Why is homosexuality "bad" to some people?

[John Dibble]

Well, obviously people today often have religious reasons to dislike it, but if you're of the secular persuasion like myself and you believe that human religions were not divinely inspired then you have to think there's something else in human psychology that made it come about.

Perhaps it's just because homosexuality is very 'different' from what is normal. Humans tend to prefer those who are similar to themselves, and are not always tolerant of those who are different. If half of all people were gay then it would probably be considered normal and would likely be accepted as just another part of everyday life. But that isn't the case, in reality it's only something like three or four percent, so maybe some people just thought it was really weird and that meant there was something 'wrong' with homosexuals that made them something to be reviled. But at the same time there have been primitive religious cultures that were much more accepting of it, so perhaps the above in conjunction with a sexually prudish culture would make it be considered unacceptable to the degree that those who practice it are hated.

[John Dibble]

Many of you will likely say, "the APA disagrees". Yes, of course. I have learned not to trust most of what the APA says. Up until the early 70s, what I said above was the opinion of the APA. During one conference, the entire views of the APA changed. Why? The board was replaced by homosexual or homosexual-friendly psychologists. It was essentially hijacked. Most of the data used to justify homosexuality was hogwash. None of the studies were done properly. It was, and has become, a huge mess.

Right, it's all a conspiracy. It happened instantly and with nobody having presented any studies prior to that point in which homosexuals did not display pathological problems. It's all part of the insideous GAY AGENDA!

Homosexuality is a huge problem, as the entire lifestyle is unhealthy physically, psychologically, and spiritually. Homosexual men are more likely to have a promiscuous lifestyle, die earlier in life, and to have severe psychological problems. It's time that the APA takes a look at reality and find a solution for this problem. These people need help, and instead of helping, the APA is making it worse. More men-- often very young-- will die, and live very unsatisfying lives.

Could you explain to me why then most of the homosexuals I've met are physically healthy, emotionally happy and stable, in rather stable relationships, and quite satisfied with their lives? Hell, as far as physically healthy goes a lot of the ones I've seen tend to look healthier on average than the straight ones I've met - less problems with obesity and whatnot.

[John Dibble]

It’s true. I know it sounds a bit clique to say that, but even major leaders of the APA, especially recently, have attested to this fact. The APA is falling apart, for crying out loud. It has lost a lot of respect in the scientific community.

The APA is falling apart? Since when? Up until now I've received no information in regards to this.

Meanwhile, nobody in the scientific community respects NARTH and the organizations you support.

(the word you're looking for there is cliché, btw)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course being homosexual doesn't make one happy. Neither does being straight last time I checked - there are lots of miserable straight people in the world with no psychological disorders.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Statistically speaking? Where the hell did this statistic come from?

Anyways, a lot of fathers have a stigma against homosexuals, which couldn't possibly come from religious teachings. That couldn't possibly affect how a straight parent might relate to a homosexually oriented child.

[John Dibble]

If you were involved in the psychology community, you would know that the APA is losing respect, because of their poor methods of research. The scientific community had not respected NARTH because the APA condemned it. This is now changing, because NARTH is doing actual research.

Oh please. You keep saying how in touch you are with the psychology community - well then name some names. I would bet money all of your so called pscyhology buddies who denounce are rather devout Christians, and I'd bet a few are conversion therapists as well. They have probably been among those who denounced the APA ever since it changed it's tune.

Do you really think that any serious studies were done back in the day to say that homosexuals were actually disordered? Of course not - the entire concept came because of preconceived notions coming from religious influences. When actual study was done the APA changed it's position because it would have been intellectually dishonest not to do so. NARTH on the other hand maintains it's prejudices and makes it's conclusions long before any of it's so called studies are completed.

[John Dibble]

While I'll admit that most of the psychologists I know are Christian or Catholic, none of them are conversion therapists. But this doesn't disqualify anything of what I've said-- most of them work for publicly-funded clinics such as UCSF, others are in private practices-- and all of them are licensed.

