The American Psychological Association and homosexual partners raising kids

[styrgwillidar]

I’m not trying to get too personal when I ask this but I’m curious about your opinion. Do you think your children are being harmed by being raised in a single parent household?

Yes. I have tried to mitigate it as much as possible by allowing their mother as much access as she/they are willing to have in their home with me. It has varied at times-- she made their home a place they were uncomfortable to be in-- I had to try and do what I could. But, a disconnect with a biological parent has a pretty profound affect, it undermines their sense of security, their concept of love and its permanence, their sense of trust.

There is a difference between a woman and a man, I can not be both. I can’t model a relationship between a man and a woman-- the daily interaction. Treating each other with respect and in deference/recognition of the differences between the genders. For example, a man always must show physical restraint and control, he can never use his physical advantage over a woman, even when she is angry or upset.

Statistics are just that-- statistics, they aren’t individual situations. The finest man I ever knew, my father, was raised by a single divorced mother during the depression in a major metropolitan city.

 

[Jake21]

The problem with the APA is that they are a clear example of “make your bed, now you have to lie in in”. Back when homosexuality was removed from the DSM, the APA was clearly corrupt and driven to do so by a political, rather than a scientific, agenda. This has been clearly documented and verified time and again. So now, the APA has a tainted reputation. Even many psychologists (as am I, by training, not practice) treat APA pronouncements with skepticism.

With regard to the studies you mention, every one of them has a bias as to how success is measured with regard to child well-being and successful parenting. For example, we could point you to studies that children raised by one parent and his/her same-sex partner are more likely to experiment sexually at a young age. Most people see that as a negative, but the APA would craft it as a positive. I have yet to see an APA study that measures the moral or religious aspect of child development for children raised by one parent and his/her same-sex partner that comes out with a positive outcome.

The APA also speaks out of both sides of its mouth publishing pro “gay” parenting research but also research that broken families and one-parent families are significant risk factors for kids and teens. When you read the latter, it’s the absence of a father that is significant in most of the results. By default, all mothers with same-sex partners raising children are doing so in the absence of a father.

If it’s any consolation, this kind of agenda-driven research is not limited to the APA or the field of psychology. Even the hard sciences are experiencing a crisis in research with regard to sponsorship and bias both with what research gets done and what gets published (and by whom).

So, what’s your goal? You can’t change anyone’s opinion in a citation duel. If you want to garner teammates in some kind of battle against the Family Research Council, this is probably not your best source. But, If you have an honest question* that is related to Catholicism*, you can get an honest answer from Catholics here.

I have said this on the forum before, and will say it again.

Claiming that the American Psychological Association was just pressured by homosexuals in the 1970s to remove homosexuality from the DSM and that they are still pressured to this day is nowhere near strong enough to conclude that homosexuality is a psychological disorder. This is because there are multiple adult homosexuals on this planet that have never exhibited any behavior that would justify a psychologist to question his or her psychological state. I think we all intuitively know It’s not by any means ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to find multiple homosexuals well into their adulthood that have never been arrested, never been voluntarily or involuntarily committed to a mental institution, and have no family members or friends whatsoever say they have seen him or her act in a dysfunctional manner. Now you could claim after giving a background check that the homosexual is just lying about their friends and family members, but are we really going to claim that EVERY SINGLE homosexual is dishonest? I do admit that homosexuals do have higher rates of disorders, but remember that does not mean that homosexuality IS ITSELF a disorder. Many argue that those disorders are triggered by the high rates of jaw dropping social rejection, violence, and bullying experienced by homosexuals

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I have said this on the forum before, and will say it again.

Claiming that the American Psychological Association was just pressured by homosexuals in the 1970s to remove homosexuality from the DSM and that they are still pressured to this day is nowhere near strong enough to conclude that homosexuality is a psychological disorder.

As I, and Robert, and others, have said; this is not what we’re claiming; your cause and effect seem to be out of order.

Homosexuality is a disorder, whether a person or organization believes it to be or not. We have presented our arguments for this position, none of which have been refuted; instead you’ve repeated this two or three times now and added nothing new to the conversation… in fact, I think this might be an exact copy paste to a post which has already been refuted…

It is a disorder, and the APA was pressured to stop calling it one. Whatever they may chose to do, homosexual acts and the desire to commit them violate the most basic principles of human physiology. They act in a manner that is contrary to the nature of the human person, and as such are, by definition, disordered. (Acting in a way contrary to ordered operations).

