What do you believe is the root cause of homosexuality?

SimplyMe · Jun 25, 2007

MercyBurst said:
When the two APAs went political, the rest followed suit.

Yet you expect us to believe that this was all because of a small (but vocal) gay minority that caused this in all of the medical organizations?

The truth, however, is that the DSM didn't exist until 1952, and the first update of it wasn't until 1968 (DSM-II). In 1972 it was pointed out to Robert Spitzer (the same gentleman that NARTH claims is a hero on their website) that homosexuality should be removed.

Spitzer noted that homosexuality was the only mental disorder in the DSM-II that neither regularly caused subjective distress nor impaired social effectiveness or functioning. Since many homosexuals are quite satisfied with their sexual orientation and demonstrate no generalized impairment in social effectiveness, Spitzer wrote, homosexuality did not meet the requirements for a psychiatric disorder. You can read more from the University of Texas Medical Branch. It was never a political process to remove it, though some of those who disagreed with it being removed demanded a vote -- and just as you reported the vote failed to keep homosexuality in the DSM.

MercyBurst said:
Besides you are exagerrating, the CDMA doesn't go along with all the knee-jerks.

Lots of scientific data over there at the CDMA.

The claim was major medical organizations. CDMA, with a membership of only 17,000 medical professionals made up of doctors, dentists and students does not measure, in any way, as one of the major organizations. To compare, the American Medical Association has almost 250,000 members, the American Psychological Association has 148,000 members, and the American Academy of Pediatrics has over 60,000 members.

I didn't see any true "scientific data" that was relevant as to what causes homosexuality. Rather, I saw a lot of studies that showed how many homosexuals have abused or other unrelated claim. It sounds to me as if you (and the CDMA) need lessons in scientific method and that causality does not equal causation.

MercyBurst said:
Here's one of several hundred references:

Weren't you saying it's unethical for psychiatrists to treat homosexuals to produce change in sexual orientation?

Interesting that while NARTH is said to have 1000 therapists that this study only listed 422 who had claimed success in changing sexual orientation (and less than 3% of the total APA membership). If you notice, this is not actually a study but rather statistics of psychologists self-reporting their results.

This becomes even more interesting when you consider that of the various "self-reported studies" at NARTH, they typically claim success rates of 20%. However, the actual peer-reviewed studies (and for some reason NARTH, despite claiming to be a scientific organization, hasn't done any peer-reviewed studies) shows the actual rates to be closer to 3%. It would seem the self-reporting by these therapists is not accurate.

It is ironic the peer-reviewed study that NARTH does trumpet was conducted by Robert Spitzer (the same one that is most responsible for having homosexuality removed from the DSM) and that he, in response to his own study, has claimed that likely no more than 3% of homosexuals can be changed.

MrPirate · Jun 25, 2007

SimplyMe said:
Yet you expect us to believe that this was all because of a small (but vocal) gay minority that caused this in all of the medical organizations?

The truth, however, is that the DSM didn't exist until 1952, and the first update of it wasn't until 1968 (DSM-II). In 1972 it was pointed out to Robert Spitzer (the same gentleman that NARTH claims is a hero on their website) that homosexuality should be removed.

Spitzer noted that homosexuality was the only mental disorder in the DSM-II that neither regularly caused subjective distress nor impaired social effectiveness or functioning. Since many homosexuals are quite satisfied with their sexual orientation and demonstrate no generalized impairment in social effectiveness, Spitzer wrote, homosexuality did not meet the requirements for a psychiatric disorder. You can read more from the University of Texas Medical Branch. It was never a political process to remove it, though some of those who disagreed with it being removed demanded a vote -- and just as you reported the vote failed to keep homosexuality in the DSM.

Thanks for putting the truth up.

It is ironic the peer-reviewed study that NARTH does trumpet was conducted by Robert Spitzer (the same one that is most responsible for having homosexuality removed from the DSM) and that he, in response to his own study, has claimed that likely no more than 3% of homosexuals can be changed.