They're liscensed, fine. I didn't say they weren't. Still, I don't think your anecdotal exposure to the pscyhological community is evidence of the opinion of that community at large. Keep in mind that in most scientific communities those who think alike tend to be a part of eachother's circles. I imagine most of those you know were not met independently, but rather introduced to you from some common threads. As such it wouldn't be out of the question if they had similar opinions on the APA. (btw, there are two APAs, the Psychiatric and Psychological, so I'm going to stop using acronyms after this because it gets confusing) I have not heard denunciation of either APA at large by those communities, so I'm not inclined to believe there is one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok, let me get this straight. In 1973 the board of trustees for the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove homosexuality from the list of disorders. You say this was bad, as they were going against the real wishes of the pscyhiatric community. Those who disagreed with the board petitioned and wrote angry letters to express their disagreement. So, given this was a contentious issue they decided they would let the members of the society, most of whom I assume were educated and liscensed pschiatrists perfectly capable of examining all studies and evidence compiled thus far in order to reach a professional opinion, to vote on the organizations stated opinion. The majority (58% in this case) agreed, so the board's decision did represent the majority of the organization.

And when the vote comes back against you, you say it's bad. So what the hell do you want? The board made a decision, your side said it didn't reflect the opinion of the community, and when the community showed by vote that they did agree you bitch about it. Yes, psychology and psychiatry aren't democracies, they are sciences. But in every science there is a great deal of disagreement. Contradicting theories can't all all be valid - one of them is right or none of them are right. In this case the board deciding wasn't enough, so they put it up to the entire association to decide and the majority's professional opinion after consideration was against the minority's professional opinion.

Science is not a democracy, but it isn't a dictatorship either. You have to work to get your ideas accepted by other professionals in the community for them to be considered as true. Obviously in this case the majority accepted the work of those in favor of removing homosexuality from the list of disorders over the work of those who didn't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And what, NARTH isn't biased? Please. People are biased towards their own opinions and beliefs - is this a new concept to you? Yes, every American Psychological Association president has his or her own biases because of his or her own opinions. It's good they change presidents every year so one individual's biases can't fester for too long, now isn't it? I doubt NARTH makes that kind of change so often.

[John Dibble]

That’s not my point. My point is showing you how the APA has lost respect, and I shouldn’t have to repeat how this is so, as I’ve already qualified this.

And you've yet to really prove that point. You've provided only anecdotal examples based on personal friends and like one or two people you don't know.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

58% of 21,000 people is not exactly a slim margin. Not a supermajority, but not a slim margin. But that's not all the important really - if a board of psychologists agreed it was a disorder it wouldn't make it one either.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Reverse that - there was never a need to have it on there in the first place. Do you honestly think it was put on there after objective study? It was put there in the first place because of preconceived notions due to religion, not because of science.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or maybe they just wanted societal acceptance instead of hatred and scorn.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually I'm quite sure most psychologists and psychiatrists do know about it, especially those who specialize in sexual behavior studies and therapies. Most of those that do just agree it's rubbish.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There was scientific research done on it. For instance, a study compiled the psychological profiles of two groups of men, one exclusively homosexual and the other exclusively heterosexual, with the profiles based on three standard psychological tests of the day. The results of each test were presented to an experts for that test (in one case the actual creator of the test). The results were unmarked as to avoid any bias. One evaluator took six months to do the comparisons, and another was so sure he could tell the two groups apart that he went through the process twice. Ultimately none of these three experts could tell the difference between the two groups psychological profiles - there were no differences in terms of psychological adjustment. This study was presented to the American Psychological Association during their convention in 1956, and was influential in the American Psychiatric Association's decision in 1973.

Contrary to that, there wasn't really any hard science that I know of that proved homosexuality was actually a disorder. I reiterate that the entire reason it was considered one in the first place was due to the religious values of society at large - hardly scientific.

[John Dibble]

Why is Brambilla's social score only 1.64?

For all his talk about gays being disordered, I can't recall him having a lot of other traditionally hardcore conservative values.

[John Dibble]

You must have not read all my links. Did you read what previous presidents and leaders of the APA have said? Did you read the articles from the NARTH link I gave you? There are many more where this comes from.