Simply repeating yourself doesn’t accomplish anything and only makes you look incapable of presenting a rational argument. Do us, and yourself, a favor and actually pay some mind to the in-depth posts we’re presented throughout this topic.

 

[Jake21]

As I, and Robert, and others, have said; this is not what we’re claiming; your cause and effect seem to be out of order.

Homosexuality is a disorder, whether a person or organization believes it to be or not. We have presented our arguments for this position, none of which have been refuted; instead you’ve repeated this two or three times now and added nothing new to the conversation… in fact, I think this might be an exact copy paste to a post which has already been refuted…

It is a disorder, and the APA was pressured to stop calling it one. Whatever they may chose to do, homosexual acts and the desire to commit them violate the most basic principles of human physiology. They act in a manner that is contrary to the nature of the human person, and as such are, by definition, disordered. (Acting in a way contrary to ordered operations).

Simply repeating yourself doesn’t accomplish anything and only makes you look incapable of presenting a rational argument. Do us, and yourself, a favor and actually pay some mind to the in-depth posts we’re presented throughout this topic.

That post was directed towards Corki, who seems to imply that she is skeptical of the claim that homosexuality is not a psychological disorder.

 

[Jake21]

As I, and Robert, and others, have said; this is not what we’re claiming; your cause and effect seem to be out of order.

Homosexuality is a disorder, whether a person or organization believes it to be or not. We have presented our arguments for this position, none of which have been refuted; instead you’ve repeated this two or three times now and added nothing new to the conversation… in fact, I think this might be an exact copy paste to a post which has already been refuted…

It is a disorder, and the APA was pressured to stop calling it one. Whatever they may chose to do, homosexual acts and the desire to commit them violate the most basic principles of human physiology. They act in a manner that is contrary to the nature of the human person, and as such are, by definition, disordered. (Acting in a way contrary to ordered operations).

Simply repeating yourself doesn’t accomplish anything and only makes you look incapable of presenting a rational argument. Do us, and yourself, a favor and actually pay some mind to the in-depth posts we’re presented throughout this topic.

Look through the posts, Robert and Tradcatholic27 both claimed that homosexuality was a mental disorder. Not a disorder in the eyes of nature or their religion.

 

[edwest2]

thefederalist.com/2015/03/17/dear-gay-community-your-kids-are-hurting/

amazon.com/Homosexuality-American-Psychiatry-Politics-Diagnosis/dp/0691028370

“As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.”

Source: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Ed

 

[Ridgerunner]

I have said this on the forum before, and will say it again.

Claiming that the American Psychological Association was just pressured by homosexuals in the 1970s to remove homosexuality from the DSM and that they are still pressured to this day is nowhere near strong enough to conclude that homosexuality is a psychological disorder. This is because there are multiple adult homosexuals on this planet that have never exhibited any behavior that would justify a psychologist to question his or her psychological state. I think we all intuitively know It’s not by any means ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to find multiple homosexuals well into their adulthood that have never been arrested, never been voluntarily or involuntarily committed to a mental institution, and have no family members or friends whatsoever say they have seen him or her act in a dysfunctional manner. Now you could claim after giving a background check that the homosexual is just lying about their friends and family members, but are we really going to claim that EVERY SINGLE homosexual is dishonest? I do admit that homosexuals do have higher rates of disorders, but remember that does not mean that homosexuality IS ITSELF a disorder. Many argue that those disorders are triggered by the high rates of jaw dropping social rejection, violence, and bullying experienced by homosexuals

Saying the same thing over and over again isn’t going to persuade. If the first time didn’t, then the repetitions won’t either.

The DMS V considers certain perversions “disorders”, like frotteuristic disorder, exhibitionism, voyeurism, pedophilia, sadism and masochism, because they necessarily involve others and can cause legal problems in the course of carrying them out. There are others that are only considered “disorders” if the patient is stressed about them, but not if he isn’t. They include telephone scatologia, necrophilia, zoophilia, coprophilia, klismaphilia, and urophilia.

So, what has happened with sexual disorders is that they are only considered “disorders” by the APA if they will get you into legal trouble or if they cause you stress, no matter how bizarre, twisted, and antisocial they are.

