The Psychology/Psychiatry Fields and Homosexuality Mythology

[kalm]

IMO, there is just as much "hate" or more on the pro-gay side compared to the anti-gay side. It is interesting to see people labeled "bigots or haters" if they do not agree or accept the pro-gay agenda.

Now, I'm sure I will be labeled a homophobe on here because I do not believe in this agenda or lifestyle. If someone is gay, I could care less but don't call me a bigot just because I do not agree with it. And do not throw it in my face saying this is normal just as my relationship is with my wife.

Everyone deserves the same rights here in the US, including gays. Everyone deserves to live their own life. I might not agree with it but I can only live my life.

Having said all this, I believe in God and we all will be judged by him someday.

Exactly. You're nowhere close to a homophobe or a bigot. It's okay to disagree with it. What makes JSO a bigot is his belief that gays are lesser beings who don't deserve the rights and opportunities that heterosexuals do.

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot, defined by Merriam-Webster as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance".

He's also an egalitarianophobe.

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

IMO, there is just as much "hate" or more on the pro-gay side compared to the anti-gay side. It is interesting to see people labeled "bigots or haters" if they do not agree or accept the pro-gay agenda.

Now, I'm sure I will be labeled a homophobe on here because I do not believe in this agenda or lifestyle. If someone is gay, I could care less but don't call me a bigot just because I do not agree with it. And do not throw it in my face saying this is normal just as my relationship is with my wife.

Everyone deserves the same rights here in the US, including gays. Everyone deserves to live their own life. I might not agree with it but I can only live my life.

Having said all this, I believe in God and we all will be judged by him someday.

Exactly. You're nowhere close to a homophobe or a bigot. It's okay to disagree with it. What makes JSO a bigot is his belief that gays are lesser beings who don't deserve the rights and opportunities that heterosexuals do.

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot, defined by Merriam-Webster as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance".

I agree that gays are not lesser beings and they deserve the same opportunities as I do. I just do not believe that this lifestyle is good or normal or whatever adjective you want to insert.

Now if one of my daughters came to me and said that they were gay, would it change how I feel about them? Heavens no.....I would still love them unconditionally. I would not agree with the path they have chosen but would still love them and support them. I will always be their dad and love them.

[D1B]

To D1B: God of Abraham

What's gonna happen to everyone else? You know, the billions of Hindus and Muslims and Buddhists?

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

To D1B: God of Abraham

What's gonna happen to everyone else? You know, the billions of Hindus and Muslims and Buddhists?

Muslims believe in same God but they take a different path thru Ishmael.

There are over 2 billion Christians and close to the same number of Muslims....that covers a lot of people on this planet. Two totally different religions but believe in the same monotheistic God...along with Jews.

Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics and others. I don't know what will happen with them. Some say they will burn in Hell. I believe that we all will be judged by God when our time comes.

For argument sake D1B: If God comes to you and says someday when your time comes...."D1B, I am the way....will you follow me"? What will you say? Just for argument sake.

[kalm]

What's gonna happen to everyone else? You know, the billions of Hindus and Muslims and Buddhists?

Muslims believe in same God but they take a different path thru Ishmael.

There are over 2 billion Christians and close to the same number of Muslims....that covers a lot of people on this planet. Two totally different religions but believe in the same monotheistic God...along with Jews.

Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics and others. I don't know what will happen with them. Some say they will burn in Hell. I believe that we all will be judged by God when our time comes.

For argument sake D1B: If God comes to you and says someday when your time comes...."D1B, I am the way....will you follow me"? What will you say? Just for argument sake.

"Where ya headin'?"

[D1B]

What's gonna happen to everyone else? You know, the billions of Hindus and Muslims and Buddhists?

Muslims believe in same God but they take a different path thru Ishmael.

There are over 2 billion Christians and close to the same number of Muslims....that covers a lot of people on this planet. Two totally different religions but believe in the same monotheistic God...along with Jews.

Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics and others. I don't know what will happen with them. Some say they will burn in Hell. I believe that we all will be judged by God when our time comes.

