Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, PART II

[Nurvingiel]

In time, it will become less socially acceptable, just like racism.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

While I find the last two sentences of what you say here to be entirely ridiculous, your main point is pretty sound. Throckmorton takes note of this in his article.

Nothing has been hammered out as biologically causing homosexuality or heterosexuality. Self-report is a weak means for finding out someone's sexuality, as you point out, but it is the only method presently available to analyze ex-gays, because there is no consensus about physical techniques. Because self-report is a weak means, this article does not claim to prove whether or not ex-gays can change. The title of the article is "Initial Empirical and Clinical Findings Concerning the Change Process for Ex-Gays". However, the article does show what direction the results of the presently available professional studies on ex-gays are leaning. According to Throckmorton, "some kind of change appears to occur for many who identify themselves as ex-gay." The evidence of these tests (some of which went into the experiences of hundreds of subjects) is sufficient to reach that conclusion. Throckmorton also says that, "although the reports in this article do not provide proof that sexual orientation changes through religious mediation, they do invite mental health professionals and the public to be cautious in assuming that we fully understand the potential and limitations for human change." He also argues that when practitioners encounter clients that want to change from homosexual to heterosexual, they should be willing to consider referral to an ex-gay ministry.

He presents in his article the results of all eleven of the only available studies on ex-gays available in professional literature. He mentions that there are some studies being conducted on ex-ex-gays that he has not discussed in his article. His focus is primarily on how many people feel they have changed and is not on what people who don't change go through.

You might as well not cite the American Psychological Association at all in this thread, if you think they'd consent to have a "right-wing media whore" publish his report in their journal Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. If they've sunk to the level of presenting the so-called "findings" of someone like that in their professional journal, then their view on homosexuality is absolutely irrelevant to any discussion of the topic.

Also, in your ad hominem attack on the man, you're ignoring virtually all of his credentials and are making slurs on his character based on pure supposition about one part of his credentials.

In reverse order, my attack was principally focused on the disparity between the conclusions drawn and methods used, not the man. It is method, not credentials, that makes for valid research.

I know it's hard to understand, but peer reviewed journals are free to publish what they want. It is fallacy to ascribe these views to the APA just because they own the journal.

Thirdly, the review presupposes the existence of "ex-gays" and therefore falls to a circular logic.

I'm sorry that you find good science ridiculous, and would be happy to elucidate if that would be of assistance

[inked]

Hey, here's good science: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1123/p01s01-uspo.htm

What's the APA definition of Homophobia, by the way? Is that fear of humans, like deer and elk and bear in hunting seasons have? Deconstructing the word yields "irrational fear of humans". But the deer and elk and bear (et alia) are rightly - if not rationally - fearful of humans. Jus' wonderin', y'all.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by inked

What's the APA definition of Homophobia, by the way? Is that fear of humans, like deer and elk and bear in hunting seasons have? Deconstructing the word yields "irrational fear of humans". But the deer and elk and bear (et alia) are rightly - if not rationally - fearful of humans. Jus' wonderin', y'all.

In this case it's homo as opposed to hetero and not homo (sapiens) as opposed to, say Ursus (meaning "bear"). Homophobia would therefore mean something like "irrational fear of similarity".

[inked]

Jonathan, I understand that the definition of homophobia is so defined as you state it. It is available at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homophobia
which suggests in the first entry that it was coined in the timeframe of 1955 - 1960 (if I read it aright).

My question was what was the APA definition of homophobia - that was perhaps too subtle a dig at the need for a psychiatric definition which has genuine diagnostic meaning and the nominal, cultural use of the term. It was a genuine request for the diagnostic category's components. I strongly suspect that there is major DISCRIMINATION between what constitutes true homophobia and the rampant use of a pop-psychological employance of the term. The latter is a well defined technique to smear the opposing person's views - however rational and based in fact and moral and ethical considerations, etc. - by labelling them with a psychiatric disordered state of mind by implication.

Anyone out there with a DSM (current) who can enlighten us?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

What's the APA definition of Homophobia, by the way? Is that fear of humans, like deer and elk and bear in hunting seasons have? Deconstructing the word yields "irrational fear of humans". But the deer and elk and bear (et alia) are rightly - if not rationally - fearful of humans. Jus' wonderin', y'all.

Fear of harmless human behavior that is different from one's own.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

In this case it's homo as opposed to hetero and not homo (sapiens) as opposed to, say Ursus (meaning "bear"). Homophobia would therefore mean something like "irrational fear of similarity".

Indeed, phobia is Greek, and so the Greek homo of 'same' is appropriate, not the Latin homo of 'man'.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Fear of harmless human behavior that is different from one's own.

Fear of not being able to win the argument without resorting to creating and falsely applying a phobia

[inked]

Rian,

That would be homophobiaphilia, I think.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Fear of not being able to win the argument without resorting to creating and falsely applying a phobia

Words are relative.

They mean what I choose them to mean.

[Rían]

then how is the person you're speaking to supposed to know what you choose to have them mean?

[brownjenkins]

I think that you an inked know exactly what I meant, you are just dodging the statement by arguing semantics.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I think that you an inked know exactly what I meant, you are just dodging the statement by arguing semantics.

Sure. lol. Point THAT out.

Are you trying to suggest that there is something more significant going on here (anywhere) than arguing semantics?

[Insidious Rex]

Depends what you mean by semantics...

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Depends what you mean by semantics...

Lol!

Originally Posted by inked

That would be homophobiaphilia, I think.

Lol!

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Sure. lol. Point THAT out.

Are you trying to suggest that there is something more significant going on here (anywhere) than arguing semantics?

Voltaire said it best...

“When he who hears does not know what he who speaks means, and when he who speaks does not know what he himself means, that is philosophy�

[inked]

Volataire was a relativist, wasn't he, BJ?

But an accurate one!

[inked]

Oh, my...

LONDON, September 10, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A British homosexual journalist admits that his documentary on the London gay scene is likely to "burn every bridge in the gay world I've got."

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08091011.html

and the credentialing seems up to snuff

"Simon Fanshawe is a writer and broadcaster who created the documentary "The Trouble With Gay Men" after becoming increasingly alarmed at the shallowness and destructiveness of the "gay lifestyle." The film, made for BBC 3 television" apparently tells an unwelcome truth about the whole fabric of gay in GB.
---------------------------------------------------------------

And this from Reuters:

“Last month, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that more than 56,000 people in the United States become newly infected with the human immunodeficiency virus each year, far more than previous estimates of about 40,000.
Now the CDC has further analyzed those numbers to find the fatal and incurable virus largely infects men who have sex with men, or MSM—a group that includes gays, bisexuals and men who may have the occasional sexual encounter with other men.�

On both sides of the pond from different cultures and all. Worth pondering.

[jammi567]

(Mods/Admins, if there's already a thread on this thread, feel free to merge it)

Homosexuality is a big issue in today's world. Some accept it, some don't. Each one of us has our own opinion on it.

So, just to get the ball rolling on the topic: If it was revealed during the run up to the Presidentual elections that Barack Obama was actually gay, and had a partner, so you think he would have gained as many votes as he did, or don't you think it would have mattered that much to the voters?

[Jonathan]

Well, if Barack had a partner of any sex on the side of his wife Michelle, that would have greatly upset the voters.

But of course it would have mattered whether a presidential candidate is gay. Considering the large number of conservative and religious Americans, having a gay partner would most likely have cost the candidate many votes.