Almost Smart  

Go Back   Almost Smart > The Lounge > Science

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-07-2010   #121
wordy
Newbie Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 8
Rep Power: 0
wordy is doing greatwordy is doing great
Re: Truth About Alfred Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Cstoll,

You're missing my point, which is that Bayer wasn't happy with the WAY the APA's decision was made. That's all I was trying to say. And, if you read what I wrote more carefully, you'll see I did NOT say Bayer said the decision was wrongheaded. If I had put wrongheaded in quotes then you could say that. But I didn't.

Also, do you believe that Bayer believes psychological illnesses, no matter how seemingly extreme or bizarre they are to everyday people, do NOT exist in reality, that they are ALL merely socio/political constructs? If he does believe that I would find his position untenable, to say the least. I don't claim to be an expert on Bayer. I've only read some excerpts from the book in question. There are only so many hours in a day....
wordy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010   #122
cstoll
?!
 
cstoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,154
Rep Power: 76
cstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Alfred Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Quote:
Originally Said by wordy View Post
Cstoll,
You're missing my point, which is that Bayer wasn't happy with the WAY the APA's decision was made. That's all I was trying to say. And, if you read what I wrote more carefully, you'll see I did NOT say Bayer said the decision was wrongheaded. If I had put wrongheaded in quotes then you could say that. But I didn't.
Wordy, sorry to misunderstand, but you also weren't very clear. And I saw your point, but you're misreading Bayer based on a few excerpts. (You were also admittedly confused by how Bayer wrote the book, which probably means that you shouldn't be so certain about your conclusions).
I've more than proved my point in the last post about Bayer's view of the politically based decision by the APA.

Quote:
Originally Said by wordy
You may want to read Bayer's book more carefully, especially the first few pages. You seem to have glossed over or flat-out missed these words of his about the wrongheaded and unscientific APA decision
You said "these words of his," quickly followed by "unscientific" (which he more or less was saying) and in between was "wrongheaded." Seemed like you were implying that was his view and paraphrasing it. Not an unreasonable reading on my part. And you've posted, what, three or four times now? I've no idea if you're the kind of person who carefully quotes to distinguish such things. Most don't.

Quote:
Also, do you believe that Bayer believes psychological illnesses, no matter how seemingly extreme or bizarre they are to everyday people, do NOT exist in reality, that they are ALL merely socio/political constructs? If he does believe that I would find his position untenable, to say the least. I don't claim to be an expert on Bayer. I've only read some excerpts from the book in question. There are only so many hours in a day....
I think he would say they tend to be both. Even when illnesses are real, the "diagnosis" and explanations and categorizations tend to be driven and shaped by the current social norms.

(That is, an illness may be something real, but it doesn't mean psych is getting at the real thing; the history of psychology shows that a lot of "illnesses" were not illnesses, and when they were real, the diagnosis distorted the perception of the illness).

Wow. If Bayer is still alive, he must be amused by the idea that this book is being debated and discussed and misunderstood like this years and years later on a tiny internet forum.
__________________

"I have a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel."
--Blackadder

Last edited by cstoll; 04-07-2010 at 09:09 AM.
cstoll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2010   #123
wordy
Newbie Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 8
Rep Power: 0
wordy is doing greatwordy is doing great
Re: Truth About Alfred Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Cstoll,

The main reason we've been debating Bayer's book is that you didn't want to accept the truth that Bayer thought the APA's decision was unscientific and that it was the result of caving in to pressure. I think we finally settled that. But what we're really debating is whether the APA's decision was rational. I maintain that it doesn't make sense (except, perhaps, from a political standpoint). Those people who truly value logic and science know that homosexuality is a disorder and that it shouldn't have been removed from the APA's official list of psychological disorders.
wordy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2010   #124
cstoll
?!
 
cstoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,154
Rep Power: 76
cstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Alfred Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

I'm not sure we settled anything. And it doesn't seem like we're going to, for obvious reasons.
__________________

"I have a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel."
--Blackadder
cstoll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2010   #125
wordy
Newbie Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 8
Rep Power: 0
wordy is doing greatwordy is doing great
Re: Truth About Alfred Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Cstoll,

Could you explain to me how a female mind in a male body is a disorder but a homosexual mind in a heterosexual body is NOT a disorder?
wordy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2010   #126
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 61
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Alfred Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Quote:
Originally Said by wordy View Post
Cstoll,

Could you explain to me how a female mind in a male body is a disorder, but a homosexual mind in a heterosexual body is NOT a disorder?
Would be interesting to get Cstoll answer on that....