For argument sake D1B: If God comes to you and says someday when your time comes...."D1B, I am the way....will you follow me"? What will you say? Just for argument sake.

1. Well, there a crucial difference between you two or three - Muslims and Jews don't believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. That fact alone puts them in the burn in hell group.

2. OK, so you don't know what will happen to Jews, but you're damn sure what's going to happen to you. You sure about this?

Also, your gods (holy trinity) are pretty clear about their incessant need to be worshiped and adored. It's mentioned a gazillion times in the bible. That being said, no Jew or Muslim or Atheist is getting into heaven.

3. I'd slap him in the face for being an asshole and complete fuck up of a god.

[mainejeff]

Can't wait for Maine voters to pass a marriage equality law for the first time ever in this country.

Conservative heads will explode everywhere and the Supreme Court will HAVE to make a ruling.

Bite me St. Wronge.

[BlueHen86]

Exactly. You're nowhere close to a homophobe or a bigot. It's okay to disagree with it. What makes JSO a bigot is his belief that gays are lesser beings who don't deserve the rights and opportunities that heterosexuals do.

I agree that gays are not lesser beings and they deserve the same opportunities as I do. I just do not believe that this lifestyle is good or normal or whatever adjective you want to insert.

Now if one of my daughters came to me and said that they were gay, would it change how I feel about them? Heavens no.....I would still love them unconditionally. I would not agree with the path they have chosen but would still love them and support them. I will always be their dad and love them.

So you thinks it's choice?

[Chizzang]

I honestly just don't give a flying fuck what causes gays to be gay. Why don't you put this much time and effort into analyzing groups who actually do harm others, like pre-teen fuckers, or animal abusers? Oh, that's right, those behaviors are perfectly acceptable in your fucked up version of reality.

This is PURE GOLD....

[Pwns]

Agree SOMEWHAT with JSO. The mental health fields don't seem to have a lot of consistency when it comes to defining and distinguishing paraphilias, sexual orientations, and sexual disorders. I do suspect that some of it is influenced by political correctness. (Not to say I will hold someone's homosexuality against them or think they should try to change)

What this has to do with same-sex marriage rights I still haven't figured out. I think even JSO understands there's no real case against SSM but he just won't admit it.

[CID1990]

Agree SOMEWHAT with JSO. The mental health fields don't seem to have a lot of consistency when it comes to defining and distinguishing paraphilias, sexual orientations, and sexual disorders. I do suspect that some of it is influenced by political correctness. (Not to say I will hold someone's homosexuality against them or think they should try to change)

What this has to do with same-sex marriage rights I still haven't figured out. I think even JSO understands there's no real case against SSM but he just won't admit it.

Yep. It is the third rail of psychological/psychiatric inquiry.

The other third rail is genetics as they pertain to physical and mental capability.

Another one is climate science, although the act of studying it is not as dangerous to careers and reputations the way the other stuff is.

Since most research is usually grant funded in one way or another, you'll never see things like this in the scientific journals. Scientists don't want to run off the gravy train tracks. This is one reason climate science is so fubar right now; too much grant money is at stake, and on the other side of the argument is special interest money. We may never see an objective, disinterested study report on climate science in our lifetimes.

[JohnStOnge]

I didn't read anything you wrote past that initial statement, because it's blatantly wrong.

As I posted earlier it actually was wrong to state as a blanket statement that variation in the independent variable has to be reduced through that kind of selection. It is not a 100% certainty. However, the confidence level associated with saying that it would be is high. I used the example of a small population consisting of the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 20 as an example of a case in which you could select a sample that would have a higher variance than the population does. You could say you're only going to keep values greater than 4 and by doing that you'd select a sample of two elements that would have a higher variance than the population variance is.

But in most real world situations involving reasonably large samples that's not going to be true. I actually go curious about it myself and ran some simulations generating 10 random samples of 100 from a normally distributed population characterized by a mean of 0 and a variance of 1. As expected the man variance of the sample variances, at 0.996 (range 0.816 - 1.220), is very close to the population variance of 1.

