Rebuttals for Gender Theory

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
The ex president of the APA admitted that no real research was done on homosexuality when it was removed from the DSM. He also went on record that activists had it changed.

Is dualism true in your view?
Click to expand...
From what I read and from a first hand source there was plenty of animosity and dirty tricks on both sides. You have to realize that at the time Freudian psychoanalysis was waning and the advocates of keeping homosexuality as a mental illness where desperately trying to hold. Give the psychiatrists who voted some credit for being congruent with their knowledge of homosexuality.
 
Last edited:
Does the homosexual act fulfill the purpose of the reproductive system?
 
buffalo said:
Does the homosexual act fulfill the purpose of the reproductive system?
Click to expand...
Excellent point. Homosexual acts are unnatural and should be treated as such. It should not be shown as something normal, and I hear it’s really unhealthy
 
buffalo said:
Does the homosexual act fulfill the purpose of the reproductive system?
Click to expand...
You make it easy. It’s what you believe. Even so, you must be aware that people, perhaps the majority, use contraception find pleasure in use of their genitalia likewise homosexuals experience pleasure. I expect you will try to say i’ts not about genitalia.
buffalo said:
We can agree it was politically motivated?
Click to expand...
We are not in agreement. You fail to give the psychiatrists who voted credit for being congruent with their experience and that is reality.
 
It definitely is unhealthy and very risky, especially to our youth who has the highest rates of HIV. It also brings up another point, who pays for the health consequences of risky behavior? Who pays for a### reconstruction when needed since the epitheleal layer is 4 cells thick?
 
Last edited:
Two wrongs do not make a right. Your point is irrelevant. Using the pill a Group 1 carcinogen has health and societal costs, too.

The reproductive system is designed for procreation. If it was not pleasurable who would do it and we would not be here discussing it. Reproduction is the scientically proven purpose, pleasure induces it.

I can think of many acts that are pleasurable. We have laws against many of them.
 
You give too much credit to the psychiatrists who thought they have us all figured out.
 
buffalo said:
It definitely is unhealthy and very risky, especially to our youth who has the highest rates of HIV. It also brings up another point, who pays for the health consequences of risky behavior? Who pays for a### reconstruction when needed since the epitheleal layer is 4 cells thick?
Click to expand...
Exactly! I found many of these risks in this website, really opened my eyes. (Read at your own risk)

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/02/medical-consequences-of-what-homosexuals-do/

One of the things that turned me from wanting to engage in this sort of behavior was the health risks. (The other was God).
 
Last edited:
The advocates will claim that hetero’s engage in many unhealthy acts too.

The same question applies - who pays the medical costs? Would people who want to engage in risky behaviors agree to a higher health insurance premium so the rest don’t have to foot the bill?

Who pays the societal costs?
 
buffalo said:
The advocates will claim that hetero’s engage in many unhealthy acts too.
Click to expand...
Well if they do than they can just look at the data which show that Homosexual intercourse is more dangerous than heterosexual intercourse which actually has an objective (reproducing).
 
There is more to helping a person than merely telling them the truth. We are advised to speak the truth in love. That means walking alongside the person and hearing their experience with sympathetic ears.
 
Yes
Truth with love
Love with truth
not
Love without truth
Truth without love
 
That is where the pastoral approach is useful. However, the pastoral approach cannot affirm the sin as many have tended to do.

The internet can be brutal, but in these types of discussions puts the truth one has to face right in their face. Not always pretty.
 
buffalo said:
Two wrongs do not make a right. Your point is irrelevant. Using the pill a Group 1 carcinogen has health and societal costs, too.
Click to expand...
Your need to read what you responding to. You do not deny that people use their their genitalia for pleasure which is reality we can both agree on. I addressed right and wrong by saying it is what you believe.
buffalo said:
You give too much credit to the psychiatrists who thought they have us all figured out.
Click to expand...
Again, you need to read what your are responding to. You do not give credit to the psychiatrists who voted for being congruent with their experiences.

BTW, to refresh my memory, I looked what happened in at the faithful APA

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Out of DSM: Depathologizing Homosexuality

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed the diagnosis of “homosexuality” from the second edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). This resulted after comparing competing theories, those that pathologized ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
There was also an emerging generational changing of the guard within APA comprised of younger leaders urging the organization to greater social consciousness [2]. A very few psychoanalysts like Judd Marmor [5,52] were also taking issue with psychoanalytic orthodoxy regarding homosexuality.
Click to expand...
While protests and panels took place, APA engaged in an internal deliberative process of considering the question of whether homosexuality should remain a psychiatric diagnosis. This included a symposium at the 1973 APA annual meeting in which participants favoring and opposing removal debated the question, “Should Homosexuality be in the APA Nomenclature?” [56]. The Nomenclature Committee, APA’s scientific body addressing this issue also wrestled with the question of what constitutes a mental disorder. , the Nomenclature Committee agreed that homosexuality per se was not one. Several other APA committees and deliberative bodies then reviewed and accepted their work and recommendations. As a result, in December 1973, APA’s Board of Trustees (BOT) voted to remove homosexuality from the DSM.
Click to expand...
Psychiatrists from the psychoanalytic community, however, objected to the decision. They petitioned APA to hold a referendum asking the entire membership to vote either in support of or against the BOT decision. The decision to remove was upheld by a 58% majority of 10,000 voting members.
Click to expand...
It should be noted that psychiatrists did not vote, as is often reported in the popular press, on whether homosexuality should remain a diagnosis. What APA members voted on was to either “favor” or “oppose” the APA Board of Trustees decision and, by extension, the scientific process they had set up to make the determination [1], (p. 148). Further, opponents of the 1973 removal have repeatedly tried to discredit the referendum’s outcome by declaring, “science cannot be decided by a vote” [58]. However they usually neglect to mention that those favoring retention of the diagnosis were the ones who petitioned for a vote in the first place. In any event, in 2006 the International Astronomical Union voted on whether Pluto was a planet [59,60], demonstrating that even in a hard science like astronomy, interpretation of facts are always filtered through human subjectivity.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
“Unbiased, Open Research [on Homosexuality] Was Never Done”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top