Gay rights vs. religious beliefs

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Actually I always thought the terms dolls/action figures comes the comfort level of the parents, what would you rather say, my son and daughter play with dolls or my daughter plays with dolls, but my son plays with action figures.

 

Then again, what is a doll? Miniature lead soldiers were a staple of revolutionary youth, were they dolls or action figures?

[yellow_hammer 10]

DanKroh,

 

"He mostly presented the research of Evelyn Hooker"

 

And Hooker's report was very flawed. She did not use a random sample of subjects but instead used people that were referred to her by activists. She had no previous clinical experience in the field of study. Her report stated that there was no difference in pathology between homosexuals and heterosexuals but it was little more than her opinion dressed up as science.

 

Evelyn Hooker, Judd Marmor, and others were long-time advocates of the change. Marmor was an active anti-war demonstrator in the sixties and took part in many far left wing causes. John Spiegle was prominant in the movement and became president of the association the next year, almost simultaneously revealing that he himself was a homosexual.

 

They stacked the committees with people that agreed with them but had no credentials on the matter at hand. They excluded those with differing opinions from taking part in the process even though they were published and well qualified on the subject of homosexuality. Many members who voiced differing opinions were prevented from presenting papers and some received threatening phone calls. At the same time that the pro-homosexual members were shutting out their collegues Marmor and others were holding meetings with the Gay Liberation Front and the Mattachina Society. The member lists of the APA were made available to these organizations so that they could send them mailings urging them to vote for the change.

 

Not quite the picture of deliberate scientific reasoning that you would present.

 

"I was not there at the meeting. In 1973, I was happily playing with my Star Trek dolls. Were you there?"

 

In 73 I was working on the farm and spending my spare time hunting and fishing when not on scout outings. I was not there. That does not mean that what I say isn't true.

 

"And you are making an assumption here that the 15,000 members who did not attend/vote would have voted to overturn the recommendation. What makes you think that the 10,000 who were there were not a representative sample of the entire membership?"

 

In 1977, ten thousand psychiatrists, who were members of the American Medical Association were polled. Of twenty five hundred replies received, 68% answered yes to the question "Is homosexuality usually a pathological adaptation (as opposed to a normal variation)?"

 

What's the difference? There were no threats, intimidation, or political mailings sent to the people who participated in this vote.

 

"And both APAs and the American Pediatric Association have since declared that reparative treatments do far more harm than good. So what's your point?"

 

My point is that people were sold one thing and given another. They didn't stop there. Today both organizations are firmly in the grip of political activists and are in the process of removing the references to pedophilia in the DSM. Similar considerations for sado-masochism, incest, and beastiality are unders consideration as well. Is there no perversion that the APA of today does not approve of?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DanKroh 11]

"I was not there. That does not mean that what I say isn't true."

 

Actually, what that makes it is heresay and rumor. Not to mention, heresay and rummor as obviously biased as what you claim was the bias of the people involved. We could go back and forth until the cows come home exchanging heresay and rumor, since I also do not have a first hand account of what happened at the meeting.

 

I do not hold my opinion about the "normalcy" of homosexuality because of the APA. I happen to agree with the APA because my own empirical experience has shown me that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. But that is also heresay, so I don't really expect you to be swayed by it.

 

"In 1977, ten thousand psychiatrists, who were members of the American Medical Association were polled. Of twenty five hundred replies received, 68% answered yes to the question "Is homosexuality usually a pathological adaptation (as opposed to a normal variation)?" What's the difference? There were no threats, intimidation, or political mailings sent to the people who participated in this vote."

 

So, thirty years ago, before the huge amount of research that has now been done about homosexuality existed, 68% of psychiatrists polled (a sample size of 2500, which is valid, while 10,000 is not?) thought homosexuality was not a normal variation. I'm shocked! Shocked, I say! Too bad you couldn't find a more recent poll to see what the opinion would be today.

 

Also, to take a page from your book, I could claim that the sample was stacked, that they chose people who they knew were biased a certain way. But since I don't know that, I won't even try to make that claim.

 

"Today both organizations are firmly in the grip of political activists and are in the process of removing the references to pedophilia in the DSM. Similar considerations for sado-masochism, incest, and beastiality are unders consideration as well. Is there no perversion that the APA of today does not approve of?"

 

Oh joy, more unsupported fearmongering. There is tons of evidence and research supporting that pedophilia is truly a disorder of the mind, resulting in obsessions that interfere with normal functioning (see posts to LongHaul). Something that cannot be said for homosexuality.

