The Science Of Sexual Orientation

  • Thread starter Thread starter FightingFat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Digger71:
Of course defining something as a mental illness just because it’s different seems a bit extreme to me.

I know a kid (related to the autistic boy I sometimes talk about) who has lots of glittery things, bangles, a treasure chest of jewelry, and seems very effeminate to me. The parents say he’s happy and he doesnt get bullied, so let him develop as is natural for him. The family, BTW, has a high incidence of homosexuality and are very accepting.

Oddly, two of the familys’ gays are real macho-men. When I first met them I said “Wow, the straightest gay guys in the world!”

The immediate response was “Them,s fighting words where we’re from”.

If a kids a effeminate, so what? The world in not made up of little clones of mummy and daddy. Get over it.
Actually you’re right. That is, “gay” and “effeminate” don’t always go together, and so we shouldn’t jump to conclusions. I’ve also known some very “effeminate” straight men. There is such a thing as individuality, after all.
It also seems odd to me that the twin brother also seems to have a “stereotyped” identity - maybe in reaction to his brother? The twins I know seem to have a tendancy to define themselves in opposition to each other. Maybe this dynamic exaggerates their differences.
 
40.png
BlindSheep:
Actually you’re right. That is, “gay” and “effeminate” don’t always go together, and so we shouldn’t jump to conclusions. I’ve also known some very “effeminate” straight men. There is such a thing as individuality, after all.
swoon THUD!
 
Here’s the usual anti-gay buzz kill. It’s boring. It’s science. A lot folks don’t like it.
psych.org/psych_pract/copptherapyaddendum83100.cfm
apsa.org/ctf/cgli/reparative_therapy.htm
apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html
clgs.org/5/5_6_1.html

Homosexuality is not a mental illness. Homosexuality is normal varient of human sexuality found in most cultures throughout history.

Despite some the belief of some posters, a now very aged group of homosexuals did not force the American Psychiatric Assn, the American Psychological Assn, the American Medical Assn, etc. to change the DSM for the past 40 years now. Rather, scientific research in sexual orientation concluded:

Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or an emotional problem. Over 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself,is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems.
www.apa.org/topics/sbehaviorsub1.html

The controversy on whether homosexuality is a mental illness shares the same status as the controversy of whether skin pigmentation denotes intelligence.
 
MikeinSD said:
Homosexuality is not a mental illness. Homosexuality is normal varient of human sexuality found in most cultures throughout history.
Despite some the belief of some posters, a now very aged group of homosexuals did not force the American Psychiatric Assn, the American Psychological Assn, the American Medical Assn, etc. to change the DSM for the past 40 years now. Rather, scientific research in sexual orientation concluded:
This is exactly what the gay activists which have politically infiltrated the APA would have us believe. Here is a sampling of articles that make it clear that the APA decision to remove “homosexuality” from the DSM (the universal mental health field "bible"for diagnsis of mental disorders) was policially and not scientifically driven:
Panelists Recount Events Leading to Deleting Homosexuality As a Psychiatric Disorder From DSM
Twenty-five years ago APA leaders, in the glare of a national media spotlight, took the controversial step of deleting homosexuality from the Association’s compendium of psychiatric disorders. That action launched APA on a quarter century of efforts to end discrimination against homosexuals and coincided with the increasing willingness of gay and lesbian psychiatrists to insist openly that APA must listen to them.

A panel of psychiatrists who played crucial roles in the fight to end the stigma attached to homosexuality both within and outside the mental health field came together at the APA annual meeting last month to provide insiders’ perspectives on that initiative and more recent efforts to alter how psychiatry views gays and lesbians and their sexual orientation.

Melvin Sabshin, M.D., a member of the APA Board of Trustees in the early 1970s and chair of the Scientific Program Committee at that time, described how the alienation gay psychiatrists felt from their APA colleagues led in 1970 to the start of a concerted push for APA to include them in decision making and address their concerns and those of gay patients.

psych.org/pnews/98-07-17/dsm.html
The Removal of Homosexuality from the
Psychiatric Manual
-by Joseph Nicolosi
National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality
Discusses the American Psychiatric Association’s well-known removal of homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. Argues that this was done because of political pressures, the overall influence of the sexual revolution, and problematic humanitarian motives. Asserts that now homosexuals who seek treatment for their condition are often denied help by psychologists and psychiatrists.

All three great pioneers of psychiatry–Freud, Jung and Adler–saw homosexuality as disordered. Yet today, homosexuality is not to be found in the psychiatric manual of mental disorders.

