J
jrgmercado
Guest
I have a theory on that…
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
Bradskii
Guest
Why, thanks for expounding on my exact point Ed. I didn’t think it needed it. But thanks anyway.The argument has been biased in this way because two gay men have always been the most common public depiction of homosexuality. Two gay women are not portrayed except in a few cases.
P
PapyrusDouay
Guest
Yes, the lobbying did happen, but it’s not the only reason for the change. The lobbying really just brought to light a number of psychological studies demonstrating that homosexuality is not a psychological disorder. Lobbying is not science, but it can lobby for science. That being said, science is also not theology. That homosexuality is “disordered” per the Catechism, and is not a “psychological disorder” can both be true.The American Psychiatric Association was placed under pressure by radical gay activists like Frank Kameny in the late 1960s, early 1970s. Later, they would be lobbied by LGBT activists for a change in the category Gender Identity Disorder. Lobbying is not science.
E
edwest211
Guest
A strange response. People who are dedicated to doing something and who do it on a professional level, do not need to endure persons gaining entrance to their annual meeting and calling them the enemy. To let them know that war was being declared on them. That’s not science. I would be interested to know which particular studies were brought to light at the time.
The Church can and has combined science and theology regarding matters related to human sexual behavior. Both are within its competence. I don’t want to see wrong conclusions either.
The Church can and has combined science and theology regarding matters related to human sexual behavior. Both are within its competence. I don’t want to see wrong conclusions either.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Can you tell us, Ed, what studies were used to classify homosexuality as a mental illness? Were they what we would now consider to be good studies that have withstood the test of time?
Last edited:
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Some of those new studies were by Evelyn Hooker:I would be interested to know which particular studies were brought to light at the time.
https://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.htmlHooker’s (1957) study was innovative in several important respects. First, rather than simply accepting the predominant view of homosexuality as pathology, she posed the question of whether homosexuals and heterosexuals differed in their psychological adjustment. Second, rather than studying psychiatric patients, she recruited a sample of homosexual men who were functioning normally in society. Third, she employed a procedure that asked experts to rate the adjustment of men without prior knowledge of their sexual orientation. This method addressed an important source of bias that had vitiated so many previous studies of homosexuality.
Hooker administered three projective tests (the Rorschach, Thematic Apperception Test [TAT], and Make-A-Picture-Story [MAPS] Test) to 30 homosexual males and 30 heterosexual males recruited through community organizations. The two groups were matched for age, IQ, and education. None of the men were in therapy at the time of the study.
Unaware of each subject’s sexual orientation, two independent Rorschach experts evaluated the men’s overall adjustment using a 5-point scale. They classified two-thirds of the heterosexuals and two-thirds of the homosexuals in the three highest categories of adjustment. When asked to identify which Rorschach protocols were obtained from homosexuals, the experts could not distinguish respondents’ sexual orientation at a level better than chance.
A third expert used the TAT and MAPS protocols to evaluate the psychological adjustment of the men. As with the Rorschach responses, the adjustment ratings of the homosexuals and heterosexuals did not differ significantly.
Hooker concluded from her data that homosexuality is not a clinical entity and that homosexuality is not inherently associated with psychopathology.
Last edited:
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Seems to me you’re right about dogma. But homosexuals do score higher than most on the narcissistic scale on the MMPI.He also said that he was “merely reflecting Catholic dogma on the topic”. But is it Catholic dogma that homosexuality comes from a “narcissistic search” for masculinity as he claims? I think that the Father is perhaps going a little beyond what Catholic dogma has to say on this subject in making that assertion.
E
edwest211
Guest
Abstract
Evelyn Hooker’s research comparing the mental health of 30 male homosexuals to 30 male heterosexuals may be the most influential study in the history of social science. The American Psychological Association (APA) claims her work was the major reason it began advocating for acceptance of homosexuality. It led the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 to eliminate homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. And it impacted the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 legalization of sodomy in Lawrence v Texas .
Hooker reportedly believed experts would be unable to distinguish homosexuals from heterosexuals on psychological tests. Re-examination of her work indicates that Hooker’s study was neither rigorous nor reliable. Among other problems, homosexual subjects were easily identified on test protocols; her reports of how she obtained her samples were incomplete and contradictory; and her study generated results supportive of obsession/compulsivity in homosexuals.
Thus Hooker’s study was seriously flawed. Moreover, because it was marketed by the APA as central in transforming homosexual activity from an illness/crime into acceptable behavior—yet Hooker did not correct those who mischaracterized her work—APA misrepresentations of Hooker over the past 40 years appear to be more in line with ideology than science.
Source: tandfonline.com
Evelyn Hooker’s research comparing the mental health of 30 male homosexuals to 30 male heterosexuals may be the most influential study in the history of social science. The American Psychological Association (APA) claims her work was the major reason it began advocating for acceptance of homosexuality. It led the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 to eliminate homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. And it impacted the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 legalization of sodomy in Lawrence v Texas .