 

Wow, you seem to have a real problem with the APA (which one, by the way, Psychiatrists or Psychologists, or both?).(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

[yellow_hammer 10]

DanKroh,

 

"Oh joy, more unsupported fearmongering. There is tons of evidence and research supporting that pedophilia is truly a disorder of the mind, resulting in obsessions that interfere with normal functioning (see posts to LongHaul). Something that cannot be said for homosexuality."

 

Similar studies on homosexuality could be readily found in 1973. My entire point in this subthread is that the decision then was political and the decisions facing the APAs today will be political as well. They will change definitions when they think that there will be acceptance by the general public NOT when the carefully chosen evidence warrants the change.

 

"Wow, you seem to have a real problem with the APA (which one, by the way, Psychiatrists or Psychologists, or both?)."

 

Both. Though the latter has a far more leftward political bent.

[DanKroh 11]

"Similar studies on homosexuality could be readily found in 1973."

 

Citations, please. Edited to add; on second thought, don't even bother. I don't really feel like looking up a bunch of biased tripe and having to refute it all. I'm sure such studies could be interpreted to say that the moon is made of cheese, for all the good it will do.

 

"My entire point in this subthread is that the decision then was political and the decisions facing the APAs today will be political as well. They will change definitions when they think that there will be acceptance by the general public NOT when the carefully chosen evidence warrants the change."

 

Again, so says you. But unless you were able to look into the minds and discern the motivations of all the people involved in making those changes then and now, it is still just your opinion. And you've already revealed your bias by reviling homosexuals as deviants. In fact, your entire argument reads uncannily like a page from the NARTH website.

 

"Both. Though the latter has a far more leftward political bent."

 

Ah, of course. They disagree with you, so obviously they must be on the political left. Priceless.

 

We do agree about one thing, though; this discussion is fruitless.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

[yellow_hammer 10]

"on second thought, don't even bother. I don't really feel like looking up a bunch of biased tripe"

 

Now this is truly priceless. Any study that I might produce that disagrees with your position is "tripe" but a study that is clearly flawed (Hooker's) but agrees with your position is "groundbreaking". Hoo hah.

 

"Again, so says you."

 

And so say members of the APA who were there and watched it happen. Did you not read the message about stacking committees to get a desired opinion, suppressing contrary opinions, short-cutting the normal process, using flawed "research", and meetings with activist groups? What more would it take for a reasonable person to doubt that the decision was not political?

 

"Ah, of course. They disagree with you, so obviously they must be on the political left. Priceless."

 

If you are a member of American Psychological Association then you get the Monitor. Read it some time. Your colleagues frequently write to the editor complaining of the American Psychological Association's liberal positions. It's not just me.

 

Quite clearly the organization is run by people who believe that "values" and "outcome" is more important that verifiable facts found in careful research. For them a political solution is not just an alternative but is preferable over one based on scientific study and deliberation.

 

If there is even a sliver of doubt in your mind on how these decisions are made I suggest that you take a look at "Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm". This is not a book by right wingers but by liberal psychologists. In it they document the many cases of suppression of scientific evidence by members of your profession who have a political agenda. Don't take my word for it, take theirs.

 

[DanKroh 11]

"Now this is truly priceless. Any study that I might produce that disagrees with your position is "tripe" but a study that is clearly flawed (Hooker's) but agrees with your position is "groundbreaking". Hoo hah."

 

Yes, it was groundbreaking. And for something that is "clearly flawed", it's still used and endoresed by an awful lot of academics and researchers in psychiatry and psychology. In fact, the only people I've ever seen present "criticisms" of it are people who clearly have their own anti-gay agenda.

 

So there. We are back to "I say, you say". You say I am biased and I say you are biased. Hoo hah indeed.

 

You must be reading a different version of The Monitor than I do. Can't say I've ever noticed a preponderance of letters complaining about their "liberal positions". Some people do seem to feel that the APA should not take a stand in social issues at all, but that is different than complaining about liberal bias.

[acco40 95]

I'll confess. I'm a societal deviant. I can easily hide my affliction if I'm careful. You really can't tell just from looking at me or talking with me. Some religious texts speak of my actions as immoral. Schools and society have attempted to change my ways with instruction and punishment - it has not proven effective. I've witnessed employment discrimination because of my deviant behavior. What is my 'affliction' - I'm left handed. Who sits at the left hand of God? What is the opposite or right? I am a certifiable, 100% sinister person. I punt a football with my left foot. I write with my left hand. I throw a baseball with my left hand.

 

Now, do you know that doors, power tools, scissors, can openers, cars, books, and just about anything man made is made for right handers? Police officers have been dismissed from their jobs if they insist on holstering their guns on their left hip. The military has weapon systems that throw spent rounds across the face of left-handers. Ed, yellow-hammer - do I have the same rights as right handers? Am I looking for special privileges? Was I born this way or did I develop this deviant behavior on my own? Neither of my parents or siblings were born with this deviation from the norm. Is this just a "lifestyle choice" for me?

 

I don't make any attempt to hide my affliction. However, if society did not allow me to marry, restricted my membership in such organizations as Scouting, etc. I may have chosen to hide my deviant behavior. Would the act of trying to hide being left handed make me dishonest? Would it cause me to develop neuroses? Would it harm me psychologically? If so, how would one separate the act of being left handed as the cause or the act of trying to hide it as the cause of my mental problems?

 

Questions, questions, questions.

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

Accor40,

 

By being Left-handed, you have a type of disability that interferes with some types of work. This means that you have functional limitations that could interfere with the transmission of your job duties. If you wanted to apply for rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, you could get reasonable accommodations from your employer.

 

 

Lets say that you are working for the Army and the bullets from your gun are flying across your face and disrupting your aim and likewise reducing your vision and leaving you unprotected because you cannot see the enemy. You have the right to go to your employer, the Army, and tell them your problem. They would then be held liable to make changes in the release chamber of your gun, which would probably cost 10 billion dollars. Since cost is never an issue, they would then redesign, say 10% of their total number of guns for combat, thus giving you access to the proper accommodation.

 

 

Now, if your employer is a small town police department and you request the same thing, they have the right to tell you that your accommodation is unreasonable because they do not have 10 billion dollars to redesign their uniforms and holsters. You could then apply for a desk job where if you do wear a gun, you should keep your bullet in your shirt pocket.

 

 

I am being a little silly but my point is that most laws and most of what the APA does and says as well as the DSM are fairly practical and usable. I realize that some religions have decided to judge homosexuals in this life as well as the next. They are acting on what their God has told them to do, so for them it is true and right to act they way they do. The problem is we are all Americans living in a pluralistic society with others having differing views.

 

Homosexuality does not in and of itself prevent a person from doing their job or from living. If a person has an adjustment disorder as well, then there may be problem when considering the functional limitations of their disability but it is not because they are homosexual. Seeking help for the adjustment problems should be the issue.

 

When any person has any disability then the functional limitations should always be considered. There is an imaginary line that some people with disabilities cross that prevents them from living and working. The reason that it is imaginary is because two people can have the same disability and one will have limitations and the other will not. It is because people have varied IQs, aptitudes, abilities, preferences, and interests as well. What motivates one person totally disrupts another.

 

When a persons disabilities interfere to the point that they are unable to live and work effectively in society, then institutionalization may be the only answer. In a Free society, freedom should be the key issue when attempting to make laws. Locking people up should always be the last issue. People with Pedophilia have shown to be resistant to most therapies and punishments. It is an abhorrent disability that interferes with a persons work and life. It is doubtful that a cure will be found in the near future. Until that time, the majority of those that represent the APA and those rewriting the DSM will find it difficult to make any changes regarding Pedophilia. I can without any reservation say the same for incest.

 

To cast fear in the direction of those in the helping professions simply because they do not agree with ones religion makes for a dubious argument. It appears that it is a comparative misuse of information designed to belittle one and enlarge the other. The same arguments can be used against those people that are religious counselors that use the Bible for the basis of their reasoning in making decisions on how and who to treat.

 

It is always healthy to have an interchange of information so that we question what we are doing which can and should bring growth. I dont believe that we have reached out to each other for that kind of exchange. I hope that we will.

 

FB

 

[Hunt 11]

But getting back to the action figure vs. doll issue...

The issue really goes back to the introduction of G.I.Joe. The developers of that toy were afraid that boys would not want to play with "dolls," so they came up with the term "action soldier" to describe what he was. Clearly, he wasn't really all that different from Barbie--although I will say that boys played with G.I.Joe in a manner different from how girls played with Barbie...boys' play is more likely to be parallel (or competitive), as opposed to girls' play, which is more likely to be cooperative.