Were these three great pioneers just reflecting the ignorance and prejudice of their times? Is this radical shift due to our modern-day enlightened, sophisticated attitude? Has there been any new research to account for this shift of opinion?
I submit that no new psychological or sociological research justifies this shift. Research did not settle the question. Research simply stopped, and it is politics that has silenced the professional dialogue. Now, the only studies on homosexuality are from an advocacy perspective.

Militant gay advocates working in a small but forceful network have caused apathy and confusion within our society. They insist that acceptance of the homosexual as a person cannot occur without endorsement of the homosexual condition. Intellectual circles too–who are self-conscious about sounding intolerant–proclaim homosexuality as normal, yet it is still not so for the average person for whom it “just doesn’t seem right.”
catholicsocialscientists.org/Symposium2–Nicolosi–mss.htm
 
MikeinSD said:
Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or an emotional problem. Over 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself,is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems.
www.apa.org/topics/sbehaviorsub1.html
Note the [biased] source: APA
The A.P.A. Normalization of Homosexuality, and the Research Study of Irving Bieber
Dr. Bieber was one of the key participants in the historical debate which culminated in the 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the psychiatric manual.

Dr. Bieber describes the deletion of homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic and statistical manual as “the climax of a sociopolitical struggle involving what were deemed to be the rights of homosexuals.”

“It is my aim here,” he wrote, “to separate out the psychiatric and conceptual issues from the sociopolitical issues; to document my own theoretical and clinical position; and to describe the events that I participated in and observed–all of which I trust will bring into focus the elements that went into the American Psychiatric Association’s decision.”
narth.com/docs/normalization.html
The controversy on whether homosexuality is a mental illness shares the same status as the controversy of whether skin pigmentation denotes intelligence.
This is what the gay activists would like to have us all believe
 
40.png
geezerbob:
I wasn’t taking issue with you. I was taking issue with the “researcher” who stated that this one case proved that homosexuality was innate and not a product of environment.
I saw the 60 minutes interview and what the interviewer says is “so it must be innate…but wait…” and then they go on to show identical twins, one gay and one straight and say it’s clearly not genetic. They were making a comparison between a case that said seemed to be predetermined and a case t hat obviously wasnt.
 
40.png
m134e5:
His absence is probably why the one kid ended up this way. The other one may not have been affected by it as much for whatever reason.
Or how about the mother not giving him girl toys? Couple of people I’ve worked with in the past said they had boys who asked for dolls and such growing up, and they told them to play with what the parents bought, or don’t have anything to play with. Guess what? These kids figured it was better to have tonka trucks and GI Joes than have nothing at all and they all turned out just fine.
 
tom.wineman said:
I think it would be more interesting to examine their parents who bought them all this paraphernalia.

I think we have a brilliant poster here!!!
 
40.png
setter:
Note the [biased] source: APA
This is what the gay activists would like to have us all believe
Again I am reminded of creationists…

Their theories (such as intelligent design) are not rejected because of a lack of evidence, a lack of theory, a lack peer reviewed papers…they are rejected because of a massive ‘darwinist’ comspiracy…

The fact that 99.995% os biologists accept evolution as a fact, and evolutionary theory as the best explanation og the fact is just proof of that MASSIVE conspiracy.

So, 99.995% of the professionals reject the intrisically disordered argument…oooooh, they must be biased and mislead. The tiny proportion of theistic psychos must be right…

or, as with the creationist debate, their ‘faith’ requires the conculsions they come to and their arguments are all back to front.

I know what is more likely.
 
40.png
Digger71:
40.png
setter:
Again I am reminded of creationists…

Their theories (such as intelligent design) are not rejected because of a lack of evidence, a lack of theory, a lack peer reviewed papers…they are rejected because of a massive ‘darwinist’ comspiracy…

The fact that 99.995% os biologists accept evolution as a fact, and evolutionary theory as the best explanation og the fact is just proof of that MASSIVE conspiracy.

So, 99.995% of the professionals reject the intrisically disordered argument…oooooh, they must be biased and mislead. The tiny proportion of theistic psychos must be right…

or, as with the creationist debate, their ‘faith’ requires the conculsions they come to and their arguments are all back to front.

I know what is more likely.
You got any evidence to back up those numbers? If not, I’d say your assumption is biased and mislead.
 
40.png
setter:
40.png
Digger71:
So I get the nod on 2 out the 3 sources that I cited as passing your criteria for being reputable? My odds seem to be vastly improving. 😃
I’m still sourcing the others…I am only one person.
 