In other words, the APA has lately opted for pure subjectivism when it comes to sexual disorders. In doing so, it has rejected itself as a “scientific” source in that area of human conduct while it pretends to be objective and “scientific” in others.

 

[Jake21]

Saying the same thing over and over again isn’t going to persuade. If the first time didn’t, then the repetitions won’t either.

The DMS V considers certain perversions “disorders”, like frotteuristic disorder, exhibitionism, voyeurism, pedophilia, sadism and masochism, because they necessarily involve others and can cause legal problems in the course of carrying them out. There are others that are only considered “disorders” if the patient is stressed about them, but not if he isn’t. They include telephone scatologia, necrophilia, zoophilia, coprophilia, klismaphilia, and urophilia.

So, what has happened with sexual disorders is that they are only considered “disorders” by the APA if they will get you into legal trouble or if they cause you stress, no matter how bizarre, twisted, and antisocial they are.

In other words, the APA has lately opted for pure subjectivism when it comes to sexual disorders. In doing so, it has rejected itself as a “scientific” source in that area of human conduct while it pretends to be objective and “scientific” in others.

I don’t think these sexual attractions should automatically be considered psychological disorders just because society finds these attractions to be bizarre. These sexual attractions should be considered psychological disorders if they involve being anti social or is characterized with clinically significant disturbance in an individual’s cognitive, emotion, regulation, or behavior that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental process underlying mental functioning.

Anti social behavior is not intrinsically involved with homosexuality and homosexuality does not fit with the definition of a psychological disorder.

 

[Jake21]

As I, and Robert, and others, have said; this is not what we’re claiming; your cause and effect seem to be out of order.

Homosexuality is a disorder, whether a person or organization believes it to be or not. We have presented our arguments for this position, none of which have been refuted; instead you’ve repeated this two or three times now and added nothing new to the conversation… in fact, I think this might be an exact copy paste to a post which has already been refuted…

It is a disorder, and the APA was pressured to stop calling it one. Whatever they may chose to do, homosexual acts and the desire to commit them violate the most basic principles of human physiology. They act in a manner that is contrary to the nature of the human person, and as such are, by definition, disordered. (Acting in a way contrary to ordered operations).

Simply repeating yourself doesn’t accomplish anything and only makes you look incapable of presenting a rational argument. Do us, and yourself, a favor and actually pay some mind to the in-depth posts we’re presented throughout this topic.

I’m aware that the pressuring is not the reason why you guys belive it is a disorder. Your apparently making the claim that it’s a disorder in the eyes of nature or your religon. That claim is not what I was trying to refute. What I was trying to refute was the cliam that it was a mental disorder.

I should have left the pressuring part out. This is what I meant for you guys to read.

There are multiple adult homosexuals on this planet that have never exhibited any behavior that would justify a psychologist to question his or her psychological state. I think we all intuitively know It’s not by any means ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to find multiple homosexuals well into their adulthood that have never been arrested, never been voluntarily or involuntarily committed to a mental institution, and have no family members or friends whatsoever say they have seen him or her act in a dysfunctional manner. Now you could claim after giving a background check that the homosexual is just lying about their friends and family members, but are we really going to claim that EVERY SINGLE homosexual is dishonest? I do admit that homosexuals do have higher rates of disorders, but remember that does not mean that homosexuality IS ITSELF a disorder.

 

[Trad_Catholic27]

My sources are church militant’s Faith Based Investigative on the topic of homosexuality which details how destructive it is to individuals. also the CDC has done research on the link between homosexuality and AIDS along with the higher risk of suicide.

Homosexual behavior is and always will be a sexual deviant disorder and mental illness no matter what society says about it.

Sexual relations are made for the creation of life in marriage not for selfish purposes which the basis of homosexual activity.

 

[exnihilo]

I don’t have much respect for professional organizations and the APA would be no exception. Social ‘science’ is a tough subject since it really isn’t very scientific. It can’t be but scientism demands that everything be scientific. If your ‘scientific’ study tells you two men or two women are just as good a home as a mother and a father then it is not worth much. It might convince people with lots of education but it would never convince anyone with an ounce of common sense.

 

[Corki]

I’m aware that the pressuring is not the reason why you guys belive it is a disorder. Your apparently making the claim that it’s a disorder in the eyes of nature or your religon. That claim is not what I was trying to refute. What I was trying to refute was the cliam that it was a mental disorder.