BTW the Spitzer study didnt pass peer review.

Mumei · Jun 25, 2007

Evelyn Hooker also had an important role to play in causing homosexuality to be accepted in the medical community. From a recent purchase of mine, Straight Parents, Gay Children: Keeping Families Together:

The medical profession for years dealt with homosexuality as a personality disorder. The notion was fueled by early studies that looked only at gay men who sought psychological counseling. The logic therefore was based on a glaring non sequitur -- since gay patients who sought psychiatric help were maladjusted, all gays must be maladjusted.

Every relevant professional organization --- among them, the American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Association of Psychoanalysts, and the American Academy of Pediatrics -- now realizes the fallacy of the "sickness" myths. The misguided notions are nonetheless still given credence by many nonprofessionals. Perhaps the most widespread misconception is that gayness stems from an unhealthy home environment -- the most popular villains being a dominant, smothering mother and a passive or indifferent father. For years, many psychiatrists talked seriously about a "homosexual personality" that classified gays as vindictive and aggressive, unable to sustain healthy relationships. All such theories have been thoroughly discredited.

Evelyn Hooker, a research psychologist, was the first to point out the anomaly of judging all homosexuals by samples limited to those under psychological treatment. A heterosexual with numerous gay friends, Hooker was struck by the discrepancy between prevailing medical views and her friends' robust mental health. So she undertook her own government-funded study in 1957, applying intensive personality testing to a random group of gays and a matched group of non-gays. The study's case files, including all the standard diagnostic psychological profiles, were analyzed by a panel of psychiatrists, who had of course been trained to believe that to be gay was to be mentally ill. Nonetheless, they were unable to distinguish gays from non-gays. The results stunned the psychological world.

Sixteen years later, in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) finally got around to removing homosexuality from its list of disorders. In doing so, the APA stated that there was no reason why a lesbian or gay man couldn't be just as healthy, effective, law-abiding, and productive as any heterosexual. Other professional groups, as noted above, soon followed suit.

Hooker, who died in 1996, saw the notion of homosexuality as an illness as simply a reflection of social norms. She liked to compare it to what was once diagnosed to be a psychological maladjustment among slaves -- their symptom was running away from the plantation!

It's a fascinating read.

MrPirate · Jun 25, 2007

MercyBurst said:
It must be a motivation for them to change their own sexual behavior as well. It's kind of hard to stay in business talking out of both sides of their mouth.

So difficult to tellas these people refuse to keep actual recordsbut then if they kept records they would have a much harder time lying about their success rate

how about this excerpt from the gay-affirming ZUR institute:

DSM: Diagnosing for Money and Power

This a must-read web page for all the gay affirmers of which Dr. Zur is definately one.

Here's a little excerpt from Dr. Zur:

The DSM.....Political science CAN BE a work of art.

Wowsomeone who offers discount internet diplomas sure makes an impressive reference.

Hey look kids! I can hire Dr. Zur. I wonder if he juggles or makes balloon animals

Well lets look at the evidence that it was because of politics that the majority of psychiatrists voted to remove something that wasnt a mental illness form the DSMwhat do you knowhe doesnt actually present evidence that homosexuality was removed from the DSMimagine that. and what about evidence showing that homosexuality was and still is a mental illnesswell none of that presented either.

Ok I'll give you a few examples:

Real ones or cut and past references from before I was born?

oh...i see..cut and paste

Acquisition of Heterosexual Behaviour:

Click to expand...

Translation: no change in sexual oriention

Next

Partial Sexual Orientation Shift:

This is sort of like being partially pregnant.

Next

Full Sexual Orientation Shift:

A total of 45 persons who were exclusively or predominantly homosexual experienced a full shift of sexual orientation.

Wowfifty years later and only 45 claims
Color me impressed

And the references are pretty much useless (surprise surprise) did the web page you did a cut and past from have an actual reference list?

Dominick · Jun 26, 2007

I believe it is a combination of biological & genetic factors. I have three brothers and though it is not confirmed, many believe the youngest of them is gay. It doesn't matter either way, I'd support him no matter what, but I think he's afraid to say because of our family.

