritual and Biblical principles within the frameworks of most theoretial orientations.

I LOVE studying psychology and learning to apply it to myself and my clients; I’m sorry others do not share my enthusiasm.

L&H,

One of the problems is that too many people associate the word “psychology” with what is wrong and that is becuase most know about psychology because of what is called abnormal psychology.

The study of medicine is seeing what is Pathologic and understanding that Pathology to rectify the body however when it comes to the mind I am not so sure that this is the best approach.

I believe that too many are not aware that there is such a thing as the Psyhcology of excellence ie Maslow…and how is it that those that don’t have problems do well and soar rather than sink…

 

[jimmy]

You either have forgotten, or never have learned that Psychology is not a science. At best, it is a secular art.
And, from the way you wirte, I will bet that you are either an adolescent or a troll!

There is argument about how much psychology is a science. Psychologists and psychiatrists like to consider it a science, and consequently make attempts to conformn it to the scientific method.

 

[CopticChristian]

There is argument about how much psychology is a science. Psychologists and psychiatrists like to consider it a science, and consequently make attempts to conformn it to the scientific method.

Jimmy,

It is true that there is a branch of Psychology called Experimental Psychology and that branch attempts to use scientific methods in the studies. This should be recognized.

 

[jimmy]

Jimmy,

It is true that there is a branch of Psychology called Experimental Psychology and that branch attempts to use scientific methods in the studies. This should be recognized.

Of course.

 

[Baelor]

There is argument about how much psychology is a science. Psychologists and psychiatrists like to consider it a science, and consequently make attempts to conformn it to the scientific method.

Anything that correctly follows the scientific method could be considered science.

 

[CopticChristian]

That is absolutley mind blowing, that its not considered a disorder. When I applied for school,** I had the option to choose transexual as my gender I optioned out and picked male**

Jessup,

This suggests that you considered choosing transexual.

 

[jimmy]

Anything that correctly follows the scientific method could be considered science.

I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. Pavlov, Skinner, Bandura, Eysenck, etc. are all scientists. But psychology is also philosophy. Read Frankl and you will get a more philosophical approach. There is both science and philosophy in it, and it isn’t simple where to draw the line.

 

[jimmy]

Furthermore mathmaticians and physicist; being as the example used can not disagree as you stated on proven theorems, which in psychology is non existant I think calling psychology a science is like calling political science a science, there isn’t any proof, just ideas based on observation.

You are completely wrong. Scientists, including physicists, biologists, and chemists always disagree on theorys. It always remains testable, and consequently refutable. No theory is ever proven. It always remains as an explanation of observable phenomenon. That is why the theory of gravity has changed since Newton. The theory of evolution continues to change. There are atleast two theories on chemical bonds.
A theory in science is an interrelated set of concepts that is used to explain a body of data and to make predictions about the results of future experiments. Hypotheses are specific predictions that are derived from theories (which are more general and comprehensive). Currently viable theories are those that have had many of their hypotheses confirmed. The theoretical structures of such theories are thus consistent with a large number of observations. However, when a data base begins to contradict the hypotheses derived from a theory, scientists begin trying to construct a new theory that will provide a better interpretation of the data…[Stanovich(2004) quoted in Theories of Personality, Hergenhahn and Olson, p.11]

 

[Baelor]

I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. Pavlov, Skinner, Bandura, Eysenck, etc. are all scientists. But psychology is also philosophy. Read Frankl and you will get a more philosophical approach. There is both science and philosophy in it, and it isn’t simple where to draw the line.

That is true of every science.

 

[jimmy]

That is true of every science.

Not to the extent that it is true of psychology. Frankl’s books aren’t scientific in any sense. It is about a specific orientation toward life. Perspective plays a huge role in psychology, in the natural sciences it should play none. Psychology isn’t a science to the degree that the natural sciences are. It has to constantly prove itself to be a science. And the more it gets wrapped up in the self-help stuff the harder it will be to prove it.

It is easy to know that biology, chemistry, and physics are science. It is all about observable data. The only way in which philosophy is important is that you must accept the scientific method.