Then I looked at the sample variances for the date from each sample excluding values more than 1 standard deviation below the population mean of 0 (-1 or less). The average variance for those "selected" datasets is 0.620 (range 0.502 - 0.729). Then I selected out just the data at or above the population mean of zero. The average variance was further reduced to 0.356 (range 0.278 - 0.489). Unquestionably, the variance one gets by selecting out data to narrow the range of possible magnitudes generally reduces variation when one is dealing with a normal distribution.

I also did a uniform distribution and got similar results.

That's what's usually going to happen. And it would almost certainly happen with any distribution resulting from repeated appllication of that Rorschach adjustment test because the only possible results are 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. There is no possible "extreme" differences between values at the edges of the distribution as there is with my 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 20 example.

[JohnStOnge]

I'm done trying to explain to you why you're wrong.

The truth is that you are done trying to explain why I"m wrong because you can't explain why I'm wrong. And you can't explain why Im wrong because I'm not wrong. She "controlled" the dependent variable (adjustment level). And once she did that there was little point to comparing the two groups.

She did show that it's possible for a homosexual to score at average or above on that Rorschach test and on those MAPS and TAT tests (apparently combined). But that would be shown by even a single homosexual scoring at or above average on each of those tests.

To me, she clearly was trying to make some kind of point by comparing heterosexual and homosexual scores. And the only point I can see that she would have been trying to make is that the distribution of scores betweent the two populations (heterosexual and homosexual males) are similar.

But the fact that she screened subjects in order to eliminate subjects with lower than average adjustment levels made the comparison meaningless. And I think most people can see that once it's pointed out to them.

[JohnStOnge]

Studies show that drivers who are under the influence of alcohol are much more likely to be involved in an accident due to impaired reaction time and judgment. JSO concludes that driving under the influence is equally as safe or dangerous as sober driving.

Actually I never said that. All other things being equal, risk of accident increases as blood alcohol level {BAC] increases. What I said is that we all make decisions every day that increase risk and that what we are nomrally talking about with respect to drinking and driving on a per event basis is increasing a very small risk to the point of being a somewhat higher but still very small risk. And I pointed out that one can identify scenarios in which there is no drinking and which no one would be concerned about which are associated with higher risk than other scenarios in which drinking is involved.

Studies show that homosexuals are afflicted with mental illness at the same rate as heterosexuals and therefore homosexuality is not a symptom of mental illness. JSO concludes that homosexuals must have a higher rate of mental incidence and therefore it is a symptom of mental illness.

Actually it is not possible for any statistical study or experiment to show two things to be "the same." Also, it is pretty much accepted that homosexuals do suffer from higher rates of mental illness than heterosexuals do. You can see one example at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16045064" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; but there are many others. The only question is whether or not the differences can be "explained" away by other factors. To my knowledge, it's not clear that it can be. Note that in the abstract I linked the authors state that the difference persisted after adjusting for confounding factors.

Also there's that thing about whether or not homosexuality is a "symptom" of some other mental illness. To me that's not really the question. To me the question is one of whether or not it's a mental illness in and of itself. And at a broader level, is it an illness? For example: Saying it is not a "mental" illness does not mean it's not a physiolocial illness.

[JohnStOnge]

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot, defined by Merriam-Webster as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance".

I've used that definition myself before during conversations such as this one to point out that one is a bigot when they show intolerance for the opinions of others. And I note, as I will this time again, that a lot more intolerance of someone else's opinion is being shown in this discussion by others' than by me.

I am not treating homosexuals with hatred or intolerance. I am simply saying that the seminal study pointed to by groups such as the American Psychological Association as having shown that homosexuals are, as a population, "just as healthy" as heterosexuals are doesn't really show that. That's not hate.

But, as I've said before, "hate" in the Liberal/Progressive lexicon means "disagreeing with Liberals/Progressives."

[CAA Flagship]

I agree that gays are not lesser beings and they deserve the same opportunities as I do. I just do not believe that this lifestyle is good or normal or whatever adjective you want to insert.

