Why is homosexuality "bad" to some people?

[Brambila]

Some misunderstandings:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Although I did say that many psychologists (not psychiatrists, that’s a separate field) disagreed with the measure (certainly enough to not make a drastic decision as was made then), the main concern I had was that the research used to justify it was unscientific.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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. Furthermore,  I am trying to explain why homosexuality has been accepted. Simply because a board of psychologists agreed—by a relatively slim margin—that homosexuality was not a disorder, does not mean that it is not a disorder. Again, this is the big problem I have. There was no need to remove homosexuality off the list of disorders—homosexuals wanted to prevent psychologists from doing reparative therapy, and having psychologists educated on how. They were successful. Most psychologists don’t know much about reparative therapy. This is the damage radical homosexual activists have done. Even if 90% of all psychologists agreed that homosexuality wasn’t a disorder, there is no justification to vote on it. In defining any disorder, there must be actual scientific research on the matter, where the results prove conclusively a given point. This is the entire idea of scientific method. This was not done in 1973.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The link between homosexuality and DNA is not an well-established theory. Although some studies suggest that the DNA may have an influence, most of the data shows that if there is an influence, it is very minor. Although certain people may be predisposed to obtain SSA, somebody is certain not “born gay” just as somebody is not “born straight”. Sexuality doesn’t come into play until the final adolescence, or puberty.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I am seriously start to think that this guy is a closeted homosexual.  And I'm not just being "funny" or sarcastic.  I really think it could be the case.

[??????????]

I really think it could be the case.

Does that mean I'm a secret yankee loving latte drinking liberal?

[Ban my account ffs!]

I really think it could be the case.

Does that mean I'm a secret yankee loving latte drinking liberal?

No.  Because I don't think you are absolutely obsessed with yankee loving latte drinking liberals.  I think your dislike of their politics is genuine enough to not need to constantly justify that dislike to yourself.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I really think it could be the case.

Does that mean I'm a secret yankee loving latte drinking liberal?

No.  Because I don't think you are absolutely obsessed with yankee loving latte drinking liberals.  I think your dislike of their politics is genuine enough to not need to constantly justify that dislike to yourself.

     That's one thing that's always bugged me. If someone is straight, why should they care about stopping gays from marrying? Jealousy? Control freak? Boredom?

[Brambila]

I really think it could be the case.

Does that mean I'm a secret yankee loving latte drinking liberal?

No.  Because I don't think you are absolutely obsessed with yankee loving latte drinking liberals.  I think your dislike of their politics is genuine enough to not need to constantly justify that dislike to yourself.

     That's one thing that's always bugged me. If someone is straight, why should they care about stopping gays from marrying? Jealousy? Control freak? Boredom?

And this is what you do. I give reasonable arguments, and all you do is insult, make false judgments, and make no attempt to enter into productive dialogue.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I really think it could be the case.

Does that mean I'm a secret yankee loving latte drinking liberal?

No.  Because I don't think you are absolutely obsessed with yankee loving latte drinking liberals.  I think your dislike of their politics is genuine enough to not need to constantly justify that dislike to yourself.

     That's one thing that's always bugged me. If someone is straight, why should they care about stopping gays from marrying? Jealousy? Control freak? Boredom?

And this is what you do. I give reasonable arguments, and all you do is insult, make false judgments, and make no attempt to enter into productive dialogue.

What productive logic is there?  The very spirit of your argument is a false judgment and an insult to an entire segment of the population largely rooted in some preconceived personal beliefs that you have.

[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.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Why is Brambilla's social score only 1.64?

[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.

[Flying Dog]

*Feeds the troll*

Brambilla, I'm interested to know your position on us Bisexuals. What's wrong with us?

[Storebought]

For people with a rational dislike of homosexuality, then Reason No (1). Male-to-male anal sex seems to produce some pretty terrible mutations and complications of otherwise minor sexual diseases. Ex. Penile chlamydia in most men is so innocuous that it usually goes unnoticed, but rectal chlamydia is --- just --- unspeakable.

But among most people, I'm certain the reason homosexuality is bad is because of Reason No (2). Their behavior, to people not exposed to it, is just repellant for uniquely American cultural reasons.

[Keystone Phil]

*Feeds the troll*

Brambilla, I'm interested to know your position on us Bisexuals. What's wrong with us?

You may not agree with Brambilla's positions but he's far from a troll. He's a forum old timer and an all around good guy.

[Brambila]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I said it’s a relatively slim majority, and that it is. In terms of medical health, a 58% vote of approval is hardly a large-enough majority. Not even for the Senate is that majority large enough.

