Homosexuals and Bisexuals

[SughaNSpice]

if that "personality trade" has with it pathology such as what Ben-AG kindly posted yeah it does.

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]A pathology means a disease or illness. And homosexuality isn't a disease or an illness[/FONT]




[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]and did you notices that what Ben posted was not true? [/FONT]

 

[SughaNSpice]

I also wanted to say something on the stats. I am not saying these facts are to be taken just because I say they are, take them with a grain of salt. I, like you, may be misled on them. Some may be outdated or just blatantly misrepresented, but that doesn't take away from the substance of my posts. Feel free to do your own research...don't just take my word for it.

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]sage advice. You should take it and research claims about gays before you post them [/FONT]

 

[Ben-AG]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]sage advice. You should take it and research claims about gays before you post them [/FONT]

I am sorry. I hope my previous posts can clear up some confusion on the statistics. I'll be more careful in the future to get my information from accredited sources. But the majority of the stats I posted are represented in the articles posted.

 

[SughaNSpice]

In fact, most studies that compare show that the number of sexual partners between heterosexual men and homosexual men are relatively similar, though there are one or two studies (one that ShaneRoach loves to use) that show a percentage of gays tend to have more sexual partners. But the fact remains your average homosexual tends to be no more promiscuous than your average heterosexual.

So, again, line up the claims that are made with the study that supports it and, when I have time, I'll take a look.

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I read all that and am trying to hunt up the original in the stacks.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I think it is important to note that what Shane Roach is presenting does not show gays have more sexual partners because there is no basis for comparison to make that claim. [/FONT]

 

[SughaNSpice]

that a nice cozy twist... of what it is implied? To call it a disorder is not followed by "self hated bigots" but scientists who had investigated the human pshyche and found out that those individuals were troubled by it. Actually like I said before it is out of love that society and scientists who swear by the Hyppocratus oath to take care fo sick individuals. They do not want to "avoid" them rather to bring about healing and help and love. This is the humanistic view of a healthy society that seeks out the well being of its members...

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Its loving to call a minority group a “pathology'?[/FONT]

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Well, looking back on the last several posts, I feel I should say something on them.

And it is this: Health risks do not entail a disorder. Acting in a high risk manner does not need lead to a conclusion that the person in question has a disorder to cause said behavior.

Yes, the sexual behavior of most homosexual relations are a high risk activity. That can not be disputed. But I must point out that many, many heterosexual couples participate in the same practices.

By the logic that it seems some here have taken, that would lead to the conclusion that those heterosexuals also have a 'disorder'.

...but scientists who had investigated the human pshyche and found out that those individuals were troubled by it. Actually like I said before it is out of love that society and scientists who swear by the Hyppocratus oath to take care fo sick individuals. They do not want to "avoid" them rather to bring about healing and help and love. This is the humanistic view of a healthy society that seeks out the well being of its members...

Big quote incoming!

In summary, scientific data are lacking to show that behavior modification techniques effectively change individuals' sexual orientations from homosexual to heterosexual. The relatively small number of attempts that have been adequately documented appear to have been largely unsuccessful.

Does this mean that no one ever changes his or her orientation from homosexual to heterosexual through the use of such techniques? Not necessarily. It is possible that some individuals who enter such therapies eventually make such a change, although there is no evidence for a cause-and-effect relationship. Those people might have changed their sexual orientation without the therapy.

However, so-called reparative therapy techniques – premised on the assumption that homosexuality is a form of psychopathology – appear to do much more harm than good. And even if conversion therapies were shown to be successful in more than a relative handful of cases, they would remain ethically questionable.

The mainstream view in psychology and psychiatry is that people who are troubled about their homosexual orientation have internalized society's prejudice against homosexuality, and that the appropriate task of a therapist is to help them to overcome those prejudices and to lead a happy and satisfying life as a gay man or lesbian.

[FONT=arial, helvetica][SIZE=-2]Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D. http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/Rainbow/html/facts_changing.html

Also, my reflection on your "humanistic" approach: to treat the symptoms, the illness itself, is the Humanistic approach; to treat the medical issues that arise out of everyday life, be they sexual or otherwise, regardless of sexual practice. But, as the issue of whether homosexuality is an illness is not decided, you can not treat that. That would be unethical as far as the Hyppocratic Oath is concerned, to me at least.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[Shane Roach]

And it is largely ineffective; as alcoholism is a medical issue as well as a social one, it needs to be addressed with tangible treatments... not mysticism.

If you have any evidence for this at all, let me know. My understanding is that 12 step programs are superior to anything else available for breaking addiction and substance abuse, but I have not made it a special study.

Your continued insistence that homosexuality is inborn even when the APA, your apparent source, says otherwise, is duly noted, but I have yet to figure out how you come to that conclusion.

 

[Shane Roach]

[/font]



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The Family Research Institute is one of only 12 groups operating in North America identified as an anti-gay hate group[/FONT]

By an organization that states that by "hate", they mean pamphleting and basically disagreeing with the idea that being gay is perfectly normal.