Now if one of my daughters came to me and said that they were gay, would it change how I feel about them? Heavens no.....I would still love them unconditionally. I would not agree with the path they have chosen but would still love them and support them. I will always be their dad and love them.

So you thinks it's choice?

I believe that some people are gay because of genetics, while others are gay because of environment. Not much different than many other things. So, in some cases, people are gay by choice.

[D1B]

Where's Grizo to defend St. Wronge?

[Ibanez]

To D1B: God of Abraham

You do know that the Jews in your bible were not monotheistic? In fact, the Bible suggests the existence of other gods on more than one occassion. So, how you sure that God is the right God?

[Ibanez]

Muslims believe in same God but they take a different path thru Ishmael.

There are over 2 billion Christians and close to the same number of Muslims....that covers a lot of people on this planet. Two totally different religions but believe in the same monotheistic God...along with Jews.

Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics and others. I don't know what will happen with them. Some say they will burn in Hell. I believe that we all will be judged by God when our time comes.

For argument sake D1B: If God comes to you and says someday when your time comes...."D1B, I am the way....will you follow me"? What will you say? Just for argument sake.

1. Well, there a crucial difference between you two or three - Muslims and Jews don't believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. That fact alone puts them in the burn in hell group.

2. OK, so you don't know what will happen to Jews, but you're damn sure what's going to happen to you. You sure about this?

Also, your gods (holy trinity) are pretty clear about their incessant need to be worshiped and adored. It's mentioned a gazillion times in the bible. That being said, no Jew or Muslim or Atheist is getting into heaven.

3. I'd slap him in the face for being an asshole and complete fuck up of a god.

I think the Jews for Christ are just hedging their bets on eternal salvation.

[JohnStOnge]

I found a really interesting paper at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2072932/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . As of 2003 when the paper was published, anyway, it was looking more and more like homosexuals do indeed suffer from higher rates of mental illness than heterosexuals do. The author's hypothesis is that the reason for it is "minority stress." And it's a reasonable hypothesis. If you want to avoid reading a long post and just get to the bottom line, go to the paragraph in bold text. Then if you're interested enough to see the supporting discussion you can do that.

But as far as things related to this discussion go; I was struck by the discussion in the "Research Evidence: Between-Groups Studies on Prevalence of Mental Disorder" section. You can go there by doing a "Find" on "Research Evidence: Between." It provides a history. The author wrote that, "Before the 1973 declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder, gay-affirmative psychologists and psychiatrists sought to refute arguments that homosexuality should remain a classified disorder by showing that homosexuals were not more likely to be mentally ill than heterosexuals."

Farther down he wrote, "More recently, there has been a shift in the popular and scientific discourse on the mental health of lesbians and gay men. Gay-affirmative advocates have begun to advance a minority stress hypothesis, claiming that discriminatory social conditions lead to poor health outcomes." And he goes on to refer to research suggesting that homosexual populations are in fact affected by mental illnesses at greater rates.

Now here is what I find really interesting about that: If the author is correct, evidence from subsequent studies suggests that the premise upon which the "gay-affirmative psychologists and psychiatrists" of the 1970s based their argument that homosexuality should be removed from the list of disorders is false. They based their arguments on the idea that homosexuals do not suffer mental illnesses at greater rates, and it appears as though homosexuals do in fact suffer mental illnesses at greater rates.

And at least some homosexual advocates have switched from insisting that there are no differences in rates to pointing to differences in rates and lamenting "minority stress" as well as the need to do something about it.

There's a lot more in the paper. Early studies tended to be based on "non random" samples and subsequent studies based on large "random" (probability) samples changed the picture. The author noted that studies based on "non random" samples he looked at did not show "significant" differences but studies based on "random" samples he looked at DID show "significant" differences. And if you know me you know I like to point out that you need to have a probability sample to make a legitimate estimate.

Since the paper was published almost nine years ago, I've written him an e mail asking if he has seen anything change in the research to change his outlook on the general proposition that homosexuals suffer mental illnesses at greater rates.