I read most of the former presidents stuff, but not the NARTH stuff because NARTH has an anti-APA bias that has existed for years. It's still anecdotal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your logic here is a double-edged sword. If 58% isn't big enough to say homosexuality isn't a disorder, then how is 42% enough to say it is?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Seeing that Sigmund Freud, an atheist, founded the modern school of psychology, this argument is simply not plausible.[/quote]

You have a point, but there were major religious influences. Post-Roman European society was very unaccepting of homosexuals due to Christianity. Even if he was an atheist, Freud didn't exactly study homosexuality in depth I don't think it's out of the question to say his conclusions on it were influenced by the predominant cultural attitude even if he was an atheist. Considering Freud was not exactly scientific in his methods of study (much of his work has been debunked by those who actually follow the scientific method) it would not be at all surprising.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

IF it is disordered. And from most of the legitimate science I've seen it is not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Poor example to prove your point - those protesting the APA got automatic A's, not those who supported it. Sounds like your side was the one that got a poor education.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Go back to that TIME article you linked earlier - it clearly says American Psychiatric Association, in the first sentence no less. I think you're confusing the two organizations due to them having the same acronym. The American Psychological Association made their decision in 1975.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't disagree that there were unscientific studies in regards to homosexuality - there have been those on both sides. I also agree that the 10% figure is bunk - the reality is probably more towards 3%.

The study I mentioned was conducted by Evelyn Hooker. I believe this is the study she presented in 1956, which was published in a journal in 1957:

http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/hooker.htm

It seems to be rather scientific to me, but I'll let you read it yourself.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's suppose for a moment those stats are true - the question is whether or not that really makes homosexuality a disorder. I could probably pretty easily find a study showing that blacks are more likely to commit crimes, but I doubt what you would get from that is that blacks are inherently more prone to be criminals. Correlation does not equal causation. It may be true that those problems you mentioned above are the result of societal influences rather than being an inherent problem of homosexuality. Just as an example, many homosexuals fear coming out to their immediate family - many familys disconnect when this happens. If your family rejected you, wouldn't you be more prone to suicide, depression, and perhaps promiscuity? Those homosexuals I know who have strong (or at least normal) family bonds don't seem to have these problems. They seem happy and look to maintain rather monogamous relationships.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I didn't say it's illegitimate - I do it as well as you can see above - but please understand that personal experience is anecdotal, and is therefore not necessarily representative of the larger picture. Those who realize that are less likely to be convinced by it, so it's use in debate can be rather limited.

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You’re missing the point. What I’m saying is that voting on the measure is not the proper method to redefine science.

What do you think the scientific community is? It's a place where scientists perform experiments and studies, write down the information, and present it to their peers. Then their peers either accept or reject the research. Is it ideal? No, but you have to consider the simple fact that scientific research is performed by human beings. Even if a former vote is never held, the results of research won't be hailed as science until it's held as such by a sufficient number of professionals in that field of science! That's reality. Sure, 58% of psychiatrists could have been wrong that day - so could 42% of them. The truth, whatever it may be, did not change that day. All that really changed was the official position of a group of professionals, based entirely on the majority opinion of that group.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just because 19th century anti-Christians influenced 20th century psychology doesn't mean that Christianity did not as well, nor does it mean that these anti-Christians were not influenced by the religious culture of their time. For instance, many atheists nowadays still have moral values in line with the majority religion in their country. Do they have differences? Yes, but to deny the influence of the prevailing culture would be silly.

[John Dibble]

Smash, I think it's a bit unfair of you to call Brambila a bigot. While I vehemently disagree with his opinions about homosexuality, given his general tone I don't believe for one moment he actually holds any hatred for them - rather he truely believes they have a problem and wants them to get the help he feels they need. He doesn't advocate any violence towards them or anything like that, heck I can't remember him ever saying that homosexuality is actually evil or immoral. He just thinks they have a condition that is dangerous and they need help with it. I reiterate that I think he's very misguided, but he's not what I would classify as a bigot.

[John Dibble]

Sure. But what authority ordains that it is "bad" to harm someone? That value judgment is just as arbitrary as condemnation of sexual deviancy.