The Bible also says it is a sin to eat shellfish (but you do not see Red Lobster getting picketed or Long John Silvers). It also says it is a sin to sleep in the same bed with a woman when she is menstruating. How many men would be guilty of sleeping next to their wives & girlfriends during this "unclean" time.

I find it amusing how certain parts of the Bible are "absolute law" and others are ignored.

The Bible supports slavery, plural marriage, and other things we now view as sinful...so how do you know what is sin & what isn't? I say either follow a book to the absolute T...or don't follow it at all. For most if not all the Christians I know...it isn't all or nothing...its "interpretation". They take what they like and use it staunchly and what they don't like they ignore.

MercyBurst · Jun 26, 2007

MrPirate said:
Wow…someone who offers discount internet diplomas sure makes an impressive reference.

It's continuing ed for licensed professionals. It's pretty much standard fare.

I must get CE credits to keep my engineering license active. Just standard stuff -- and this gets a "wow" out of you? You apparantly don't have a practitioner's license of any kind.

Hey look kids! I can hire Dr. Zur. I wonder if he juggles or makes balloon animals

He is quite gay-affirming if you read his entire presentation. I've had several pro-gays thank me for this resource. You are obviously in great denial.

Well lets look at the evidence that it was because of politics that the majority of psychiatrists voted to remove something that wasn’t a mental illness form the DSM…what do you know…he doesn’t actually present evidence that homosexuality was removed from the DSM…imagine that. and what about evidence showing that homosexuality was and still is a mental illness…well none of that presented either.

He does a good jod of explaining the politics behind the DSM. He shows how doctors make money out of it, insurance companies avoid lawsuits, politically active movements make their "contributions", yadda, yadda.

Here are a few of his reasonable objections to the DSM form the article DSM: Diagnosing for Money and Power:

Diagnosis of "mental illness" is more an art than a science. DSM-based research has repeatedly shown very poor reliability and, therefore, questionable validity.
The DSM is more a political document than a scientific one. Decisions regarding inclusion or exclusion of disorders are made by majority vote rather than by indisputable scientific data.

One telling example is the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder. Homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder in the DSM until 1974, when gay activists demonstrated in front of the American Psychiatric Association Convention. The APA's 1974 vote showed 5,854 members supporting and 3,810 opposing the disorder's removal from the manual. At that time, the American Psychiatric Association made headlines by announcing that it had decided homosexuality was no longer a mental illness. Voting on what constitutes mental illness is truly bizarre and, needless to say, is political and unscientific.

External political pressure can result, apparently, in the inclusion of a diagnostic category. For example, PTSD was included in the DSM-III as a result of massive lobbying on its behalf by Vietnam vets and their supporters. Prior to that, PTSD sufferers were routinely diagnosed with character disorders.

Due to a deadlock in gender politics, Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder (PMDD) was placed in the Appendix.

Unlike medical diagnoses of broken bones, lung infection or cancer, psychiatric diagnoses are not precise, accurate or objective. While different X-Ray machines, blood tests or scanning devices are likely to yield similar results for the same person, different therapists are less likely to come up with the same diagnosis for the same person. Psychiatric diagnosis is not an exact science. The differences reflect different theoretical orientations of therapists. Diagnosis, in psychotherapy, often depends on the eye of the beholder.
The DSM is a powerful tool of social control, as its criteria is a primary tool used to judge who is normal or abnormal, sane or insane or who should remain free or be hospitalized against their will.
Diagnostic inclusion in the DSM is influenced more significantly by the faction currently holding professional political power than by what science reveals.

Psychoanalysts and psychiatrists, for example, influenced DSM-I predominantly and, thus, neuroticism was included.

When medicating psychiatrists and pharmacological companies gained the upper hand, neuroticism and neurosis lost attention and anxiety became a primary focus.