[JohnStOnge]

One more illustration of the problem with what Hooker did then I'll give up if there are people who still can't see what I'm talking about:

City A is 30% Black and 60% registered Democrat. City B is 5% Black and 40% registered Democrat. I decide I want to see if the percentages of the people of each city who plan to vote Democrat are "significantly" different.

But then I decide that I want to exclude people who are obviously likely to vote Democrat from my sample. Not only do I not collect a probability sample, but I make my first screen the exclusion of Black people because I know about 90% of them typically vote Democrat. Then I implement a second screen. I ask people for their party registration and exclude any of the remaining potential subjects who are registered as Democrats.

Then after the election I ask everybody how they voted. The percentages of the groups who voted for Democrats are similar and not "significantly" different. So I conclude that there is essentially no difference in the percentages of people who had planned to vote Democrat in the two cities.

That, essentially, is what Hooker did except she was looking at adjustment level and not intention to vote Democrat and she was using being in therapy and some subsequent assessment as screens to take out people with below average adjustment levels instead of using being Black and being registered as a Democrat to screen out Democrats.

Again, common sense should tell ANYBODY that there is something wrong with that.

[Ibanez]

So, in 150 words or less. Why do you feel threatened by gays?

I've met Dback, other than a large dong, there is nothing about him that threatens my life or how I live it.

[D1B]

So, in 150 words or less. Why do you feel threatened by gays?

I've met Dback, other than a large dong, there is nothing about him that threatens my life or how I live it.

There's your answer. JSW has never knowingly been within 25 feet of a black man or gay man.

He will though have to come to grips with his bigotry when his son comes home for Christmas break with his boyfriend, Ralph.



Left: JSW, Jr. Right: Alphagrizz's kid, Ralph

[JohnStOnge]

There's your answer. JSW has never knowingly been within 25 feet of a black man or gay man.

Totally wrong. First of all understand that I grew up in the State that has the second highest percent Black population (behind Mississippi at #1) of States. I graduated from a high school that was close to 50% Black and the majority may have been Black. And the university I graduated from had a fairly high percent Black enrollment. I was the type that played pickup basketball all the time and so routinely interacted with Blacks all the time in that way.

When I was in college I worked with a homosexual guy who I think had a crush on me. And it was the type of job where we'd work after hours pretty much in small groups. Most times atl night. Now, there was always at least one male and one female present because of the nature of the job (monitoring male and female juvenile delinquents in a juvenile detention center). But I worked many hours where we had two males and two females present and the other male was that homosexual.

Just recently (in July) I spent a week working in the field with a homosexual guy. We got along fine.

I have no problem being around and working with either Blacks or homosexuals. But if any of them were to ask me what I think about the situation surrounding the removal of homosexuality from the list of psychiatric disorders I'd say the same thing I say here: I think it was a decision driven primarily by philosophy and/or ideology rather than science.

[kalm]

There's your answer. JSW has never knowingly been within 25 feet of a black man or gay man.

Totally wrong. First of all understand that I grew up in the State that has the second highest percent Black population (behind Mississippi at #1) of States. I graduated from a high school that was close to 50% Black and the majority may have been Black. And the university I graduated from had a fairly high percent Black enrollment. I was the type that played pickup basketball all the time and so routinely interacted with Blacks all the time in that way.

When I was in college I worked with a homosexual guy who I think had a crush on me. And it was the type of job where we'd work after hours pretty much in small groups. Most times atl night. Now, there was always at least one male and one female present because of the nature of the job (monitoring male and female juvenile delinquents in a juvenile detention center). But I worked many hours where we had two males and two females present and the other male was that homosexual.

Just recently (in July) I spent a week working in the field with a homosexual guy. We got along fine.

I have no problem being around and working with either Blacks or homosexuals. But if any of them were to ask me what I think about the situation surrounding the removal of homosexuality from the list of psychiatric disorders I'd say the same thing I say here: I think it was a decision driven primarily by philosophy and/or ideology rather than science.

Please explain the science behind homosexuality being a psychological disorder.