I don’t know that anyone has claimed that homosexuality is definitively a mental disorder. It certainly has psychological elements, but there might also be biologic elements at work as well. But sexual attraction IS a psychological topic. A disordered sexuality or sexual attraction is a psychological disorder.

 

[Sparkythedog]

Yes. I have tried to mitigate it as much as possible by allowing their mother as much access as she/they are willing to have in their home with me. It has varied at times-- she made their home a place they were uncomfortable to be in-- I had to try and do what I could. But, a disconnect with a biological parent has a pretty profound affect, it undermines their sense of security, their concept of love and its permanence, their sense of trust.

There is a difference between a woman and a man, I can not be both. I can’t model a relationship between a man and a woman-- the daily interaction. Treating each other with respect and in deference/recognition of the differences between the genders. For example, a man always must show physical restraint and control, he can never use his physical advantage over a woman, even when she is angry or upset.

Statistics are just that-- statistics, they aren’t individual situations. The finest man I ever knew, my father, was raised by a single divorced mother during the depression in a major metropolitan city.

I’m really sorry to hear about your situation and I wish you the best as you try to make the most of difficult circumstances.

I’m curious about one other thing you said. What did your grandmother do when raising your father that made him such a good man? Again sorry if that is too personal but I’m always interested in people’s stories.

 

[styrgwillidar]

I’m really sorry to hear about your situation and I wish you the best as you try to make the most of difficult circumstances.

I’m curious about one other thing you said. What did your grandmother do when raising your father that made him such a good man? Again sorry if that is too personal but I’m always interested in people’s stories.

Well, she never got involved with anyone else and focused on her kids (which meant also focusing on her job and keeping it when there were a lot of folks out of work). Summers he spent with his Uncle and Aunt on their farm. He had to help out when he was older with a paper route. He also was responsible for helping out with/taking care of his little sister. Inner city and he was in/out of several tough situations and his Dad was never in the picture. I think she prayed a lot as well. He was raised Lutheran but converted to Catholicism after coming home from WWII.

No need to be sorry about my circumstances. It’s been awhile. I think I’ve made the best of it. Understood the ex well enough that I ended up with the kids, house, all my income. Only gave up part of my retirement and half our assets. She was never a greedy person. (I have a friend who’s living in an illegally converted garage. His ex ran up the bills, took every dime she could, quit her job well before asking for a divorce (on advice of lawyer) to maximize alimony). Tough at first but, I’ve been able to kiss my kids every morning and every night, be there for all the little things that come up and-- Enjoy those little things. Hardest was watching them go through it and the how it affected them. I was granted a declaration of nullity, so the ex was/is free to reconcile with the Church if she chooses to do so. (She hasn’t yet, but I pray about it). Weird situation in that she’s over here often, like every morning prior to school even though the youngest is old enough to drive himself. Brings dinner once a week to them on the night I teach CCD. A lot of my kids’ friends parents are also divorced- they think its weird but like the fact my ex and I can be around each other, still be polite and even joke around. (That will end when my youngest is out of the house).

But it was really hard on my younger daughter not having a mom around. Stuff comes up, you know? Things with school, doubts struggles about herself and a girl’s/woman’s place in the world. Hard for Dad to relate or understand or give advice on. She’s in a better place with her Mom lately, but it was a long hard road for a few years.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t think these sexual attractions should automatically be considered psychological disorders just because society finds these attractions to be bizarre. These sexual attractions should be considered psychological disorders if they involve being anti social or is characterized with clinically significant disturbance in an individual’s cognitive, emotion, regulation, or behavior that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental process underlying mental functioning.

Anti social behavior is not intrinsically involved with homosexuality and homosexuality does not fit with the definition of a psychological disorder.

By your definition, few disorders accepted by the APA would be “disorders” despite DSM claims that they are.

The problem with the later versions of the DSM (guided by the APA) is that when it comes to sex, the yardstick is purely subjective. If I don’t think my proclivity is disordered, then it isn’t. But then it turns right around and claims that other disorders are objectively determined.

There is no credibility to something like that, and it certainly isn’t science. It’s a moral system imposed on something that claims to be a science.

