|
Post by matador on Jul 3, 2015 23:05:19 GMT -6
Homosexuality: The Mental Illness That Went Away by Phil Hickey on October 8, 2011 The overall point being that the APA’s taxonomy is nothing more than self-serving nonsense. Real illnesses are not banished by voting or by fiat, but by valid science and hard work. There are no mental illnesses. Rather, there are people. We have problems; we have orientations; we have habits; we have perspectives. Sometimes we do well, other times we make a mess of things. We are complicated. Our feelings fluctuate with our circumstances, from the depths of despondency to the pinnacles of bliss. And perhaps, most of all, we are individuals. DSM’s facile and self-serving attempt to medicalize human problems is an institutionalized insult to human dignity. The homosexual community has managed to liberate themselves from psychiatric oppression. But there are millions of people worldwide who are still being damaged, stigmatized, and disempowered by this pernicious system to this I did a lookup on the article and on Phil Hickey. He left out a lot which made his opinion basically useless. He is according to him a PhD, but not in what field. He also claims to be a retired Psychologist. He also in his article made claims to medicalize(sp) human problems, but it doesn't. One has to know what the DSM is and it is not self-serving but it does give a clinician a reference work to used to diagnose clients. The codes are used for billing and insurance purposes. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is a common language and standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders. It is used by clinicians, psychologists, psychiatrists, hospitals, insurance providers, pharmaceutical companies, the legal system, and policy makers together with alternatives such as the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD), produced by the World Health Organization (WHO). Everybody including APA members, non-APA members, and others in the field have input to the modifications of the DSM and we all have had some input, questions, or in opposition to some of the new changes that are in the current issue. I had a few reservations on some changes and voiced my opinion. The current issue is the DSM 5, it is the standard in use today because it falls more in line with international coding. While the one I used to get my degrees was the DSM IV, I also maintain a current copy of DSM 5. Now to be honest here the DSM and it's 5 incarnations were not guided by protests or strong arm tactics, it is through research and statistics to guide clinicians and other professionals that changes are made. What Hickley fails to show is that a lot of research went into the change for homosexuality and many in the field refused to accept his conclusions, but it was widely accepted when his (Dr. Hooker) research and conclusions could not be refuted. He showed that gays had the same and in some cases a higher IQ in comparison to straights and that he could not find any mental disorders associated with being gay. Yes there were gay groups who protested against the disease designation but they were not the reason for the change. References: www.apa.org/research/action/gay.aspxwww.apa.org/monitor/2011/02/myth-buster.aspxpsychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.htmlThe last link is a good read since it gives some historical background, here is a portion of that site: By the end of the 19th century, medicine and psychiatry were effectively competing with religion and the law for jurisdiction over sexuality. As a consequence, discourse about homosexuality expanded from the realms of sin and crime to include that of pathology. This historical shift was generally considered progressive because a sick person was less blameful than a sinner or criminal (e.g., Chauncey, 1982/1983; D'Emilio & Freedman, 1988; Duberman, Vicinus, & Chauncey, 1989). Even within medicine and psychiatry, however, homosexuality was not universally viewed as a pathology. Richard von Krafft-Ebing described it as a degenerative sickness in his Psychopathia Sexualis, but Sigmund Freud and Havelock Ellis both adopted more accepting stances. Early in the twentieth century, Ellis (1901) argued that homosexuality was inborn and therefore not immoral, that it was not a disease, and that many homosexuals made outstanding contributions to society (Robinson, 1976). Sigmund Freud Sigmund Freud's basic theory of human sexuality was different from that of Ellis. He believed all human beings were innately bisexual, and that they become heterosexual or homosexual as a result of their experiences with parents and others (Freud, 1905). Nevertheless, Freud agreed with Ellis that a homosexual orientation should not be viewed as a form of pathology. In a now-famous letter to an American mother in 1935, Freud wrote: "Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too.... "If [your son] is unhappy, neurotic, torn by conflicts, inhibited in his social life, analysis may bring him harmony, peace of mind, full efficiency whether he remains a homosexual or gets changed...." (reprinted in Jones, 1957, pp. 208-209, from the American Journal of Psychiatry, 1951, 107, 786).