The DSM perpetuates the myth that the medical-mechanistic model can simply be applied to psychology and that by precisely identifying and naming the problem, treatment and cure will follow.
The DSM gives the illusion that mental illness is a clearly identifiable brain disease. Unlike diseases such as coronary heart, cancer, or medical conditions, such as broken bones, there are no blood tests, X-Rays or brain imaging techniques to identify the presence of any of the DSM diagnostic categories.
Each diagnostic criterion in the DSM is part of an ever-changing list of symptoms compiled by "experts". Some experts often represent special interests, such as pharmaceutical companies or certain brands of treatment modalities. It is not based on medical science, blood or other biological tests. The rationale seems to be: If you can describe a set of symptoms, then you can name a disease; and if you can name the disease, then you can claim it exists as a distinct "entity" with, eventually, a specific treatment tied to it.
Designing treatments only according to symptoms (i.e., those who experience a certain constellation of symptoms of depression or anxiety should be prescribed a pharmaceutical agent) is often ineffective, at best, but can also be dangerous. Medical science does not operate in such a manner. For example, the mere manifested symptoms of pneumonia do not differentiate between bacterial, viral, mychocardial or inhalation pneumonias. Choosing a treatment based only on a mere set of universal symptoms might lead one to prescribe antibiotics for viral pneumonia, or anti-viral agents for bacterial pneumonia, leading to the erroneous conclusion that neither medication works. The same is true for mental illness, as the sheer presence of anxiety does not tell us if this anxiety is healthy as in response to real threat, normal as in response to existential concern around issues of death or meaning, psychotic as in response to voices telling the person to kill himself, or neurotic as in response to self perpetuated irrational drama. Obviously, each condition requires a different intervention, or combination of interventions, which may include medications and/or existential, behavioral, cognitive therapy, relaxation training, etc. Just as medicine goes beyond a set of symptoms by looking at lab results, x-rays, sputum, scans, etc, the field of mental health needs to find more viable forms of diagnostic criteria in relationship to treatment.
Over the years, as psychology, psychotherapy, psychopharmacology, the DSM, and the culture at large have co-evolved, varying diagnoses have taken center stage. Prior to and during the 1940s, the pre-DSM era, most patients were characterized as hysterics. In the '50s and '60s, the most popular diagnoses tended to be neuroses and anxiety. During the 1980s, Borderline Personality Disorder became one of the most frequently diagnosed disorders, while in the '90s, childhood abuse, eating disorders, Multiple Personality Disorder and PTSD became a predominant focus. Towards the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, PTSD, Bipolar Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder and Asperger's Syndrome occupy center stage. The question then becomes, to what degree do these historical shifts in diagnostic focus reflect deep evolutionary structural changes in the nature of the psyche, and to what degree do these shifts reflect the ways in which diagnosis in general and the changes in the DSM has been determined by cultural and professional fads, driven by professional self-interest and the business economics of the psychotherapeutic and psychiatric treatment market, rather than by scientific process? While some of the changes are clearly driven by professional and economic forces, such as the increase in the number of available diagnostic labels from 297 in 1994 to 374 in 2000, that evolved in response to insurance companies' need for increased labels during that period, others clearly reflect the evolution of the culture at large. Hysteria, for example, was a phenomenon that, not surprisingly, appeared frequently in the repressed climate of Freudian times. Along the same lines, the proliferation of visual marketing media and the "thin industry" can explain the exponential increase in the number of patients diagnosed with anorexia in the last two decades.
The DSM tends to pathologize normal behaviors. Existential anxieties, for example, are labeled "Anxiety Disorder". As a result, some kinds of normal and rather healthy anxieties are viewed and treated as mental illness. Similarly, shyness can too easily be seen and treated as "Social Phobia", lasting grief as "Complicated Grief Reaction", spirited and strong willed children as "Oppositional Disorder", fearful minorities as "Paranoid" and those who experience spiritual events as "Delusional". Consequently, many psychotherapists, regardless of their theoretical orientations, tend to follow the DSM as it is in their professional best interest.
The DSM is primarily driven and controlled by psychiatrists, insurance companies and the psychopharmacological industry. Each group has a direct financial interest in focusing on individual pathology (rather than familial or societal), inevitably leading to medication-based solutions and shorter periods of treatment. The DSM has been referred to as the pharmaceutical companies' "bible," because without its coded diseases there would be no drug trials. Without medications psychiatrists stand to lose their place in the treatment hierarchy, and the DSM would loose its legitimacy as a necessary biological-medical tool.
The American Psychiatric Association is the most powerful mental health enterprise in the world, and the DSM constitutes a lucrative business for their organization, garnering millions of dollars in revenue (including sales of tapes, videos, study guides, etc.). Their marketing agents enjoy a captive consumer base. The DSM is translated into multiple languages and is the key volume on mental illness that all trainees must learn from, including psychiatrists, other physicians, social workers, psychologists, psychiatric nurses, marriage and family therapists, addiction specialists and psychologists.
The DSM tends to ignore contextual factors in the development of symptoms and disorders. Some professionals have suggested a replacement of current diagnostic labels with descriptors such as "the consequences of poverty," "the consequences of violence," "the effects of homelessness and racism" or "the damage done by interpersonal discriminatory treatment." The DSM provides an axis on which "psychosocial stressors" can be listed, but in reality, Axes I and II are the focus of diagnosis and treatment.
The DSM focuses almost exclusively on individual pathology to the dangerous minimization of social and environmental factors such as poverty, racism, sexism, classism, heterosexism, ageism, violence, etc. This limiting focus has serious ramifications:

