The Psychology/Psychiatry Fields and Homosexuality Mythology

[JohnStOnge]

Please explain the science behind homosexuality being a psychological disorder.

You know that is a very good challenge. And you've got good angle. To a certain extent whether or not something is considered to be a psychological or psychiatric disorder is subjective. In fact one interesting thing in the paper I linked earlier at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2072932/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; is the author's statement about how the determination of whether or not something is considered a psychiatric disorder can change with culture.

The author makes this statement:

To use postmodernist understanding of scientific knowledge, such a debate on classification concerns the social construction of mental disorder—what we as a society and as scientists agree are abnormal behaviors, cognitions, and emotions. The answer, therefore, depends on scientific and social consensus that evolves and is subject to the vicissitudes of social change (Gergen, 1985, 2001).

But the point I'm making is that the impression has been created that there was some kind of objective, scientific determination that homosexuality should be removed from the list. And I don't think that there was. It was on the list. And I think that the decision to remove it was driven much more by ideology and/or philosophy than it was by science.

As for the objective question of whether or not it is a disorder, I think that it's obvious that it is whether it's considered to be a psychiatric disorder or a "physical" one. I like to use deafness as a comparison because I have a deaf son and there is a substantial number of people in the world of deaf education, ect., that actually argues that deafness is not a disorder. The idea among those holding that "Deaf Culture" philosophy is that being Deaf is just what someone is; like being Black of Female. And if you try to "fix" deafness with something like a Cochlear Implant you are trying to "fix" something that isn't broken.

But I think it's obvious that deafness is a disorder because it involves a critical biological function. And I feel the same way about homosexuality. It's not "hate." It's objecting to engaging in intellectual dishonesty in order to achieve egalitarian ends; even if the intentions behind those egalitarian ends are noble.

[Screamin_Eagle174]

[Chizzang]

But Eagle they are scared...
in fact they are psychologically terrified
Because a HUGE percentage of Homophobic males are latent homosexuals fighting the psychological battle within


It's quite sad actually...

[Ibanez]

[JohnStOnge]

But Eagle they are scared...
in fact they are psychologically terrified
Because a HUGE percentage of Homophobic males are latent homosexuals fighting the psychological battle within


It's quite sad actually...

In my opinion the word "homophobic" and its derivatives such as "homophobe" are terms contrived during the late 1960s specifically as psychological weapons. They provide an insulting sounding term people can use in attempts to silence those opposed to the "normalization of homosexuality" movement by calling them a name that will hopefully embarrass them while at the same time creating a stigma pertaining to their alleged motivation.

Basically, just as "hate" means "disagreeing with liberals/progressives" in a broad sense "homophobia" means "disagreeing with liberals/progressives on the issue of homosexuality." The impact is neutered by that recognition.

That common suggestion that someone is opposed to the "normalization of homosexuality" movement because they are really a homosexual themselves and afraid that they'll succumb to their true nature is similarly a psychological "warfare" technique. Divert attention from the actual substance of the debate by hurling an insult that hopefully changes focus to the motivation of the opponent.

Once one understands what such approaches are they have no effect. Simply identify them as what they are and continue to focus on exposing the misinformation disseminated by the "homosexuality is normal" movement.

[kalm]

But Eagle they are scared...
in fact they are psychologically terrified
Because a HUGE percentage of Homophobic males are latent homosexuals fighting the psychological battle within


It's quite sad actually...

In my opinion the word "homophobic" and its derivatives such as "homophobe" are terms contrived during the late 1960s specifically as psychological weapons. They provide an insulting sounding term people can use in attempts to silence those opposed to the "normalization of homosexuality" movement by calling them a name that will hopefully embarrass them while at the same time creating a stigma pertaining to their alleged motivation.

Basically, just as "hate" means "disagreeing with liberals/progressives" in a broad sense "homophobia" means "disagreeing with liberals/progressives on the issue of homosexuality." The impact is neutered by that recognition.

That common suggestion that someone is opposed to the "normalization of homosexuality" movement because they are really a homosexual themselves and afraid that they'll succumb to their true nature is similarly a psychological "warfare" technique. Divert attention from the actual substance of the debate by hurling an insult that hopefully changes focus to the motivation of the opponent.