l Later psychoanalysts Later psychoanalysts did not follow this view, however. Sandor Rado (1940, 1949) rejected Freud's assumption of inherent bisexuality, arguing instead that heterosexuality is natural and that homosexuality is a "reparative" attempt to achieve sexual pleasure when normal heterosexual outlet proves too threatening. Other analysts later argued that homosexuality resulted from pathological family relationships during the oedipal period (around 4-5 years of age) and claimed that they observed these patterns in their homosexual patients (Bieber et al., 1962). Charles Socarides (1968) speculated that the etiology of homosexuality was pre-oedipal and, therefore, even more pathological than had been supposed by earlier analysts (for a detailed history, see Lewes, 1988; for briefer summaries, see Bayer, 1987; Silverstein, 1991).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2015 23:12:27 GMT -6
matador : "Scalia is a fruit cake who has no business as a judge since he thinks he can legislate rather than supporting the Constitution."
Then by that definition, Obama must be a 'fruitcake' also since it's been his ambition to 'legislate' rather than execute.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2015 23:18:48 GMT -6
I didn't say it was a mental illness. Transgenderism is a mental illness. Gay marriage is something that doesn't benefit society the way heterosexual marriage does. Gays can't procreate as a couple. If the 14th Amendment applied, why didnt gay marriage get recognized 135 years ago? Why has every country that has recognized it seen their society go downhill? Speak out against it in Canada and you can be charged with hate speech. Is that what you want here? Even gays are in a tizzy now. They won, and are no longer an aggrieved class. What do they have left to complain about? I see a lot of therapy in their future.
|
|
|
Post by matador on Jul 3, 2015 23:21:00 GMT -6
Hate to mention this but they did break the law, nothing to do with free speech and are you saying that free speech is inclusive? There are many laws regarding free speech and when it is used to discriminate that is not restricting free speech it is breaking a law, just as you can not yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater if there isn't one. You can not say there is a bomb on a plane if there isn't one, you can't call a school and tell them there is a bomb on campus if there isn't one, you can not stand up in a court room while a trial is going on and yell the defendant is guilty, those are restrictions on free speech and are against the law and you can be charged with a crime. Also there was nothing to prevent them from their practice of or freedom of religion, but they are there to serve the public and as such the law prevents someone/business to discriminate for someone's color, religion, sex or sexual orientation.
|
|
|
Post by matador on Jul 3, 2015 23:41:11 GMT -6
Maybe I've never mentioned this, but I appreciate your calm rational approach to subjects here on this board. Even If you have a differing opinion from some, you remain calm and state your case according to your principles. I admire that. I also admire that you have taken time to explain some things in the Bible that were confusing to me. I'm sure I will always have questions. You seem to be prepared to answer those questions without 'talking down' That also helps . Thanks I am honored and somewhat humbled by your response. Thank you. I do not see the threads question with an easy answer, it is not a two sided coin, right or wrong, but with answers that we have yet to discover. The polygamists have now filed a lawsuit based on the supreme court's decision. Would that not follow that these groups might marry younger girls and use the court's decision to justify? Perhaps bring young men into marital contracts? Young women? How about the school books that may have to be introduced into our classrooms concerning the acceptance of the gay lifestyle? I am afraid that this legislation from the bench has created unknown issues that have not surfaced as of yet. The most egregious however is the open disregard for state's rights and the people's vote based on our constitution. Before this particular courts decision, there were some states of whom the voters decided gays could marry. Other states the voters were against by a majority vote. Those votes were cancelled out by this court. The states and peoples freedom of choice and majority rule provided by our constitution has been abrogated by this court. IMHO, the male and female bodies were designed for each other, to procreate and for mutual marital pleasure. As I watch our country slowly and surely being ruled by elites who know better than the majority of us. My question is how is it a state right? How did anyone come up with the idea that the bench legislated? The one thing that the Constitution guaranteed was that everybody is equal and have equal rights, those can not be stepped on by states or individuals. The Supreme Court just agreed with the Constitution. States have the right to govern within their boundaries, they have the right to tax within their boundaries, the state has a right to create laws and punishments within their boundaries, but the states do not have the right to discriminate against its citizens. As far as polygamy goes, there are communities in Mexico, Arizona, and Texas were those are practiced openly and that is based on Biblical references. Since religion is the basis for all of this wouldn't they also want religious freedoms too?
|
|
|
Post by matador on Jul 3, 2015 23:51:15 GMT -6
waiting for this sign to appear in a business;
"Dear Valued Patrons.
Due to my sincerely held religious beliefs, I will no longer be doing business with the following persons; nor permitting them in my establishment:
1. Divorcees. Matthew 19:9: “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.”
2. Anyone who has ever read their horoscope or called a psychic hotline. Leviticus 20:6: "As for the person who turns to mediums and to spiritists, to play the harlot after them, I will also set My face against that person and will cut him off from among his people."
3. Anyone with a tattoo. Leviticus 19:28 "You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord."
4. Anyone born illegitimately. Also, anyone who, back to ten generations, is descended from someone born illegitimately. If you can not PROVE, using appropriate church sources, that ten generations of your family were born in wedlock, I will have to err on the side of caution and not serve you. Deuteronomy 23:2 "No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the LORD."
5. Anyone who makes a practice of praying aloud, or in public. Matthew 6:5-6 "When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you."
6. Any woman with braided hair or gold jewelry. Just to be on the safe side, NO jewelry at all. 1 Timothy 2:9 "Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments."
7. Any man who has ever, by accident or not, had his genitals damaged. (Current interpretation of this scripture is under debate, so just to be safe, if you've had a vesectomy, or testicular cancer, I can't serve you. I apologize for the inconvenience but I am worried for my soul.) Deuteronomy 23:1 "A man whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off may never join the assembly of the Lord."
8. Please don't bring your kids in if they have a bowl cut. Leviticus 19:27 reads "You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard."
For those of you complaining that some of these scriptures are from the Old Testament, and that Jesus came to redeem us from these laws, I refer you to Matthew 5:17-19, where Our Savior himself says: "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven"
Again, I am sorry for the inconvenience. It's nothing personal, "love the sinner but hate the sin," and all, but I simply can't serve anyone who would blatantly disregard God's sacred law in such a fashion.
|
|
|
Post by rdlb on Jul 4, 2015 7:39:18 GMT -6
I am honored and somewhat humbled by your response. Thank you. I do not see the threads question with an easy answer, it is not a two sided coin, right or wrong, but with answers that we have yet to discover. The polygamists have now filed a lawsuit based on the supreme court's decision. Would that not follow that these groups might marry younger girls and use the court's decision to justify? Perhaps bring young men into marital contracts? Young women? How about the school books that may have to be introduced into our classrooms concerning the acceptance of the gay lifestyle? I am afraid that this legislation from the bench has created unknown issues that have not surfaced as of yet. The most egregious however is the open disregard for state's rights and the people's vote based on our constitution. Before this particular courts decision, there were some states of whom the voters decided gays could marry. Other states the voters were against by a majority vote. Those votes were cancelled out by this court. The states and peoples freedom of choice and majority rule provided by our constitution has been abrogated by this court. IMHO, the male and female bodies were designed for each other, to procreate and for mutual marital pleasure. As I watch our country slowly and surely being ruled by elites who know better than the majority of us. My question is how is it a state right? How did anyone come up with the idea that the bench legislated? The one thing that the Constitution guaranteed was that everybody is equal and have equal rights, those can not be stepped on by states or individuals. The Supreme Court just agreed with the Constitution. States have the right to govern within their boundaries, they have the right to tax within their boundaries, the state has a right to create laws and punishments within their boundaries, but the states do not have the right to discriminate against its citizens. As far as polygamy goes, there are communities in Mexico, Arizona, and Texas were those are practiced openly and that is based on Biblical references. Since religion is the basis for all of this wouldn't they also want religious freedoms too? I have read the entire PDF version of the ruling both assenting a dissenting. I happen to agree with the dissenting opinion based on the individual states to choose through the democratic process. This done by non elected individual lawyers. www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/26/supreme-court-gay-marriage-dissenting-opinions
|
|
|
Post by rdlb on Jul 4, 2015 8:13:16 GMT -6
waiting for this sign to appear in a business; "Dear Valued Patrons. Due to my sincerely held religious beliefs, I will no longer be doing business with the following persons; nor permitting them in my establishment: 1. Divorcees. Matthew 19:9: “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.” 2. Anyone who has ever read their horoscope or called a psychic hotline. Leviticus 20:6: "As for the person who turns to mediums and to spiritists, to play the harlot after them, I will also set My face against that person and will cut him off from among his people." 3. Anyone with a tattoo. Leviticus 19:28 "You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord." 4. Anyone born illegitimately. Also, anyone who, back to ten generations, is descended from someone born illegitimately. If you can not PROVE, using appropriate church sources, that ten generations of your family were born in wedlock, I will have to err on the side of caution and not serve you. Deuteronomy 23:2 "No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the LORD." 5. Anyone who makes a practice of praying aloud, or in public. Matthew 6:5-6 "When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you." 6. Any woman with braided hair or gold jewelry. Just to be on the safe side, NO jewelry at all. 1 Timothy 2:9 "Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments." 7. Any man who has ever, by accident or not, had his genitals damaged. (Current interpretation of this scripture is under debate, so just to be safe, if you've had a vesectomy, or testicular cancer, I can't serve you. I apologize for the inconvenience but I am worried for my soul.) Deuteronomy 23:1 "A man whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off may never join the assembly of the Lord." 8. Please don't bring your kids in if they have a bowl cut. Leviticus 19:27 reads "You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard." For those of you complaining that some of these scriptures are from the Old Testament, and that Jesus came to redeem us from these laws, I refer you to Matthew 5:17-19, where Our Savior himself says: "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" Again, I am sorry for the inconvenience. It's nothing personal, "love the sinner but hate the sin," and all, but I simply can't serve anyone who would blatantly disregard God's sacred law in such a fashion. Jesus did fulfill the Law and the Prophets and then established a New Covenant as the Old Covenant being annulled by His death, burial and resurrection. A more thorough study and practice of the scriptures would reveal this. As to 1 Timothy 2:9 one must understand the historical significance to the worship of the Goddess Diana of the Ephesians. biblehub.com/commentaries/1_timothy/2-9.htmwww.biblegateway.com/resources/all-women-bible/Diana-Ephesians
|
|
|
Post by matador on Jul 4, 2015 11:43:13 GMT -6
For those of you complaining that some of these scriptures are from the Old Testament, and that Jesus came to redeem us from these laws, I refer you to Matthew 5:17-19, where Our Savior himself says: "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven"Again, I am sorry for the inconvenience. It's nothing personal, "love the sinner but hate the sin," and all, but I simply can't serve anyone who would blatantly disregard God's sacred law in such a fashion. Jesus did fulfill the Law and the Prophets and then established a New Covenant as the Old Covenant being annulled by His death, burial and resurrection. A more thorough study and practice of the scriptures would reveal this. As to 1 Timothy 2:9 one must understand the historical significance to the worship of the Goddess Diana of the Ephesians. biblehub.com/commentaries/1_timothy/2-9.htmwww.biblegateway.com/resources/all-women-bible/Diana-EphesiansI realize that there are many interpretations of the bible but if you go by the literal wording of Matthew Jesus did say that he did not come to abolish the law, he can to fulfill the law and we still must follow the commandments and whoever keeps and teaches them will be great in heaven. Evangelicals interpret the Bible a bit differently than main stream Christians and that is fine if that is what they want to believe, but the wording does contradict their belief. Fulfilling the law did not remove them He made them more relevant and important. Over at AT&T JCwriter and I had a long discussion on something in the book of Revelations. He kept insisting that your name was added to the book of life if you were baptized and had the belief in Jesus, but the wording in the bible shows that everybody's name was already there and no names are removed, at Armageddon everybody is forgiven for their sins and are allowed to enter heaven.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2015 11:48:33 GMT -6
Where in the Constitution does it say people have to be treated equally? How did the Oregon bakers force their religion on the lesbian couple?
|
|
|
Post by matador on Jul 4, 2015 11:53:11 GMT -6
matador; " Maybe you don't know it but America was founded on freedom and equality, you take away someone's freedom you make them unequal, and that will end up for everyone to lose their freedoms. I don't know but I am pretty sure you don't want that. " Humm, that's a pretty broad statement. Are you sure about that ? IF America was founded on freedom and equality, why was there a need for an Emancipation Proclamation ? You make broad statements but don't take history into consideration. Actually you did not take history into consideration. Slaves were not considered equal, no slave ever has been in the complete history of the world. You forgot that blacks at one time were considered to be sub-human and ignorant. That they could not be taught anything and were basically apes in human form. There are people today who still believe that. When you look at the founding fathers how many black faces do you see? Answer that please. Even Native Americans were not equal and considered barbarians and soulless, but they did have a government and religious practices that the white immigrants did not understand. Look how long it took for the native Americans to even get the right to vote! Again when you look at the founding fathers how many red faces to you see?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2015 12:01:08 GMT -6
Well, if you know and recognize that fact, why the need to say that America was founded on freedom and equality because apparently it wasn't
There were many free men an women of color at the time. Did they have freedom and equal rights ? For instance, could they vote ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2015 12:16:18 GMT -6
Even though gay marriage is now law, people still cannot be mandated to go against their religious principles. IF discrimination against gays was unlawful, then forcing anti religious opinions on people of certain religions. is also unlawful.
If this is to be an absolute equal rights situation, you can't have one without the other. You cannot mandate principle.
|
|
|
Post by rdlb on Jul 4, 2015 12:21:47 GMT -6
I realize that there are many interpretations of the bible but if you go by the literal wording of Matthew Jesus did say that he did not come to abolish the law, he can to fulfill the law and we still must follow the commandments and whoever keeps and teaches them will be great in heaven. Evangelicals interpret the Bible a bit differently than main stream Christians and that is fine if that is what they want to believe, but the wording does contradict their belief. Fulfilling the law did not remove them He made them more relevant and important. Over at AT&T JCwriter and I had a long discussion on something in the book of Revelations. He kept insisting that your name was added to the book of life if you were baptized and had the belief in Jesus, but the wording in the bible shows that everybody's name was already there and no names are removed, at Armageddon everybody is forgiven for their sins and are allowed to enter heaven. Of the 28 times in 23 verses the word "name" is used in 6 verses that have conditions to be met. I also do not agree with JC Writer's opinion as cited by your comments. Spiritually speaking to be judged by your works is the same as being judged by your name. So, if your works, nature, essence or quality reflected by one's life or love is compatible with His name or word of God. It follows then to be written in the book of Life. Lexicon :: Strong's G3686 - onoma the name is used for everything which the name covers, everything the thought or feeling of which is aroused in the mind by mentioning, hearing, remembering, the name, i.e. for one's rank, authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds etc. I do tend to agree to a greater extent with above. Paul to the Romans Rom 13:8-10 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
|
|
|
Post by matador on Jul 4, 2015 17:30:23 GMT -6
They mean the same thing. And the study I LINKED TO shows the results are piss poor for those who think they were born the wrong gender. The linked to psychiatrist is a world renowned researcher at phons Hopkins. And I bet you lunch at a drive up window that you can't show any of these people that underwent the surgery encountered any trauma that you describe. They are mentally ill, but you don't want to accept it. Just because Gays have been around forever, doesn't mean that you can make the leap to the sanctity of marriage. Especially when it means violating the religious rights of others. Did you read my links? No they are not the same, nor have ever been the same. I will accept your offer, make it a third pound steak sandwich, with fries and a large diet Coke. You will lose and I'll enjoy my lunch, but you will never pay off. Not in your nature. Please show where it will violate the religious rights of others? And please show something from a reliable source with references. I do understand that from your position you can not come up with real factual evidence and rely on blogs and opinions but blogs and opinions are not factual evidence. I have provided you with facts and accepted procedures in the mental health field and none of this is considered a mental illness. You show one psychiatrist, but neglected to show a majority that agree with him. In every field you have those who will disagree with known and researched science and this is no different. Just because one disagrees does not make it so. Read my post again and then click on my links, not asking for anything more than a honest discussion which I have yet to see.
|
|