Hooker reportedly believed experts would be unable to distinguish homosexuals from heterosexuals on psychological tests. Re-examination of her work indicates that Hooker’s study was neither rigorous nor reliable. Among other problems, homosexual subjects were easily identified on test protocols; her reports of how she obtained her samples were incomplete and contradictory; and her study generated results supportive of obsession/compulsivity in homosexuals.
Thus Hooker’s study was seriously flawed. Moreover, because it was marketed by the APA as central in transforming homosexual activity from an illness/crime into acceptable behavior—yet Hooker did not correct those who mischaracterized her work—APA misrepresentations of Hooker over the past 40 years appear to be more in line with ideology than science.
Source: tandfonline.com
T
Thorolfr
Guest
You haven’t listed any of the older studies that you seem to consider to have been more rigorous and more scientific.
E
edwest211
Guest
I would prefer that the poster I replied to, answer the request.
B
Bruised_Reed
Guest
But if you look at any thread on CAF with homosexuality as the topic, gay men are the primary reference. If transgender is the topic, transwomen, not transwomen, are discussed.
N
njlisa
Guest
I’m not being contentious.
In the name of charity, we should look at same-sex relationships on a case-by-case basis.
A friend of mind has been in a relationship with another woman for 20 years. For the sake of clarity, I’ll call my friend Joan, the companion Beth, and Joan’s mother Martha.
When Joan’s mother was dying, Beth participated in Martha’s care. Just like the rest of Joan’s family, Beth took her turn taking Martha to the bathroom. Beth held Martha’s hand when she was afraid. Along with Joan’s family, Beth was present in Martha’s bedside.
No matter what I might think about the physical part of Joan and Beth’s relationship, I saw remarkable goodness, kindness, loyalty, and deep friendship.
In the name of charity, we should look at same-sex relationships on a case-by-case basis.
A friend of mind has been in a relationship with another woman for 20 years. For the sake of clarity, I’ll call my friend Joan, the companion Beth, and Joan’s mother Martha.
When Joan’s mother was dying, Beth participated in Martha’s care. Just like the rest of Joan’s family, Beth took her turn taking Martha to the bathroom. Beth held Martha’s hand when she was afraid. Along with Joan’s family, Beth was present in Martha’s bedside.
No matter what I might think about the physical part of Joan and Beth’s relationship, I saw remarkable goodness, kindness, loyalty, and deep friendship.
E
edwest211
Guest
What you point out is valuable but it does not address the topic.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
He posts this stuff all the time.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
There aren’t much of those either.
H
Hoosier-Daddy
Guest
Yeah, I think of the two, female homosexuality is “more palatable” probably because generally it is less violent, dangerous and potentially damaging. While both are morally wrong, I think Male homosexuality is easier for both sides to illustrate points with. And in context of the Church it is Male homosexuality that is most often discussed probably because an all Male priesthood demands it. However sometimes female homosexuality does take center stage, as in the WNBA controversies, and other women’s sports.
Last edited:
N
njlisa
Guest
@edwest211
Ed, thank you for your critique of my post. Let me sharpen my point from a social science perspective. Macro analyses show the big picture. But individual case studies complement our understanding. I hope I’ve clarified my point.
Thanks again and God bless you.
Ed, thank you for your critique of my post. Let me sharpen my point from a social science perspective. Macro analyses show the big picture. But individual case studies complement our understanding. I hope I’ve clarified my point.
Thanks again and God bless you.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
In what way is njlisa’s experience with her lesbian friends not relevant to the topic? The topic is the claim that homosexuality is a result of failed psychological development and that gay people are narcissistic. But her friends sound quite the opposite of being narcissistic and they don’t sound like they’re mentally ill.What you point out is valuable but it does not address the topic.
N
njlisa
Guest
@edwest211
I was trying to make this same point in my post my friend Joan and her dying mother. Thanks for making this point better.
God bless you,
Lisa
Hi, Ed:The argument has been biased in this way because two gay men have always been the most common public depiction of homosexuality. Two gay women are not portrayed except in a few cases.
I was trying to make this same point in my post my friend Joan and her dying mother. Thanks for making this point better.
God bless you,
Lisa
G
goout
Guest
All relationships have various goods associated with them by nature. Anyone should be able to admit that. A person doesn’t have to be gay, straight, or indifferent to be compassionate and caring and be a good friend and companion.I’m not being contentious.
In the name of charity, we should look at same-sex relationships on a case-by-case basis.
A friend of mind has been in a relationship with another woman for 20 years. For the sake of clarity, I’ll call my friend Joan, the companion Beth, and Joan’s mother Martha.
When Joan’s mother was dying, Beth participated in Martha’s care. Just like the rest of Joan’s family, Beth took her turn taking Martha to the bathroom. Beth held Martha’s hand when she was afraid. Along with Joan’s family, Beth was present in Martha’s bedside.
No matter what I might think about the physical part of Joan and Beth’s relationship, I saw remarkable goodness, kindness, loyalty, and deep friendship.
And also by nature there are distinct types of relationships with unique goods associated with them. The marriage of a man and woman has unique goods associated with it.
To conflate the various goods does not serve any relationships well. Claiming attributes that are not proper to a relationship because it has other common positives is simply not being honest. (not sure if you are doing that, but it is the perennial problem)
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.