 

[Thorolfr]

Homosexual behavior is a form of mental illness because individuals who suffer from it have had trouble connecting towards the opposite sex and began to lust after the same sex due to problems bounding with their opposite gender parents.

What evidence do you have for this? How do you explain all the gay men who grew up in perfectly normal families and had great relationships with their dads?

 

[Trad_Catholic27]

The homosexual men who grow up in normal families still do not understand true manhood and because they have often been over exposed to society"s false perception of manhood which is heavily influenced by feminist ideology.

We see this false manhood shown by the sitcoms where husbands are seen as weak, stupid fools who only consider sex as the point of their marriage. Another example of false manhood is how secular culture champions men who sleep around with women and have numerous out of wedlock children. Along with the fact that a vast majority of them begin to take on female social expressions due the fact that they are unable to relate to males

Basically feminist ideology dehumanizes men and reduces us to brutes who are only concerned with sports and sex. But true manhood is rooted in Christ and Catholic teaching on sexual ethics and morals

 

[edwest2]

The homosexual men who grow up in normal families still do not understand true manhood and because they have often been over exposed to society"s false perception of manhood which is heavily influenced by feminist ideology.

We see this false manhood shown by the sitcoms where husbands are seen as weak, stupid fools who only consider sex as the point of their marriage. Another example of false manhood is how secular culture champions men who sleep around with women and have numerous out of wedlock children. Along with the fact that a vast majority of them begin to take on female social expressions due the fact that they are unable to relate to males

Basically feminist ideology dehumanizes men and reduces us to brutes who are only concerned with sports and sex. But true manhood is rooted in Christ and Catholic teaching on sexual ethics and morals

That is correct. We were called “male chauvenist pigs” by the Women’s Liberation Movement in the 1970s. All men were the enemy, all women were the victims. The patriarchy - that’s us, guys - had to be overthrown.

Secular media champions men and women who sleep around. Time to stop and realize we are being lied to by the “entertainment” media all the time. That immoral portrayals means a lot of people don’t even know how to have a relationship. They don’t know what a real “family” actually is but boy, are we getting a lot of bad info about ‘alternative lifestyles.’

Wake up, my fellow Catholics. amazon.com/Be-Man-Becoming-God-Created/dp/1586174037

Ed

 

[Rau]

People on this forum claim that the APA is pressured and corrupt, but I think that’s far from the truth. The APA is a major professional watchdog of psychology. They cite methodologically valid studies (unlike the hilarious junk science organizations like the Family Research Council) and have professionals judge the validity of psychological studies. I think the APA has an excellent track record when it comes to homosexuality. People who reject that claim mention the fact that the APA cites studies about homosexual partners raising children that have small non representative samples that have potential for bias. The studies that the APA cites acknowledges these limitations. Just because these studies have these limitations does not mean that there completely discredited. If you want to see some studies that are completely discredited, just go to the Family Research Council.

Are we really going to claim that EVERY SINGLE child of the homosexual partners that reported results that were extremely similar to heterosexual partners was biased or dishonest when these multiple studies were conducted throughout the decades?

If we combine that point with the fact that males are capable of being nurturing and caring like women are typically viewed to be, and females are capable of being bold and tough like men are typically viewed to be, we are left with a solid case that kids of homosexual partners will not have decent sized differences when compared to kids of heterosexual partners. The difference that people take note of is the way these aspects of parenting are carried out by males and females, but I don’t Intuitively see that as having a decent sized effect on children’s wellbeing. As long as both people that are of the same sex sufficiently carry out those aspects toward their children, then I don’t see how it will have much of a negative effect on the children.

Is the debate REALLY about who is capable of raising children, or is it about whether society should go about constructing families where one of more parents is absent by design…?

 

[Rau]

The problem with the later versions of the DSM (guided by the APA) is that when it comes to sex, the yardstick is purely subjective. If I don’t think my proclivity is disordered, then it isn’t. But then it turns right around and claims that other disorders are objectively determined.

I understand the DSM takes the view that if one’s condition:

• does not represent a threat to others;
• does not materially impede a person from living productively;
• does not cause the person to seek a cure

then there is little point in including the condition in the DSM. The absence of an accepted treatment might also weigh on such a decision.

Thus, exclusion from the DSM is s pragmatic statement about one’s condition, rather than a judgement that there is no condition warranting further study.