Therapists, who uncritically follow the DSM medical model, are likely to place undue emphasis on individual emotional problems as causal factors rather than opening to the larger possibility that the individual is symptomatic due to familial, political or societal system dysfunctions.

Social psychologists call such exclusion of social factors and excessive focus on individual pathology the "fundamental attribution error."

The focus on individual pathology leads to individual based treatment, suggesting that the DSM markets the concept of individually and biologically based social discomfort.

Drug companies fund, and reap the benefits of, a significant amount of research that is used to advocate new DSM diagnostic categories. Each of these new disorders corresponds to a drug (often new) that the company alleges can cure the symptoms of the diagnosis.
Many labels in the DSM (e.g., neuroticism, paranoia) have not been supported by valid and reliable research to represent real entities.
The DSM tends to pathologize several groups whose civil rights have historically been marginalized in the culture at large. The bias is clear in regard to race, social class, age, physical disability, gender and sexual orientation. Symptoms are a call for corrected balance. Rather than labeling the symptoms of a sick society, when appropriate, the client is too often diagnosed and medicated to adapt to the disease of the system.

Wow…fifty years later and only 45 claims
Color me impressed

Previously, you said I didn't have any data at all. It should keep you quite busy for a while down at the library. Don't tell me you want even more (like you're really going to take a serious look).

The total number of changed people in these claims is like 400 something people.

And the references are pretty much useless (surprise surprise) did the web page you did a cut and past from have an actual reference list?

Like I said before, you can look them up at the library like anybody else, but you're scarred to. The authors have been cited.

MercyBurst · Jun 26, 2007

MrP: see if you agree on this statement from Dr. Zur

Pathologizing gays & lesbians:

Homosexuality is no longer listed by name in the DSM, but therapists can still consider it a Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified. Homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder in the DSM until 1974 when the American Psychiatric Association made headlines by announcing that, as a result of legislative vote by the APA, it had decided homosexuality was no longer a mental illness. The claim that it would be deleted was functionally false because the next DSM included homosexuality with which the patient was not fully comfortable. This could easily be considered a reality based "normal" discomfort for homosexuals growing up in a homophobic culture known for hate crimes against their population. The 2000 DSM-IV still includes "Sexual Dysfunction Not Otherwise Specified" and, similarly, "Paraphilias Not Otherwise Specified," allowing ample room for therapists to justify their personal or religious prejudices and "diagnose" a homosexual as having a mental disorder

Nahh Dr. Zur is just a phobe!!! Right Mr.Pirate?