Once one understands what such approaches are they have no effect. Simply identify them as what they are and continue to focus on exposing the misinformation disseminated by the "homosexuality is normal" movement.

Define "normal' John.

When did you decide to like women? Do you remember? What age were you? Yeah, I don't really remember either. It just always kinda was. In fact, I'm not even sure it was a decision at all. It just seems "normal" to me.

Of course the exact same is true for a gay person. It's their "normal". And as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else they deserve the same rights and yes, recognition as anyone else. Now, you might be uncomfortable with how vocal about it some of them are. I am too at times. But that's a product of repression so I think they deserve a slight pass.

So John, what is your subjective opinion of what is normal? And please let me know the libertarian method for dealing with it.

[LeadBolt]

“Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear them or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.” ~Rick Warren

[Ibanez]

But Eagle they are scared...
in fact they are psychologically terrified
Because a HUGE percentage of Homophobic males are latent homosexuals fighting the psychological battle within


It's quite sad actually...

In my opinion the word "homophobic" and its derivatives such as "homophobe" are terms contrived during the late 1960s specifically as psychological weapons. They provide an insulting sounding term people can use in attempts to silence those opposed to the "normalization of homosexuality" movement by calling them a name that will hopefully embarrass them while at the same time creating a stigma pertaining to their alleged motivation.

Basically, just as "hate" means "disagreeing with liberals/progressives" in a broad sense "homophobia" means "disagreeing with liberals/progressives on the issue of homosexuality." The impact is neutered by that recognition.

That common suggestion that someone is opposed to the "normalization of homosexuality" movement because they are really a homosexual themselves and afraid that they'll succumb to their true nature is similarly a psychological "warfare" technique. Divert attention from the actual substance of the debate by hurling an insult that hopefully changes focus to the motivation of the opponent.

Once one understands what such approaches are they have no effect. Simply identify them as what they are and continue to focus on exposing the misinformation disseminated by the "homosexuality is normal" movement.

Homophia is incorrectly used. A homophobe has an irrational fear of gays. I don't get why we use that term instead of a better, Homo Hater.

[CAA Flagship]

Homophia is incorrectly used. A homophobe has an irrational fear of gays. I don't get why we use that term instead of a better, Homo Hater.

Is there a Flaming version of these terms?

[Ibanez]

Homophia is incorrectly used. A homophobe has an irrational fear of gays. I don't get why we use that term instead of a better, Homo Hater.

Is there a Flaming version of these terms?

Fag Enabler.

[JohnStOnge]

Define "normal' John.

When did you decide to like women? Do you remember? What age were you? Yeah, I don't really remember either. It just always kinda was. In fact, I'm not even sure it was a decision at all. It just seems "normal" to me.

Of course the exact same is true for a gay person. It's their "normal". And as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else they deserve the same rights and yes, recognition as anyone else. Now, you might be uncomfortable with how vocal about it some of them are. I am too at times. But that's a product of repression so I think they deserve a slight pass.

So John, what is your subjective opinion of what is normal? And please let me know the libertarian method for dealing with it.

My son is deaf and was deaf from birth. Being deaf is normal for him. But it is not a normal condition. I'm using "normal" in the sense described below.

Though psychologists divide things further with classification schemes such as the Kinsey scale that includes seven categories (0 - 6), sexual orientation can be divided into three discrete categories with respect to that great majority of the people who are not hermaphrodites. The three are 1) preference for sexual contact with members of the opposite sex, 2) preference for sexual contact with members of the opposite sex, and 3) no preference. Every non hermaphrodite fits into one and only one of those three categories.

My outlook is that, of the three categories, 1 is the normal orientation because it is consistent with the underlying biological "reason"* for the existence of the drive. I am a male. When I reach orgasm I emit gametes. Sex cells. They are emitted from an organ that I have a desire to stick into something. And it happens that there is a something that is perfectly configured to receive it. That something belongs to females. And each female has erectile tissue as well as sensitive pleasure generating nervous tissue at the opening of that structure. And the tunnel comprising the structure leads to an area where gametes emitted from my organ can contact gametes produced by her own system. Then the cells can combine in to a single cell, or zygote, that marks the beginning of a new animal.

