Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So when the APA dropped homosexuality as a disorder from DSM II in 1974, was that decision based primarily on new science or protests by gay activists beginning in 1970?
Both. Although the science wasn't really that new. The first studies that showed homosexuality wasn't a mental illness were in the 1950's by Evelyn Hooker. The protests were because the notoriously conservative APA were dragging their feet because of lomgstanding cultural and religious views. Many were still performing completely unnecessary experimental "therapies" like electroshock therapy, aversion therapy etc - which amounted to psychological torture for many gay people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Were these trained psychiatrists completely wrong until gay protesters made them understand the science they had misunderstood all those years?
There WAS no science that showed homosexuality was a mental disorder - it was a cultural and religious view that anything other than heterosexual was disordered. However when they finally started doing studies with average gay people they found no pathology for mental illness. BTW, The first DSM-I was only published in 1952.
The APA "concluded they were wrong" only after several years of protests by gay activists at their convention.
If they were wrong prior to 1974 and they completely reversed themselves, what makes you think they are right this time?
They weren't right the last time, so where does this new credibility come from?
It's still the same people who got it wrong and didn't know they were wrong.
Was a major study completed in 1974 that proved previous conclusions wrong?
I wonder if the gay activists targeted psychiatrists on the board for harassment the same way they did prop 8 supporters.
It isn't a mental illness, but an expression of human sexuality.
Even with pressure, the APA isn't allowed to make decisions like that groundlessly. If campaigning forced them to re-examine the issue, it was a good thing in my opinion.
Quote:
They weren't right the last time, so where does this new credibility come from?
Scroll to "Is homosexuality a mental illness or an emotional problem?"
Quote:
More than 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. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information.
In the past, the studies of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about such people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue.
In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better-designed research and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting this removal.
Did you choose to feel attraction to the opposite sex? I'm not talking about choosing to behave in a certain way, but the feelings of attraction themselves.
Take that answer and apply it to homosexuality. Boils down to the same thing in the end.
Sexual behaviour is a choice. Sexual orientation, which I assume the OP means by "preference", is not.
I consider that to be no more relevant than whether an alcoholic, a pedophile, rapist, compulsive gambler, or anyone else "chooses" to be attracted to an immoral behavior.
Quote:
As for people telling you you are wrong, it's because they believe you are. If morally you don't agree with homosexuality, that's your business but I don't see grounds for denying people equal legal rights based on a system of morality than not everyone will share.
You've got the right to tell me I'm wrong. I don't much care, to be honest. But no one is denied any "equal rights" based on sexual attraction. The question was never brought up when I applied for a marriage license. It was a moot point.
To try to impose the view that it should be an issue is bigoted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax
There WAS no science that showed homosexuality was a mental disorder - it was a cultural and religious view that anything other than heterosexual was disordered. However when they finally started doing studies with average gay people they found no pathology for mental illness.
You're citing a lack of evidence to suggest it is...but is there any evidence to show that it ISN'T? In any event, I don't know that I really care to base morality on a continually changing "science" of psychology. We really have no clue how the human mind works.
I consider that to be no more relevant than whether an alcoholic, a pedophile, rapist, compulsive gambler, or anyone else "chooses" to be attracted to an immoral behavior.
You've got the right to tell me I'm wrong. I don't much care, to be honest. But no one is denied any "equal rights" based on sexual attraction. The question was never brought up when I applied for a marriage license. It was a moot point.
To try to impose the view that it should be an issue is bigoted.
You're citing a lack of evidence to suggest it is...but is there any evidence to show that it ISN'T? In any event, I don't know that I really care to base morality on a continually changing "science" of psychology. We really have no clue how the human mind works.
Quote:
I consider that to be no more relevant than whether an alcoholic, a pedophile, rapist, compulsive gambler, or anyone else "chooses" to be attracted to an immoral behavior.
I suppose this is where we must agree to disagree.