MercyBurst · Jun 26, 2007

SimplyMe said:
Yet you expect us to believe that this was all because of a small (but vocal) gay minority that caused this in all of the medical organizations?

That seems to be the consensus among threapists, many of whom are gay-affirming. They think the whole DSM has political undertones that have nothing to do with the GBLT issues. Little wonder the other organizations agree with the APA since the DSM is their bible to go by, and the APA produces it based on "psychiatric opinions" rather than rigorous cause and effect analyses. Some of the opinions are just passing fads, if you read up on the history of the DSM. This is not science.

Interesting that while NARTH is said to have 1000 therapists that this study only listed 422 who had claimed success in changing sexual orientation (and less than 3% of the total APA membership). If you notice, this is not actually a study but rather statistics of psychologists self-reporting their results.

The quote came from the Journal of the American Psychiatric Association 1183. Isn't that a peer reviewed publication?

Mumei · Jun 26, 2007

MercyBurst said:
MrP: see if you agree on this statement from Dr. Zur

Nahh Dr. Zur is just a phobe!!! Right Mr.Pirate?

I'm just going to go through his statement...

Homosexuality is no longer listed by name in the DSM, but therapists can still consider it a Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified.

That is the case for anything not listed in the DSM that has anything to do with sex, correct? The fact that there is a loophole doesn't change anything.

Homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder in the DSM until 1974 when the American Psychiatric Association made headlines by announcing that, as a result of legislative vote by the APA, it had decided homosexuality was no longer a mental illness.

And due to the work of people like Evelyn Hooker and others, it was taken off.

The claim that it would be deleted was functionally false because the next DSM included homosexuality with which the patient was not fully comfortable.

Oh, great. There's nothing wrong with homosexuality, but bigots can make a patient with homosexuality "not fully comfortable."

It seems like a strict definition for calling it a problem: It is only a problem for the patient if it causes psychological distress due to outside influences.

This could easily be considered a reality based "normal" discomfort for homosexuals growing up in a homophobic culture known for hate crimes against their population.

And what do you know: I'm correct.

The 2000 DSM-IV still includes "Sexual Dysfunction Not Otherwise Specified" and, similarly, "Paraphilias Not Otherwise Specified," allowing ample room for therapists to justify their personal or religious prejudices and "diagnose" a homosexual as having a mental disorder

Amazing. You see that bolded part?

He's attacking you. The word "diagnose" is in quotes for a reason. He says "for therapists to justify their personal or religious prejudices."

That entire paragraph is about the loophole in the DSM and the ability to still diagnose homosexuality as a disorder despite the fact that there is no reason to do.

You know, I'll admit that it was pretty ballsy to take a paragraph attacking your position, even going so far as to call it prejudiced, and pretending that it supported your position.

Oh, my. I just looked it up. The section that is under in the critique of the DSM is "Pathologizing gays & lesbians."

ranmaonehalf · Jun 27, 2007

m9lc said:
Just a poll.

EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to add an actual poll

]

the root cause,..
Hmm.... existence... if no one existed then no one would be sexual period....

quatona · Jun 27, 2007

ranmaonehalf said:
]

the root cause,..
Hmm.... existence... if no one existed then no one would be sexual period....

...and the root cause of existence is procreation, and the root cause of procreation is heterosexuality.

christalee4 · Jun 27, 2007

Biology and genes.

All of the other stuff about sin, choices and the rest are bunk.

In fact, many Christian churches now realize and acknowledge, that being born gay can happen, and they try to promote that it can be changed, or be made to be suppressed. Advocated by the President of the Southern Baptist Seminary, A. Mohler, parents who know that their children may be gay in the womb, could alter that.

http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=891

I guess God can be praised for science in some cases, when it comes to "righting" the genetic fluke.

StawberryCough · Jun 27, 2007

I'ld rather get to the root cause of homophobia. It's easier.