I also agree that there is no point in saying whether or not a board decides on something makes it true. That is exactly what I was trying to get to you, when you said this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, if what they are doing in the first place is disordered, then they shouldn’t be lied to, and pretend that what they are doing is normal in a attempt to legitimize their behavior. What has come out of this “acceptance” of homosexuality? More diseases; more AIDS victims; more young men dying.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps because new psychologists get their Ph.Ds from any public institution which accept anyone with a 2.0 college GPA, and all the teachers are APA-installed liberals? My father was educated at San Jose State University before transferring to UC Berkeley for his Ph.D, and for one Psychology course in the masters program, the teacher asked the students if any of them participated in the recent protests against the APA (which my father was present for). Those who participated were granted As in the class automatically, and were not obligated to return to classes. Courses were everywhere at the time. Fortunately, more of them have stabilized now since the radical 70s, but the damage has been done—poorly educated psychologists with Ph.Ds and no clue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wasn’t aware that the American Psychiatric Association made a similar decision in 1973.

Although I would like to have a link to this study for personal reasons, again, back then, unscientific research was done, especially by the likes of Kinsey, who would ask people questions about sex. The greatest flaw of his research was that if the person studied didn’t want to answer questions, Kinsey would ask somebody else. But at the time Kinsey did his research, most Americans were uncomfortable talking about sex in the first place, so the people who did talk about sex were more active in their sex lives. This is why his research stated that 10% of Americans were homosexual, which has since been proven false.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Homosexuals as a group have one of the highest rates of suicide, depression, and sexual promiscuity. Although this article came from NARTH, I also found it on several pro-gay websites (remember, I differentiate “homosexual” from “gay”. A “Homosexual” is one who is attracted to men. A “gay man” is one who actively participates in the homosexual lifestyle. The website has articles that claim that society is what causes these high depression and suicide rates or what not, but unfortunately for them, they provided very little evidence to support their claims.

By the way, I'm sorry if I speak too much from personal experience, but it is a perfectly legitimate way of debating.

[dead0man]

Buttsex is the most over rated of all sex.

How would you know?

No...wait...there's no answer that isn't going to gross somebody out here.

I can only imagine how bad it would be to be a catcher, but I was specifically referring to pitching as being over rated.

wrong, they're both fun.

I guess I'll just have to take your word for it

[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.

[Brambila]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All you had to read was the article from the APA.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Freud’s focus was sexuality! I think he had studied the issue extensively enough. But either way, what his personal opinion on homosexuality was is irrelevant. The point is that psychology is derived from a late-19th-century radical left ideology, with followers such as the Schoenbergs (both the philosopher and musician), Wagner, Nietzsche, etc. This school of thought was by no means Christian, and in fact, very much anti-Christian.

(By the way, you are very much correct that many of Freud’s methods were unscientific, particularly in his later life. I totally disagree with many of his positions).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

These people were protesting the pre-1973 APA, not the current APA. Again, the APA made the decision not based on science, but political pressure. These protests were occurring throughout the 1960s and 70s, and finally led to the APA’s decision to legitimize homosexuality.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are correct. Sorry for my mistake.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The reason why blacks have higher suicide rates is because they have poorer education and higher poverty rates, not because they are oppressed. As I already showed in one of the links I gave you, homosexuals in the Netherlands, the country most accepting of homosexuals in the world, has no difference in the rates of suicide, depression, etc. You would think there would be at least a little bit of a difference, but there is none. This is because the problems are not societal but psychological.

[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.

[Smash255]

I really think it could be the case.

Does that mean I'm a secret yankee loving latte drinking liberal?

No.  Because I don't think you are absolutely obsessed with yankee loving latte drinking liberals.  I think your dislike of their politics is genuine enough to not need to constantly justify that dislike to yourself.

     That's one thing that's always bugged me. If someone is straight, why should they care about stopping gays from marrying? Jealousy? Control freak? Boredom?

And this is what you do. I give reasonable arguments, and all you do is insult, make false judgments, and make no attempt to enter into productive dialogue.

you don't give reasonable arguments.  You give bigoted remarks and then statements from other bigots who are upset that bigotry was removed the APA and replaced with facts.

[Smash255]

*Feeds the troll*

Brambilla, I'm interested to know your position on us Bisexuals. What's wrong with us?

You may not agree with Brambilla's positions but he's far from a troll. He's a forum old timer and an all around good guy.

Sorry, but the rest of us don't equate bigots with an all around good guy....

[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.

[Smash255]

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.

I'm sorry, but the utter crap and garbage he has posted is very bigoted.  Just because he isn't on a Phelps or Falwell level of bigotry doesn't mean he isn't being a bigot.

[??????????]

Just because he isn't on a Phelps or Falwell level of bigotry doesn't mean he isn't being a bigot.

And just because he isn't in political agreement with you doesn't make him a bigot either.

[Person Man]

Just because he isn't on a Phelps or Falwell level of bigotry doesn't mean he isn't being a bigot.

And just because he isn't in political agreement with you doesn't make him a bigot either.

....but its not bigotry to call a bigot a bigot, is it?

[??????????]

Just because he isn't on a Phelps or Falwell level of bigotry doesn't mean he isn't being a bigot.

And just because he isn't in political agreement with you doesn't make him a bigot either.

....but its not bigotry to call a bigot a bigot, is it?

What makes you come to the conclusion that what he said was bigotry?