Quote:
But no one is denied any "equal rights" based on sexual attraction. The question was never brought up when I applied for a marriage license. It was a moot point.
True. Instead, barring certain states and countries, gay people have to pretend to be in love with and/or attracted to someone they are not if they wish to get married.
You don't see a problem with this based on your assessment of the situation as expressed in the first quote; I and others would.
But Calvin, you base your morality on a book written two thousand years ago...The world has moved on a bit since then. What the hell do you care if gays marry or not? It's not your business.
Educate yourself.. because I'm pretty sure the crazyjesus juice you're drinking has made you an idiot with no common sense or compassion. All it's given you is a false sense of knowledge, and a soap box to sit on and point fingers. Be careful....
You speak of compassion and common sense! And express yourself in such a mean-spirited ugly way? Everyone has been upmost respectful of everyone up until now.
You dont respect others; others with different points of view than you.
Do you understand that when you deman and make fun of people of the Christian faith that you are disrespecting about 80% of the U.S poplulation?. That is correct, about 80% believe in the Jesus you demean. Even your president.
Because people believe homosexuality is a choice does not mean they should incur your rath. It is a question posed on CD and a poll offered. We give our opinion and you rail against us. If you can't handle a different opinion, regardless of how close to home it is for you then maybe this is the wrong forum for you.
I suppose this is where we must agree to disagree.
True. Instead, barring certain states and countries, gay people have to pretend to be in love with and/or attracted to someone they are not if they wish to get married.
You don't see a problem with this based on your assessment of the situation as expressed in the first quote; I and others would.
When has marriage in this country EVER been guaranteed for love? There are a LOT of examples throughout history of marriage being based on anything but love.
Love marriages are a relatively new phenomenon.
Your statement about pretending to be attracted to someone they're not, or the emotional argument about not being able to marry someone you love is just not a sound argument. I do not have the same right guaranteed to me. Why should you have a new form of marriage based on that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
But Calvin, you base your morality on a book written two thousand years ago...The world has moved on a bit since then. What the hell do you care if gays marry or not? It's not your business.
You've attempted to marginalize my view based on your critique of my religious beliefs. You may base your views partially on a lack of religious belief, but that doesn't make you any more justified in it. I would question why you think you have the right to impose your views on me? I don't care what you do in your bedroom, but don't try to force me and the rest of society to legitimize your lifestyle, or teach my kid that your relationship is normal or moral.
I don't define morality, so it's not just "how I feel".
Why would I suggest they practice immorality just because they "feel that way"? Would you advocate a pedophile act on his desires just because he was "born that way"?...
Don't you EVER get tired of the pedophile strawman? A pedophile is not engaging in a relationship with a CONSENTING ADULT. That is the difference in its entirety. Surely you're not so dense as to be unable to comprehend vast difference in those two scenarios?
You don't define morality, so who does? Where do you get your moral guidance from?
My relationship? My lifestyle? Are you in the habit of eating shoe leather? You know nothing about my relationships, so I'll thank you not to make assumptions. I've not tried to impose my views on you, I've merely expressed them.
Don't you EVER get tired of the pedophile strawman? A pedophile is not engaging in a relationship with a CONSENTING ADULT. That is the difference in its entirety. Surely you're not so dense as to be unable to comprehend vast difference in those two scenarios?
Are you intentionally acting so obtuse? I'm referring to the emotional whine about the desire for such a relationship--not the relationship itself. Do you not grasp the analogy?
Quote:
You don't define morality, so who does? Where do you get your moral guidance from?
I get my moral guidance from God. I place that on a higher level than that of society, which is subject to the whims of culture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
My relationship? My lifestyle? Are you in the habit of eating shoe leather? You know nothing about my relationships, so I'll thank you not to make assumptions. I've not tried to impose my views on you, I've merely expressed them.
My apologies. I honestly did not mean to imply anything about YOU specifically. Since you were taking the affirmative on the debate I was referring to "you" in a general sort of sense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