Now, that doesn't mean I won't ever want to stimulate my organ in some other way. My primitive ancestors weren't worried about gametes and erectile tissue. They just wanted to stick it into something and found themselves (usually) to be powerfully drawn to sticking it into that female structure. But the point is that the drive will eventually lead to sticking it into females and emitting gametes and the desire for doing that increases the chance that the male's genetic material will be expressed in future generations.

Guys want to get their rocks off for a reason. And my outlook is that if a guy's sex drive is such that it is primarily directed at males rather than females it is inconsistent with the underlying basis for the drive and therefore not the normal orientation. It's not, to me, a normal variant of some characteristic like eye color or skin pigment density.

And believe me I've been through the "homosexuality in the animal kingdom many times." The role of heterosexuality in the world of species characterized by two separate and distinct sexes is absolutely dominant. It is a dominant driver of behavior (well, that's observational but it's reasonable to say that). Yes behavior that we as humans may interpret as homosexual occurs but the whole point of existence, biologically, is expressing genetic material in subsequent generations (notwithstanding the existence of species such that only certain individuals are either capable of reproducing or allowed to reproduce).

*"Reason" is used in the sense that it's pretty reasonable to believe that the evolution of the structures involved as well as the evolution of the drive was associated with the function of reproduction through genetic recombination.

[Ibanez]

Define "normal' John.

When did you decide to like women? Do you remember? What age were you? Yeah, I don't really remember either. It just always kinda was. In fact, I'm not even sure it was a decision at all. It just seems "normal" to me.

Of course the exact same is true for a gay person. It's their "normal". And as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else they deserve the same rights and yes, recognition as anyone else. Now, you might be uncomfortable with how vocal about it some of them are. I am too at times. But that's a product of repression so I think they deserve a slight pass.

So John, what is your subjective opinion of what is normal? And please let me know the libertarian method for dealing with it.

My son is deaf and was deaf from birth. Being deaf is normal for him. I'm using "normal" in the sense described below.

Though psychologists divide things further with classification schemes such as the Kinsey scale that includes seven categories (0 - 6), sexual orientation can be divided into three discrete categories with respect to that great majority of the people who are not hermaphrodites. The three are 1) preference for sexual contact with members of the opposite sex, 2) preference for sexual contact with members of the opposite sex, and 3) no preference. Every non hermaphrodite fits into one and only one of those three categories.

My outlook is that, of the three categories, 1 is the normal orientation because it is consistent with the underlying biological function. I am a male. When I reach orgasm I emit gametes. Sex cells. They are emitted from an organ that I have a desire to stick into something. And it happens that there is a something that is perfectly configured to receive it. That something belongs to females. And each female has erectile tissue as well as sensitive pleasure generating nervous tissue at the opening of that structure. And the tunnel comprising the structure leads to an area where gametes emitted from my organ can contact gametes produced by her own system. Then the cells can combine in to a single cell, or zygote, that marks the beginning of a new animal.

Now, that doesn't mean I won't ever want to stimulate my organ in some other way. My primitive ancestors weren't worried about gametes and erectile tissue. They just wanted to stick it into something and found themselves (usually) to be powerfully drawn to sticking it into that female structure. But the point is that the drive will eventually lead to sticking it into females and emitting gametes and the desire for doing that increases the chance that the male's genetic material will be expressed in future generations.

Guys want to get their rocks off for a reason. And my outlook is that if a guy's sex drive is such that it is primarily directed at males rather than females it is inconsistent with the underlying basis for the drive and therefore not the normal orientation. It's not, to me, a normal variant of some characteristic like eye color or skin pigment density.

And believe me I've been through the "homosexuality in the animal kingdom many times." The role of heterosexuality in the world of species characterized by two separate and distinct sexes is absolutely dominant. It is a dominant driver of behavior (well, that's observational but it's reasonable to say that). Yes behavior that we as humans may interpret as homosexual occurs but the whole point of existence, biologically, is expressing genetic material in subsequent generations (notwithstanding the existence of species such that only certain individuals are either capable of reproducing or allowed to reproduce).

Deafness is unnatural.