KittyPryde · Jun 27, 2007

What do you believe is the root cause of homosexuality?

I believe God is the root cause.

beechy · Jun 27, 2007

I think the root cause of homosexuality is a healthy mixture of nature and nurture, to use a well worn adage. A biology / life experience milk shake with a complex mix of different ingredients in different people with different results in both degree and kind.

Mumei · Jun 27, 2007

Beechy's proposition is honestly my favorite. It's probably something very complex; a number of alleles (no single gene could determine something as complex as sexual orientation), hormonal conditions in utero, very early life experiences, etc. probably all play a factor.

It could be something where the "in utero" stuff sets up whether or not it is possible for a person to be gay, and then the very early life experiences are what nudges that person in one direction or the other.

Regardless, there's no reason to believe that sexuality isn't fixed by early childhood.

katautumn · Jun 27, 2007

Ryal Kane said:
Attraction is a tough thing to pin down. What makes me attracted to redheads?

Duh! You were obviously abused countless times by blondes and brunettes.

SimplyMe · Jun 27, 2007

MercyBurst said:
That seems to be the consensus among threapists, many of whom are gay-affirming. They think the whole DSM has political undertones that have nothing to do with the GBLT issues. Little wonder the other organizations agree with the APA since the DSM is their bible to go by, and the APA produces it based on "psychiatric opinions" rather than rigorous cause and effect analyses. Some of the opinions are just passing fads, if you read up on the history of the DSM. This is not science.

I see lots of opinions there but no evidence. Just because you've seen quotes from a few dozen who feel they aren't getting there opinions in the DSM that is a far cry from the 75,000+ APA therapists you'd need for a majority. Further, the mere fact you mention gay therapists who claim that the process is political (and as such they disagree with how one of their ideas is handled by the DSM) would seem to counter your idea that the APA is controlled by the gays.

I won't argue that there haven't been mistakes based on some new "fad", some diagnoses/treatment that looked promising initially but turned out being wrong. The same can also be said about your so called "hard medicine" that is based on "hard science". Just look at the number of pharmaceuticals, drugs that had been approved by doctors and the FDA, that have been recalled over the last 10 years.

Further, I'm not sure that you saw the vote on computer addictions this week by the American Medical Association, that seems to show the inaccuracy of your claims that these groups blindly follow the APA.

MercyBurst said:
The quote came from the Journal of the American Psychiatric Association 1183. Isn't that a peer reviewed publication?

I'm not really worried if it's peer reviewed or not. If you go to their website, it appears that it is not peer-reviewed, articles are simply reviewed by the editorial staff. One of the problems is that it is the claims are based on self-reporting with no follow-up. The fact is that the ex-gay groups claim thousands have been cured but no one can ever find them to conduct a peer-reviewed study on them.

Even Spitzer, who NARTH keeps pointing to as proving that ex-gay therapy works, talks about how hard it was to find only 200 ex-gays his study. Of these, NARTH could only refer 48 ex-gays, other ex-gay groups referred 86 over roughly a year and a half (yet the claim to have cured thousands). Despite the fact that the majority of these people were directly referred to Spitzer by ex-gay groups, less than 20% claimed to be cured. And this is not even addressing the many other problems found with this study by peer review. Spitzer claims, based on his experience with this study that it is likely that ex-gay therapy will be successful on less than 3% of all homosexuals.

ChaliceThunder · Jun 27, 2007

Why do we wonder about the "cause" of homosexuality OR heterosexuality?

Why don't we just celebrate it?

ChaliceThunder · Jun 27, 2007

StawberryCough said:
I'ld rather get to the root cause of homophobia. It's easier.

Amen to THAT, bro!

What do you believe is the root cause of homosexuality?

Senior Veteran

MrPirate

Guest

Senior Member

MrPirate

Guest

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

Senior Member

"God"? What do you mean??

Senior Veteran

StawberryCough

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

Prodigal Daughter

Senior Veteran

ChaliceThunder

Guest

ChaliceThunder

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency