DanKroh

"One must remember that when they take a comment out of context, it can and often times leads to a completely different intent than what was originally meant."

Stosh, it was not my intent to take your comment out of context. I know what you meant by "break the cycle" of behavior. However, from what little info Sharky has relayed, there is some reason to doubt the young man's ability to react in a rational way to such an event.

I don't know his mental state, so I'm just urging a little caution in thinking that there cannot be serious negative consequences of a permanent sort in this situation if someone tweaks this lad the wrong way.

I think those who bring up that this behavior could just be the result of parental "giving in" have valid points. And I did not rule that out in suggesting getting the young man professional help.

And here's why.

At 14-years-old, IF the pattern of inappropriate behavior is due to parents not curbing it at a younger age, the behavior is now so deeply rooted that they are unlikely to be able to change it themselves without some professional intervention.

IF the behavior does have some sort of organic (either neurological or somatic) cause, then it is worth (in my opinion) ruling that out first, because that also cannot be changed without professional intervention.

So in either case, professional intervention is likely to be necessary before any change will be realized in the behavior.

Another consideration is that until the young man's behavior is gotten under control, it may be in his best interest to take a break from activities (like scouting, or at least the campouts) that obviously stress him to the point of the tantrums.

The only other thing that concerns me is Stosh's statement that "Break the cycle, the kid won't die if he doesn't get his way!" Like Calico, I work with a lot of young adults in crisis, so maybe I am just overly sensitive to concerns about extreme actions that this sort of statement seems to discount. But I would rather be cautious than sorry about this sort of thing.

"Unless you're a medical professional willing to take this kid on as a patient, keep your diagnoses to yourself."

Can't speak for anyone else, but I only see advice being offered here, not diagnoses.

That advice being, to see the appropriate medical professional who CAN make a diagnosis.

What Calico said.

As far as the possibility of it being Asperger's, lots of behavioral problems are characterized by tantrums.

It could also be an underlying somatic condition (like hypoglycemia) that is impacting his behavior.

Finally, not all behavioral conditions have an neurological basis, but it is still a behavior problem. Professional help can both aid in distinguishing which it is, as well as treating it, whatever the cause.

Talk to the parents. Get the boy some help.

"I've always been a bit disappointed in da prejudice shown by the gay rights movement against religions like the Mormons and Catholics."

Or perhaps it is in reaction to the Catholic and LDS churches pouring millions of dollars into political campaigns to restrict the rights of gays. Prop 8 comes to mind.

"They show pretty clearly that there wasn't any scientific basis, just da normal actions of a political lobby with a viewpoint"

Yeah, because the opinions of all those professionals psychiatrists were only influence by their political opinions, and not informed by years of reading and conduction research in their own field, huh?

Pot, meet kettle.

"Can we get a scientifically derived conclusion or position on this subject from the American Psychiatric Association?"

Yes.

The general position on homosexuality is here:

http://www.psych.org/Departments/EDU/Library/APAOfficialDocumentsandRelated/PositionStatements/199216.aspx

The position statement on same-sex marriage is here:

http://www.psych.org/Departments/EDU/Library/APAOfficialDocumentsandRelated/PositionStatements/200416.aspx

Position statement on gays in the military:

http://www.psych.org/Departments/EDU/Library/APAOfficialDocumentsandRelated/PositionStatements/199013.aspx

The American Psychological Association's policy statement is here:

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

Their education booklet on homosexuality is here:

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/just-the-facts.aspx

"That's fine, but the Center for Disease Controls has at least a prima facie appearance of being a respectable source of information. I believe there are other ostensibly credible entities among those I ran across."

Yes, some of them, like the CDC, are credible sources. But when you pull information from them out of context, without a basis for comparison, then it just becomes meaningless. All you've done with the info from credible sources is quote statistics that cast gays in a bad light, without providing comparable statistics about heterosexuals. That's introducing bias. Anyone could also quote lots of statistics from credible sources that imply that all heterosexuals are seriously depraved. That's also bias.

"You don't like NARTH. That's fine, too, although by what is being said seems that you don't like their funding sources or conclusions, rather than the scientific basis of their particular researches and conclusions. Can you see that there is a very real difference between the message and the messenger?"

Do a little research about NARTH. I don't disagree with them because I don't like their funding or conclusions. I (and every other reputable researcher) don't like their conclusions because they do shoddy, biased research or they deliberately distort the good research done by reputable scientists to support their agenda. Can *you* see that difference?

"Again, pull out the politics here. You assume I don't "agree" with you, and hence must be attacked. But this is only your assumption, and not real. I'm looking for real facts in all this swirl of partisanship. . . am I to be attacked for this?"

I'm not attacking you, much as you want to play the victim. You choose to take personal umbrage when I say that the sources you are quoting are biased. I DO say that you seem to lack the ability to tell a reputable, legitimate scientific fact from the opinion and propaganda put forth by anti-gay political groups, because you've demonstrated it over and over. I'm *trying* to take the politics and partisanship out of it by asking you to go look at legitimate scientific research, but YOU keep returning to the same incredibly biased sources and opinion pieces published by political groups, where we have no idea if they are accurately representing the facts. I am, and will continue to, "attack" sources that use junk science or opinion, when you try to present them as "facts". Or can't you see that difference, either?

I have no idea if you "agree" with me or not (or at this point, what we are supposed to be agreeing/disagreeing about). Frankly, I don't really care. Your history on this forum speaks for itself. But I *do* care when you present junk science and opinion as "fact". Because if you can't tell the difference, we have no basis for a discussion.

Oh, and just to head off the next accusation, I am neither angry nor emotional about this issue. I am getting a little frustrated because I'm being asked over and over again to discuss facts, when there are no facts present to discuss, not to mention being accused of personal attacks where I have made none.

"It's easy to impugn motives (in my case, your assumptions are quite mistaken). But the more you do this, the less facts you present. Show me something real and substantive.

If you have something factual that argues against these studies, please present it."

I am not so much impugning your motives as I am asking you if you understand why someone WOULD impugn your motives, given the type of material you continue to present. I'm not making assumptions. I'm asking you why you chose to present the articles you did, and continue to disregard the other resources pointed out to you. But you chose to ignore that question.

I have presented you with list upon list of factual references, citations, and places to find more. And as often as I lead this horse to water, I still can't make the water jump into its mouth.

Sorry, not going to waste any more of my time compiling lists of citations that you are going to ignore. But I will continue to point out when and how sources you present are lacking.

"I'm trying to find facts. I'm keeping an open mind until I do so."

Really? And yet, every article you quote here presents an obvious anti-gay bias, some from very disreputable sources. Why is that? Do you see why it gives the strong impression that you have already made up your mind and are looking for material to support your own opinion?

"My motive here is finding out the truths that have been established---is this a bad thing? If so, why can we not discuss the facts? We have a multi-billion dollar scientific establishment in this country, and I'm trying to locate facts about homosexuality. I can see this is an emotionally charged issue, and it's a partisan one, but even so, I want to see facts and make up my own mind based upon them."

Then, please, please, please, go in search of real, scientifically supported FACTS. NOT opinions pieces from the NYT and Bill Donohue. NOT quotes taken out of context from legitimate sources like the CDC. NOT white papers, brochures, and vanity pieces published by well-known anti-gay groups who have demonstrated over and over again that they have absolutely no ethics when it comes to supporting their anti-gay agenda. Go read REAL scientific journal articles, in their original forms. NOT opinion pieces that merely quote legitimate journal articles, where you do not know if the work has been misquoted or deliberately distorted.

If you are really, truly looking for FACTS and not opinions to shore up an anti-gay bias, THAT is where you should go looking for them. But despite being presented with several places to start, you continue to return to quoting sources like NARTH.

Why is that?

Ok, I'm going to preface all of this by saying, "So?" Does any of this (assuming any bit of it is gathered by legitimate scientific methods, and that's a big assumption for most of it) make homosexuals any less worthy of respect or the right to be treated with the dignity and equality due any other human being?

Now, on to the meat of this:

"* A 1997 New York Times article reported that a young male homosexual has about a 50% chance of getting HIV by middle age."

Yeah, because the NYT does so much scientific research. Without knowing where they got these numbers from, can't comment on their validity.

"Center for Disease Control

The CDC warns that men who have sex with men can result in rapid, extensive transmission of sexually transmitted diseases."

Shocking! Is this supposed to be something we don't know? Guess what, women who have sex with men can result in "rapid, extensive transmission of sexually transmitted diseases" as well. Ever heard of HPV, HSV, syphilis, chlamydia, etc?

"International Journal of Epidemiology"

Again, this is NOT a citation. Author, year, volume, etc?? Without that information, no one can look at the research methods and tell whether it is was legitimately done or not, or whether the conclusions were accurately quoted. This article could be 20+ years old. A lot has changed in the last 20 years in the health of gay men.

"American Journal of Psychiatry

CONCLUSIONS: Rates of distress and depression are high in men who have sex with men. These high rates have important public health ramifications. The predictors of distress and depression suggest prevention efforts that might be effective when aimed at men who have sex with men.

Findings From the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS)

Conclusion: The findings support the assumption that people with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders."

Again, this is supposed to be surprising? If someone constantly told you that you were an abomination, were a pervert, if you were shunned by your family and religion, don't you think you'd be more likely to be depressed, too?

"Corporate Resource Council"

Who? Is this a scientific body?

"National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality"

You're kidding me, right? You are really going to quote NARTH?

What exactly was your point again? Or are you just going to keep posting lists at random intervals of things you found on the internet that support your bias?

"we have a jalapeno patrol and their yell is "muy caliente!" or sometimes "arriba - muy caliente!""

Personally, I think the best yell for a jalapeno patrol would be "On a STEECK!"

But I watch waaaaay too much Jeff Dunham.

Older son's first patrol was the Rock patrol. The badger patrol emblem turned upside down looks surprisingly like a rock

Their yell was "THUNK!"

Younger son's first patrol is the "Killer Poptarts", for which one crafty mother made an iron-on for the blank patch.

Their yell is "Suh-WEET!"(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

"Yah, do yeh really want to go there? Justifying arguments based on stereotypes because they have a correlational basis?"

Again, not what I said at all. I MADE no arguments based on the stereotype, so I don't know how I can justify such an argument. All I did was refute that someone else's assumption (again, not *my* assumption) based on such a stereotype is not necessarily a character attack, as you wanted to label it.

That's twice now that you've tried to put words in mouth, Beavah. Gee, I guess it's not really a good day for you on that account.

"I reckon you're only going to get me to make fun of da professional competence of psychologists again."

Somehow, I imagine that you will do that again anyway, since the only one controlling your actions is you.

"Nah, Dan, yeh really didn't just claim that it's OK to dismiss an individual's viewpoint because the demographic group they're part of tends toward certain beliefs or practices, did you? "

No, actually, I didn't. I just pointed out that rather than being an attack on a person's character, such a stereotype actually has a basis in fact, and it not something that just gets pulled out of the blue.

So I see, dismissing a viewpoint of an individual because of their demographic is bad, but mocking an entire profession (or at least, a professional organization) because the conclusion of one researcher has been distorted by the press is okey dokey. All righty then.

"Aw, poor Dan. Surely you're not going to tell me yeh never criticized a lawyer or a public policy decision. I reckon there are a lot more lawyer jokes, and even more engineer jokes, than psychologist jokes."

Sure, I have criticized the decision of A lawyer or A judge. However, I didn't put that criticism on a public forum, and then use it as an excuse to mock the entire profession.

Psychologist jokes? I know some good ones. But my favorite ones are a little too risque for this venue, since they involve pointing out that psychologists' clients are usually laying on a couch and paying a lot of money per session (similar to another, older profession).

"But tell me... if someone is making a comparative conclusion like "modern superheroes are worse than former superheroes", isn't it necessary that da research methodology incorporate a comparison? Now, it could be I'm just a silly overly legalistic furry critter, eh? Perhaps as a professional psychologist yeh could explain to us how that works."

I don't know if that is what Dr. Lamb's conclusion was (because I wasn't at the talk, and I haven't read her original reports), and honestly, don't care enough to go looking. I wouldn't want to comment on the validity of her research methodology just from what was published in the popular press. And I think I'm really done with this hijack.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

"Yah, but da registration fees for non-members are often enough to buy a cheap used car, eh? There are certainly all kinds of conferences that are open only to members in my field. And da other ones require the title to your car, as described."

Except most press memberships are usually paid for by the publications the reporters work for. I guess they feel it is worth it. And yes, press are free to attend any session, in my experience.

"I don't want to pick on da psychologists more than they deserve, eh?"

I guess you don't *want* to, but you will continue doing it anyway, huh?

The press spun the research to make splashy headlines that sell newspapers and get hits on websites. Some people are going to fall for the spin.

It is an unfortunate burden that psychologists have to bear that people who have no training in the field whatsoever feel free to malign our work because they think they know better. I don't feel qualified to interpret the legalese of judicial proceedings. I don't feel qualified to critique the design of a building or bridge or airplane that various engineers might design. And yet, many people feel they are qualified to be amateur psychologists. Now THAT would be an interesting research topic...

"Da notion that those who oppose a homosexual lifestyle must be living on some desert island is just an attack on da character of a person because of their viewpoint."

Or, there could be a documented correlation that people who have negative viewpoints of homosexuality are more likely NOT to have close relationships with openly homosexual people. There are people who study the demographics of prejudicial attitudes.

"Males 30-44 report an average of 6-8 female sexual partners in their lifetime (Mosher, Chandra, & Jones, 2005)."

Yep, that jives with the numbers I have heard, including the report that I cited that said 7.3 partners for heterosexual men.

However, if you look at the other report I cited, it said that gay men have an average of 4-5 partners over their lifetime, which is actually lower than the heterosexual average. However, the number from that one report is not definitive, and I do believe the average is probably similar to the 7-8 partners that heterosexual men average. But definitely NOT 110!

"For homosexuality to be fully accepted as moral behavior, the culture will have to restrict, discriminate against and eventually out law the practice of religion."

No, the culture will just have to outlaw using the practice of religion as an excuse to discriminate against and restrict the rights of others.

Oh wait, we already do that in theory. Now we just have to put it into true practice.

Many religions have no problem with accepting homosexuality as a variant on *normal* human sexuality, including some Christian denominations (just to point out that it's not all just us heathens).

OGE, believe me, I recognize the fruitlessness of trying to convince people about something that for many of them has no rational basis. I try not to get involved in these debates unless someone presents information as truth/fact when it is really opinion, a distortion of the facts, or just plain false.

I think there are people out there who are undecided, and I would like them to have possession of valid information rather than falsehoods from which to make up their own minds.

At the risk of being accused of being close-minded, I'm at least going to be intellectually honest.

No, there is nothing that I can conceive of that could be said or shown to me that would convince me that homosexuality is wrong/bad.

Because not only would the evidence have to be compelling in its own right in making a case that homosexuality is wrong, it would also have to somehow invalidate the vast volume of research to the contrary. It would have to somehow invalidate almost 20 years of professional experience in working with homosexual clients, as well as 30 years of deep friendship with some very fine people.

And that has about as much chance of happening as two gay people producing a baby "naturally" or verses supporting homosexuality suddenly appearing in the Bible.

If all that did happen, then, yes, I hope that I would be able to rethink my position. But such circumstances are so inconceivable to me that I really can't give a definitive answer.

But at least I'm honest about it.

Where are those first two paragraphs quoted from?

"I don't accept that animals of the same sex appearing to have sex makes it OK. Animals react to instinct, so what ever is going on, its not a gay action. For example, sometimes a dog mounts another dog to show pack dominance. Its not a sexual thing, it purely a show ranking."

I agree, dominance is a different thing entirely (kinda like the huge difference between a consensual gay relationship and a man raping another man). However, there is evidence of animals in long-term pairings with other animals of the same gender, including sex (not just "appearing to have sex"), as well as raising young together. Still haven't addressed why same-sex pairings among humans isn't "natural", or defined what "natural" means.

Or have we come full circle in the "logic" yet? It isn't natural because it's deviant, and it's deviant because it isn't natural?

"Your basing that explination off pain? What?"

I didn't say anything about pain. Where exactly does pain come into the equation, since homosexual sex generally causes no more pain than heterosexual sex. I asked what you meant by "It is certainly real". If "it" refers to pain, then my argument still stands. Lots of things we do to our bodies cause "pain" (which is not the same thing as "injury", just to be clear). Pierced ears, smoking, sports, just to name a few. I'm still trying to understand why some activities that "the body isn't designed to do" and "cause pain" are "bizarre and deviant" but others are as wholesome as apple pie.

"the intent behind their action is what makes the act deviant or bizarre. Since sex with the same gender is not natural, it is automatically deviant and bizarre."

Again, please define how sex with the same gender is "not natural". Because one definition of "not natural" would be "not occurring in nature". Since human beings are part of nature (along with many other animals who also engage in same-gender sex), obviously, this activity is "natural". Saying that two bodies of the same-gender "aren't designed" to have sex also is meaningless, since obviously, the mechanics work without technological intervention. What other criteria do you want to impose to define "natural"?

I'm still having real trouble with your premise that if something is "not natural, it is automatically deviant and bizarre".

I'm also curious about this statement: "It doesn't matter if a person is heterosexual, homosexual, purple or short, the intent behind their action is what makes the act deviant or bizarre." What exactly is the difference in intent behind the act of sex between a committed, monogamous heterosexual couple and sex between a committed, monogamous homosexual couple, that makes one of them "bizarre and deviant"?(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

"Yah, shame, because you clearly got it wrong. But then, I reckon there is great psychological research that shows folks tend to significantly overestimate their own competence."

Well, whether I got it right or wrong (sorry, not going to argue about that), clearly what kind of fallacy I labeled it was important enough to the debate that you needed to point it out, rather than focusing on the substance of the fallacy itself. As you say, shame that.

"Since conference presentations aren't available outside da conference, of course I haven't read the work yet, which you knew."

Well, I wasn't at the meeting, and just a little looking around in the "popular press" brought me to understand that what the researcher was saying is that superheroes based on "bad boys" like Iron Man (and many other current superheroes) may not be good roll models for boys, unlike old-school superheroes like Superman, who modeled other virtues as well as heroism. Very different conclusion from what you presented. Once you get past the distortions, whether the research is "silly" I'll leave up to people who work in that field.

"But professional communities at their flagship conference typically highlight research that they believe is timely and seminal to share with da popular press. The fact that da APA viewed this research as being so important as to merit highlighting for da general public does call for considerable mockery. Either they are totally inept at communications in da modern world, or they really don't have much really valuable research goin' on."

Or, the popular press latched onto this item because it made good, splashy headlines that could be distorted to make the research look silly. Again, I wasn't at the meeting, so I don't know how much "highlighting" it received other than by the press. I think you overestimate how much control there is on what the press reports about at a conference like this.

So what exactly was the point of this entire side line, and what does it have to do with the topic at hand?