[JohnStOnge]

Deafness is unnatural.

No. It is natural just as many other disorders are natural. But someone who is deaf does not have a normally functioning sensory system.

[89Hen]

Define "normal' John.

When did you decide to like women? Do you remember? What age were you? Yeah, I don't really remember either. It just always kinda was. In fact, I'm not even sure it was a decision at all. It just seems "normal" to me.

Of course the exact same is true for a gay person. It's their "normal". And as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else they deserve the same rights and yes, recognition as anyone else. Now, you might be uncomfortable with how vocal about it some of them are. I am too at times. But that's a product of repression so I think they deserve a slight pass.

So John, what is your subjective opinion of what is normal? And please let me know the libertarian method for dealing with it.

Your logic is interesting. Anyone who "loves" anyone or anything feels "normal". Love is not a learned emotion. A man who loves fat women is his normal. A man who loves "mature" women is his normal. A school teacher who loves 8th grade boys is her normal. A woman who likes to fuck horses is her normal. Society still makes decisions on what "normal" is and isn't. Some "normals" are considered to be OK, some are considered perverse, some are considered immoral... for the record, I have no problem with gays.

[JohnStOnge]

This conversation reminds me of a conversation I once had with someone from the American Psychological Association (APA). The APA had a program for "educating" children about homosexuality. One thing that was suggested was, when the discussing the question of what causes homosexuality, to instead as the question "What causes heterosexuality?"

What a ridiculous question. And in my initial e mail I talked about the obvious association between sexually motivated behavior and a critical biological function. The guy wrote me back saying I was making a "teleological" error.

But of course I wasn't. You don't have to think that there's a conscious purpose or design behind biological traits to see that they are associated with certain functions. It is not a teleological error, for instance, to say that our hunger drive and our digestive system are associated with the function of eating. So on and so forth. Evolution selected for, caused, or however you want to put it, heterosexuality.

BTW to a large extent it's stuff like the APA promoting student "education" that includes acting as though there's as much cause for asking what causes heterosexuality as there is for asking what causes homosexuality that gets me going on this issue. There is just SO much BS and propaganda and it's given the air of legitimacy by professional organizations such as the APA.

[Grizalltheway]

Define "normal' John.

When did you decide to like women? Do you remember? What age were you? Yeah, I don't really remember either. It just always kinda was. In fact, I'm not even sure it was a decision at all. It just seems "normal" to me.

Of course the exact same is true for a gay person. It's their "normal". And as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else they deserve the same rights and yes, recognition as anyone else. Now, you might be uncomfortable with how vocal about it some of them are. I am too at times. But that's a product of repression so I think they deserve a slight pass.

So John, what is your subjective opinion of what is normal? And please let me know the libertarian method for dealing with it.

Your logic is interesting. Anyone who "loves" anyone or anything feels "normal". Love is not a learned emotion. A man who loves fat women is his normal. A man who loves "mature" women is his normal. A school teacher who loves 8th grade boys is her normal. A woman who likes to fuck horses is her normal. Society still makes decisions on what "normal" is and isn't. Some "normals" are considered to be OK, some are considered perverse, some are considered immoral... for the record, I have no problem with gays.

That's true. And, as the fuck-heads in St Wronge's generation die out, and my generation takes over, fewer and fewer people will bother antagonizing gays just to have something to get up in arms about.

[JohnStOnge]

That's true. And, as the **** in St Wronge's generation die out, and my generation takes over, fewer and fewer people will bother antagonizing gays just to have something to get up in arms about.

If what you're saying is that the movement to "normalize" homosexuality will eventually prevail I think that you are probably correct. And you're on to the reason for that with your reference to your generation (assuming you mean young people). That's because one huge factor is a very successful effort to indoctrinate people at early ages that began after people of my age were already beyond the critical age at which brainwashing is most effective. Younger people have grown up with all that gobbledeegook and misinformation about how homosexuality as we think of homosexuality in humans is normal behavior among animals, how it's not a disorder, how it's a normal variant of human sexuality, etc.

And it would be very difficult to overcome the indoctrination the younger generation has received. It's been thoroughly programed on this matter.