[packsaddle 753]

Hunt, I have read every one of the posts in this thread and this has truly been a busy day for this thread. I thank those who have provided such lively reading. But I'm with you and the dolls, ahem, action figures. You reminded me of a neighbor family we had over 20 years ago. Their religion put the sabbath on Saturday (OK, that when it's supposed to happen, I know), didn't allow them to celebrate Thanksgiving, birthdays, Halloween, and at Christmas they didn't exchange gifts. They told me the denomination but I have forgotten over the years. The thing that reminded me was that they would allow their two boys to play with toy guns and trucks and things, but not action figures. 'Idols', 'Graven Images', they said. I was almost tempted to limit my children from playing with them....nah! We have the freedom to adopt strange and interesting belief systems. But it is wrong if our beliefs lead us to make decisions that limit other individuals' rights and access.

Perhaps someday studies will show the biological basis for sexual preference, or the lack of biological basis. But I suspect that even in the face of good objective evidence (of which there is little at present) many of us will continue to hold to our prejudices. I, for one, would like to see the evidence when it is eventually produced. And although I think there is a biological basis, if experimental evidence shows otherwise I am willing to change my view. The last thing I want is to be wrong about this and to stay that way after being shown it.

 

FYI, I write with my right hand, eat with my left, and switch to either side as needed when using 'hand-neutral' tools. Son is leftie, daughter is rightie. Son works hard to cultivate his latent evil tendencies, daughter merely summons them. Gotta love 'em.

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

Seventh Day Adventists

 

I am right-handed but I bat and golf left-handed. I do neither today, so I am right-handed.

 

[Trevorum 24]

Interesting thread. Love the twists.

 

I seem to remember reading that psychologists do not consider behaviora laterality to be an either-or condition. There are a dozen different tests to asses laterality, including writing, thowing, catching, kicking, scratching an itch in the middle of ones back, even picking ones nose. Few people are 100% right or left; most people do many things with one hand but other things with the other hand.

 

As a 10 year old kid, I distained GI Joe. He was clearly a doll. A macho soldier-doll, to be sure, but still a doll. However, I loved playing with plastic army-men. That was different somehow. Go figure.

 

[DanKroh 11]

FuzzyBear,

 

"To cast fear in the direction of those in the helping professions simply because they do not agree with ones religion makes for a dubious argument."

 

Thank you.

 

"I can without any reservation say the same for incest."

 

Actually, incest is not listed, as such, as a mental disorder, either. Incest (and polygamy, for that matter) represent unique problems that many in my profession struggle with. While the basis of our social taboos for incest and polygamy are NOT based on mental health issues (birth defects for incest, and social roles for polygamy), in reality, those types of relationships are seldom healthy (at least, in our modern American society). Incestuous relationships usually involve issues of authority (power) and lack of consent, and often lead to other mental problems (most notably PTSD). Polygamous relationships traditionally objectify women and reduce them to the status of chattel. (Of course, this is specific to polyGYNY, as opposed to polyANDRY). While I have never encountered anyone who had a healthy incestuous relationship (in my very limited experience), I do know a few people in healthy polygamous (both polygynous and polyandrous) relationships. Of course, there have been cultures and times in history when incest was considered both normal and healthy (which I'm sure Trev could speak to more than I), although that can be said of many things that we consider unhealthy now.

[Hunt 11]

This discussion led me to think about at what point a person's desire to engage in socially unacceptable behavior rises to the level of mental illness. For example, society frowns on nudism, but most of us probably wouldn't necessarily think that a person who frequented a private nudist colony was mentally ill (we might think the person is a "nut," which is, I think, something different). On the other hand, a person who insisted on practicing nudism in public might make us think he had a mental disorder.

I can think of many things that the vast bulk of society deplores (ie, incest, being a Nazi, defending the 9/11 terrorists, denying the Holocaust, burning the flag, etc.) and yet, there are people who do all of these things. Where does such a person cross the line between being a "nut" or a "zealot" or a "nonconformist" into being mentally ill? For many of these people, their actions severely affect their ability to function in society--is that the standard?

It's also interesting to me that people respond differently to behavior that they find unacceptably deviant--some would rather ascribe the behavior to mental illness, and others would prefer to ascribe it to moral depravity--I think, for example, of the case of Andrea Yates, the woman who drowned her children. Personally, I prefer to see her actions as the result of mental illness, but others seemed offended by that idea, and wanted her punished as an evildoer.

To bring this back to the topic, it strikes me as odd that people who oppose equal rights for homosexuals would want to argue that it is the product of mental illness, rather than a chosen form of moral depravity. If it really is a mental illness--and one that has proven extremely difficult, if not impossible to cure--doesn't that lead to an argument for more rights, rather than less? If being gay is like being deaf, say, why not let gay people get married as long as nobody else is hurt? Indeed, if it's a mental illness, it's even less likely to be contagious than if it is a moral choice.