Where is the link to the actual list? I did look, and all I saw was the map.

 

[Ben-AG]

Well, looking back on the last several posts, I feel I should say something on them.

And it is this: Health risks do not entail a disorder. Acting in a high risk manner does not need lead to a conclusion that the person in question has a disorder to cause said behavior.

Yes, the sexual behavior of most homosexual relations are a high risk activity. That can not be disputed. But I must point out that many, many heterosexual couples participate in the same practices.

By the logic that it seems some here have taken, that would lead to the conclusion that those heterosexuals also have a 'disorder'.

Big quote incoming!

[FONT=arial, helvetica][SIZE=-2]Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D. http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/Rainbow/html/facts_changing.html

Also, my reflection on your "humanistic" approach: to treat the symptoms, the illness itself, is the Humanistic approach; to treat the medical issues that arise out of everyday life, be they sexual or otherwise, regardless of sexual practice. But, as the issue of whether homosexuality is an illness is not decided, you can not treat that. That would be unethical as far as the Hyppocratic Oath is concerned, to me at least.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

Agreed . Homosexuality is not a disease to be treated, but it is a temptation that some people encounter. Whether you think it should be avoided because the Bible says it's wrong or merely because love humanity and don't like to see it hurt, because homosexuality IS a high-risk lifestyle and CAN lead to detrimental mental/physical/social heath problems.

The difference here is that you cannot choose to not have a disease; you can't have AIDS one day and proclaim the next that you no longer have AIDS...but you can CHOOSE what kind of lifestyle you lead. It may not happen instantly, but you do have a choice.

 

[Shane Roach]

Burried in all the accusations that any group not supportive of the gay agenda is a "hate group", studies supporters of the gay agenda have said prove gays are not more promiscuous, actually say the exact opposite.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7358406-24/#post51416556

 

[Skaloop]

If you have any evidence for this at all, let me know. My understanding is that 12 step programs are superior to anything else available for breaking addiction and substance abuse, but I have not made it a special study.

AA is moderately successful in the short term, but it has an extremely high recidivism rate. Higher even than people who take measures to stop drinking on their own. And much higher than people who get professional behaviour therapy and counselling.

So overall, the effectiveness of AA is pretty much the same as the effectiveness of the general alcoholic population trying to stop of their own accord. Which is to say, pretty much no effect.

See here:
The Effectiveness of the Twelve-Step Treatment

 

[Shane Roach]

Sexual Diversity in Urban Norwegians.
By: Traeen, Bente; Stigum, Hein; Sorensen, Dagfinn. Journal of Sex Research, Nov2002, Vol. 39 Issue 4, p249, 10p, 1 graph

Strange to find so many studies indicating promiscuity in gays when it has been proven that they are so stable and responsible according to the APA.

Where is this mountain of evidence?

 

[SughaNSpice]

Sexually transmitted diseases in homosexual men.

This is an excellent article written by Handsfield that addresses some of the issues.

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Again there are people on these forums who are much better at looking at research[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]what I notice is that what you are citing is older than me (and I suspect it is older than you. The sexual habits of heterosexuals in the 1970's would be out there -it was the era of the one night stand- and I doubt would be applicable to heterosexuals today.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I remember reading through the infamous essay by Timothy Dailey (at least it is infamous in this thread) and he made the same claims about lesbian. Until you read the references and then looked up the studies he was citing. He was implied that he was looking at general medical records to determine just how often lesbians contract STDs but the study was from an inner city VD clinic that did most of its work with prostitutes, especially underage prostitutes. Of course no one would accept the idea of making claims about the prevalence of STD of hetro women by looking at data from such a place[/FONT]

He says, "Gay men appear to be at greater risk than heterosexual men

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The big word here is appear.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Not they do – just appear[/FONT]
“[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]appear” isn't evidence of anything[/FONT]

He then goes on to say, "Most studies to date, however, have been conducted in STD clinics or at sites where persons congregate for anonymous sexual activity, such as steam baths, and the applicability of their findings to the homosexual male population at large is unknown."

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]First this feeds into the whole gays are promiscuous myth that some like to put up as true. It isn't and the implication doesn't help predispose anyone into buying that what ever is being said is worth reading.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Second – this ties into what I said above. The average person doesn't' go to STD clinics. If you want to make a claim generalizable then information needs to come from a generalizable portion of the population[/FONT]

Here he clearly points out the flaw in those studies as not an accurate representation of the whole homosexual male population, as you have extrapulated yourself. But, he continues and addresses this problem:

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]so why are you bothering to put it up?[/FONT]

<-- This is probably what most of you are doing after reading this post, and I am sorry . I know it's long and cumbersome and I quoted alot but merely to make a point. If you caught anything from this article, Handfield is merely trying to show the increased health risks involved with being a homosexual, specifically men.