40.png
siamesecat:
I saw the 60 minutes interview and what the interviewer says is “so it must be innate…but wait…” and then they go on to show identical twins, one gay and one straight and say it’s clearly not genetic. They were making a comparison between a case that said seemed to be predetermined and a case t hat obviously wasnt.
So, this 60 minutes program,

did they mention penetrance?

did they mention diabetes, MS, handedness, or all the hundreds of other twin studies (not related to sexuality) that confirm penetrance and genetic causative factors?

Did they mention that environment activates genes?

Did they mention that once genes are activated they are inevitable?

Doubtful. Read the source papers. It helps.
 
40.png
Digger71:
So, this 60 minutes program,

did they mention penetrance?

did they mention diabetes, MS, handedness, or all the hundreds of other twin studies (not related to sexuality) that confirm penetrance and genetic causative factors?

Did they mention that environment activates genes?

Did they mention that once genes are activated they are inevitable?

Doubtful. Read the source papers. It helps.
Penetrance as in gay sex? Sorry I’m just confused! They did mention environment can have influence on predisposition I think (I saw it a while ago). I don’t remember the exact thing. Are you trying to prove it is genetic or that it isnt? They had a case for both.
 
40.png
siamesecat:
Penetrance as in gay sex? Sorry I’m just confused! They did mention environment can have influence on predisposition I think (I saw it a while ago). I don’t remember the exact thing. Are you trying to prove it is genetic or that it isnt? They had a case for both.
Siamesecat,

Do not be too wowed by biological terms and genetic predisposition lingo… the fact is there has never been scientifically discovered the elusive “gay gene”; nor has it been conclusively determined that there exists a primary genetic factor for the prescence of SSA. For every dubbed up twin study and latest research, there is a scientic community that has shown the shortcomings and inconclusiveness of studies that purport to demonstrate a primary genetic causality for SSA. There is more a perponderance of scientic evidence that strongly indicates that SSA is primarily a consequence of abusive and neglectful environmental and comorbidity factors that have adversely affected a healthy psychosexual development. The politically driven gay activists simply falsely label and accuse these sound and valid studies and peer reviews as “biased” to avoid peer accountability, which is the litmus test for any scientic research and conclusions claiming to be sound and valid.
 
40.png
wabrams:
40.png
Digger71:
You got any evidence to back up those numbers? If not, I’d say your assumption is biased and mislead.
Project Steve…
500 ‘doubters*’ /720 ‘steves’** ~= 0.69

*(not all of whom doubt evolution, not all are scientists)
**(about 1% of the population are called ‘steve’, all scientists)

ttp://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp

NARTH = 1500* ** in 2004, vs 500,000 in the APA = 0.3%

*No professional qualification required. “friends of NARTH”.
** Note NARTH membership is hidden by NARTH.

OK. So not my 99…995%, that was rhetorical and I didnt check the fact. Apologies. I did, however think it was obviously rhetorical.

so…99.5+% vs 0.5% hmmmmm.

Good enough? The figures are rounded up.
 
40.png
siamesecat:
Penetrance as in gay sex? Sorry I’m just confused! They did mention environment can have influence on predisposition I think (I saw it a while ago). I don’t remember the exact thing. Are you trying to prove it is genetic or that it isnt? They had a case for both.
Penetranceis the chance of a gene expressing itself. All genes react to environment, but once activated are inevitable, you cannot turn them off.

Penetrance is well known in discussions of genetics. And a debate about twins studies is incomplete without it.

We do not know what triggers the genes, but we we do know that when triggered it is inevitable. With diabetes no amount of moral fortitude will stop the diabetes, once triggered, you are a diabetic.
 
40.png
Digger71:
40.png
wabrams:
Project Steve…
500 ‘doubters*’ /720 ‘steves’** ~= 0.69

*(not all of whom doubt evolution, not all are scientists)
**(about 1% of the population are called ‘steve’, all scientists)

ttp://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp

NARTH = 1500* ** in 2004, vs 500,000 in the APA = 0.3%

*No professional qualification required. “friends of NARTH”.
** Note NARTH membership is hidden by NARTH.

OK. So not my 99…995%, that was rhetorical and I didnt check the fact. Apologies. I did, however think it was obviously rhetorical.

so…99.5+% vs 0.5% hmmmmm.

Good enough?
The figures are rounded up.

No, because its a parody site.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top