Harm? The act of murder is to kill, to end the life of someone with no reversal of that fate. What is arbitrary about that?

It's arbitrary if morality itself is arbitrary. Someone can view killing as not being a bad thing just as one can view homosexuality as terrible - different individuals have different moral codes. At least that's what he's getting at.

Of course, his argument doesn't answer the question. Your argument answers the question of why most people find murder to be wrong, but his doesn't give the reason why many people find homosexuality bad but rather makes a statement on morality in general.

[John Dibble]

You're presupposing that there is a "right to life." That is an arbitrary value judgment, precisely as with condemnation of homosexuality.

If you had a gun to your head you wouldn't say that.

And if you had a gun to yours I imagine you could be convinced to say that homosexuality is bad - people can say things they don't believe if coerced to.

[John Dibble]

You're presupposing that there is a "right to life." That is an arbitrary value judgment, precisely as with condemnation of homosexuality.

If you had a gun to your head you wouldn't say that.

And if you had a gun to yours I imagine you could be convinced to say that homosexuality is bad - people can say things they don't believe if coerced to.

Why would somone who truly did not believe in a right to life be convinced to believe in it with a gun to his head? Why would he even be in that position in the first place? If he felt he had no right to life would he not have strived to end it before then? Would the gun to his head not therefore be a release?

Believing that there is an inherent right to life and valuing your own life are two entirely different things. Most of the greatest tyrants and murderers in history valued their own lives, but they obviously didn't take the notion that other people had a right to live seriously otherwise they wouldn't have killed so many of them. At the same time there are people who have commited suicide who believed strongly in the right to life.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's easy to say when your life isn't actually being threatened, now isn't it?

[John Dibble]

That's easy to say when your life isn't actually being threatened, now isn't it?

Not really. I have high functioning aspergers. Such a position actually makes sense in my mind as I weigh my own position by rights, wrongs and 'worths.' I took physical beatings when I was teenager from people who tried to make me say something I didn't believe or deny an essential part of me and I didn't cave in. I would probably, whether it is considered rash or even stupid take the bullet rather than deny what I know, for me, to be a truth.

Fair enough then, just so long as you know your case wouldn't apply to most people. Depending on the circumstances, I'd certainly lie if it would save my own skin.

[John Dibble]

That's easy to say when your life isn't actually being threatened, now isn't it?

Not really. I have high functioning aspergers. Such a position actually makes sense in my mind as I weigh my own position by rights, wrongs and 'worths.' I took physical beatings when I was teenager from people who tried to make me say something I didn't believe or deny an essential part of me and I didn't cave in. I would probably, whether it is considered rash or even stupid take the bullet rather than deny what I know, for me, to be a truth.

Fair enough then, just so long as you know your case wouldn't apply to most people. Depending on the circumstances, I'd certainly lie if it would save my own skin.

Well you understand that means I would still reason with them before hand. But appeal to their reason and not subjugate my own with regards to the fact they had a gun to my head and were about to kill me and impede their own freedoms as a result of that act. Of course whether I would have time for all that....

If they got pissed off and pulled the trigger then fair enough. I would have 'reasoned' without subscribing to something I believe to be false.

Well, understand that lying isn't subjagating your own reason - in this case it's simply placating the unreasonable in order to save your own life. If I lied and said something I knew was incorrect in this situation, it wouldn't mean my real belief had changed. If they've got a gun to my head, I doubt they're all that reasonable enough in the first place to be reasoned with, so I don't see much reason to bother. (have I used the world "reason" and it's variations enough in this paragraph?)

Of course if some other innocent person might get harmed by my lie, I would reconsider depending on the circumstances, but if it's just my skin and nobody else's on the line then I think saving myself is actually the most reasonable thing to do. After all, if you're dead you can't do anything to rid the world of the unreasonable people.

Now, there is such a thing as "lying to yourself", but that's a different matter.

(Oh, and as far as "impeding their own freedoms" I assume you mean jail - suppose these are authority figures or something. It's all hypothetical so they could hypothetically be in a position in which they can get away with killing you.)