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Which is what was not shown.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I've seen this before. If we can pretend gays are diseased then prejudice is more easily justified.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Aside form failing to show that gays are “more diseased” there are bigger problems with this line of reasoning – one that a few other posters have pointed out multiple times and I am just borrowing here - it's not hard to show that blacks have higher disease incidences. Heart disease, cardio-vascular disease, diabetes, even many forms of cancer are more common among blacks – and unlike the false claims about gays life expectancy real statistics show blacks live on average several years less than whites. Does any of that make race based prejudice OK?[/FONT]

I think most people come to that conclusion already without having to go though such a tiresome article.

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Wrong[/FONT]

WHy would you think anyoen would come to that conclusion?

Here are some more interesting and educating articles: Related Articles for PubMed (Select 6895005) - PubMed Results


Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems <--This website goes on to show different mental health problems and issues with suicide such as homosexuals 6x more likely to commit suicide as opposed to heterosexuals. I won't go in depth in this one but instead I'll let you formulate your own idea position on this one.

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]NARTH – another one of those twelve recognized anti-gay hate groups [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Really – you need to research where you are getting your information from[/FONT]

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Agreed . Homosexuality is not a disease to be treated, but it is a temptation that some people encounter. Whether you think it should be avoided because the Bible says it's wrong or merely because love humanity and don't like to see it hurt, because homosexuality IS a high-risk lifestyle and CAN lead to detrimental mental/physical/social heath problems.

The difference here is that you cannot choose to not have a disease; you can't have AIDS one day and proclaim the next that you no longer have AIDS...but you can CHOOSE what kind of lifestyle you lead. It may not happen instantly, but you do have a choice.

True. So true. Lifestyle can be chosen.

While (and I just know this will be another issue altogether, and probably should not even say it, but...here goes) I do not feel the choice is in the actual attraction. In other words: you can choose not to act on the attraction but the attraction is there non-the-less.

 

[Shane Roach]

AA is moderately successful in the short term, but it has an extremely high recidivism rate. Higher even than people who take measures to stop drinking on their own. And much higher than people who get professional behaviour therapy and counselling.

So overall, the effectiveness of AA is pretty much the same as the effectiveness of the general alcoholic population trying to stop of their own accord. Which is to say, pretty much no effect.

See here:
The Effectiveness of the Twelve-Step Treatment

Fair enough, thanks.

That still doesn't say much for the utility of going to experts either. It seems to indicate either you do it or you do not. How having a supportive group behind you could help but be beneficial, I have no idea, but then this web site you provide is a bit flippant in tone anyhow (no offense, you didn't write it I presume...), and I see a lot of possibilities for having not done a thorough job.

 

[SughaNSpice]

By an organization that states that by "hate", they mean pamphleting and basically disagreeing with the idea that being gay is perfectly normal.

"Anti-gay groups are organizations that go beyond mere disagreement with homosexuality by subjecting gays and lesbians to campaigns of personal vilification." [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]- Southern Poverty Law Center[/FONT]

 

[Fenny the Fox]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The big word here is appear.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Not they do – just appear[/FONT]
“[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]appear” isn't evidence of anything[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][/FONT]

Just one quick statement here...practicing gay men are at higher risk than heterosexual men. And that is a fact, it is in the very nature of sexual relations of gay men.

So, in this case, appearance is truth, as it were.

 

[Shane Roach]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]NARTH – another one of those twelve recognized anti-gay hate groups [/FONT]

SPLCenter.org: Hate Groups Map

"Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing. Websites appearing to be merely the work of a single individual, rather than the publication of a group, are not included in this list. Listing here does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity."

Pamphleting....

 

[SughaNSpice]

Agreed . Homosexuality is not a disease to be treated, but it is a temptation that some people encounter. Whether you think it should be avoided because the Bible says it's wrong or merely because love humanity and don't like to see it hurt, because homosexuality IS a high-risk lifestyle and CAN lead to detrimental mental/physical/social heath problems.

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Heterosexuality IS a high risk lifestyle and can lead to detrimental mental/physical/social health problems[/FONT]

The difference here is that you cannot choose to not have a disease; you can't have AIDS one day and proclaim the next that you no longer have AIDS...but you can CHOOSE what kind of lifestyle you lead. It may not happen instantly, but you do have a choice.

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]well I guess gays and choose to lie and pretend to be straight. I'm pretty sure that is unhealthy mentally, socially and spiritually thou[/FONT]

 

[Shane Roach]

"Anti-gay groups are organizations that go beyond mere disagreement with homosexuality by subjecting gays and lesbians to campaigns of personal vilification." [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]- Southern Poverty Law Center[/FONT]

Again, no link. Where is the list? Where is this statement? Where is the evidence Narth does these sorts of things?

I've been all over the NARTH website. It's about as hateful as a kum-ba-ya get together ma'am. What it does is refuse to conform to your views.