[JohnStOnge]

Ok I'm going to resurrect something I remember from reading Bruce Bagemihl's book Biological Exuberance. It was big during the 1990s in the "homosexuality is normal in the animal kingdom" thing. I remember in one case he described a paper in which biologists described certain behavior as "Abnormal." And of course he argued that it isn't.

The behavior involved female seagulls paring up at mating time. They laid eggs and tended them. Of course the eggs were sterile so they never hatched. They were wasting their time.

You don't think there's a basis for saying that's "abnormal" behavior? You think the "normality" of it changes based on what a society decides to call "normal?"

Actually if you do you're right in a sense. Because I looked the paper up later and the title of it in references had actually been changed. The title originally had the word "Abnormal" in it. In fact it had that in the title in Bagemihi's list of references. But it was gone. "They," whoever "they" is, actually had the title of a paper retroactively changed; presumably in an effort to avoid offending the new "acceptable" way to think about homosexual behavior.

[Grizalltheway]

That's true. And, as the **** in St Wronge's generation die out, and my generation takes over, fewer and fewer people will bother antagonizing gays just to have something to get up in arms about.

If what you're saying is that the movement to "normalize" homosexuality will eventually prevail I think that you are probably correct. And you're on to the reason for that with your reference to your generation (assuming you mean young people). That's because one huge factor is a very successful effort to indoctrinate people at early ages that began after people of my age were already beyond the critical age at which brainwashing is most effective. Younger people have grown up with all that gobbledeegook and misinformation about how homosexuality as we think of homosexuality in humans is normal behavior among animals, how it's not a disorder, how it's a normal variant of human sexuality, etc.

And it would be very difficult to overcome the indoctrination the younger generation has received. It's been thoroughly programed on this matter.

You really are more dense than a lead wall, aren't you? The "indoctrination" of my generation re: homosexuality has nothing to do with biology, and everything to do with not ostricizing people, or treating them as inferior, for what they do in private with other consenting adults.

[Grizalltheway]

Here's another thing: weighing 400 pounds is not the biological 'norm' for humans. What biological function does carrying around 200 pounds of extra fat serve? Does this mean obese people shouldn't be allowed to marry and receive all the benefits that come with it since they're WILLFULLY not conforming with biological norms?

[89Hen]

obese people shouldn't be allowed to marry and receive all the benefits that come with it since they're WILLFULLY not conforming with biological norms?

Agreed.

[JohnStOnge]

You really are more dense than a lead wall, aren't you? The "indoctrination" of my generation re: homosexuality has nothing to do with biology, and everything to do with not ostricizing people, or treating them as inferior, for what they do in private with other consenting adults.

It's not being "dense" at all. I saw the whole thing. I understood what I was seeing when I watched it develop and transpire. I am very well of the motivation from your standpoint.

But ask yourself this question: Had homosexuality never been removed from the DSM list of psychiatric disorders, do you think we would be talking about homosexual marriage in current times?

I think the answer is "no." So the issue of whether or not the condition was removed from the list on the basis of a false premise and philosophical bias is a legitimate one.

One of your premises seems to be that recognizing that someone has a disorder...or thinking that someone has a disorder...is treating as inferior. I don't think that's true. And I also don't think someone is being treated as inferior because marriage is defined in a way that rules out categorizing a particular relationship they want to be in as "marriage."

It's a cliche comparison but still a valid one: We tell people that they cannot call relationships consisting of more than two persons "marriage." And we do that in spite of the fact that polygamy has been officially recognized as marriage in human history a lot more commonly than homosexual unions have been. Are we treating people who would like to marry more than one person as inferior?

As I've said many times: Marriage is an option available to anyone who has a desire to exercise it and can find a member of the opposite sex to enter into it with. The fact that someone would prefer not to exercise the option as it is does not mean they're being treated as inferior or that they don't have the same opportunity that everyone else does.

To repeat an analogy: If I walk into a room and say that anybody there can have a free steak, I am treating everyone equally. I am not treating someone as inferior or being unfair if they say, "I want chicken instead" and I say, "no, I'm giving away steak." If they have no interest in what's available then they have no interest in what is available. Doesn't mean the same thing isn't being made avaiable to them as is being made available to everyone else.