But in the meantime, I have a question for you Wordy:
Ehat do you think of Kinsey's "research" including the Kinsey scale?
Also, how and why did it become such a measuring stick used by people and even lawmakers when it comes to sexual behaviors and activity?
__________________
"God is the shaper of your heart. God does not display his work in abstract terms. He prefers the concrete, and this means that at the end of your life one of three things will happen to your heart: it will grow hard, it will be broken, or it will be tender. Nobody escapes." - Ravi Zacharias
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2010   #127
hai Jay
Time for breakfast!!!
 
hai Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 9,098
Rep Power: 105
hai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Alfred Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

sexuality is degree, not kind.
__________________
Dare to dream.
hai Jay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2010   #128
wordy
Newbie Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 8
Rep Power: 0
wordy is doing greatwordy is doing great
Re: Truth About Alfred Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Funk,

Re the Kinsey scale, it is irrelevant from a moral perspective. Too many people are obsessed with "finding themselves" and "being who they are" when they should instead study ethics, learn right from wrong, and do the right things even if it goes against their "nature." To use an extreme example to clearly illustrate my point---what if someone looked inside himself and found a pedophile orientation or a gay-bashing orientation? Should we say go be a pedophile or gay-basher, or should we say those things are wrong and you shouldn't do them? Natural bad orientations don't justify bad behavior.
wordy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2010   #129
cstoll
?!
 
cstoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,154
Rep Power: 76
cstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Alfred Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Wordy, the question's premise is flawed. And as one last measure on Bayer, here he is clearly articulating his point in an interview:

Ronald Bayer: The interesting thing is in a debate like this is that both sides wrap themselves in the mantle of science and both sides charge the other side as being unscientific. That is just the nature of these controversies. But the fundamental question of whether or not homosexuality is a disease it seems to me is not a scientific question.

Alix Spiegel: It's a moral question, Ronald says. And one of the lessons of what happened within the APA is that when you are trying to determine whether something is a disease you inevitably encounter a series of questions which ultimately are not scientific questions. In this case questions like what is the purpose of sex itself -- is it pleasure, is it procreation?

Ronald Bayer: Do we see sexuality as a source of fulfillment or as a sin of our birth? And those are all moral questions and it certainly would feel more secure to say there is a scientific answer to our deepest moral questions, because then we could use the kind of rod of science to beat back those we don't agree with. But I don't think we have that option.
__________________

"I have a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel."
--Blackadder
cstoll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2010   #130
Jenn and tonic
"maaaaagic!"
 
Jenn and tonic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Age: 34
Posts: 5,965
Rep Power: 120
Jenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to Jenn and tonic
Re: Truth About Alfred Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Quote:
Originally Said by Princess Jasmine View Post
at this point i think we might as well agree to disagree.
As riveting as this argument has been, I agree with you wholeheartedly; I think the debate has hit an impasse.
__________________
When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated. Thomas Jefferson
Jenn and tonic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2010   #131
cstoll
?!
 
cstoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,154
Rep Power: 76
cstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Alfred Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Jenn, no worries. I'm done with it.

There's really no point.
__________________

"I have a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel."
--Blackadder
cstoll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2010   #132
Jenn and tonic
"maaaaagic!"
 
Jenn and tonic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Age: 34
Posts: 5,965
Rep Power: 120
Jenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to Jenn and tonic
Re: Truth About Alfred Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Quote:
Originally Said by cstoll View Post
Jenn, no worries. I'm done with it.

There's really no point.
Yeah...when you're down to semantics rather than concepts it's probably time to throw in the towel; however, it was interesting to watch the debate.
__________________
When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated. Thomas Jefferson
Jenn and tonic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2010   #133
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 61
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Alfred Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Arguing semantics is not much different than avoiding the real issue, especially when it comes to a sensitive topic such as this one.
__________________
"God is the shaper of your heart. God does not display his work in abstract terms. He prefers the concrete, and this means that at the end of your life one of three things will happen to your heart: it will grow hard, it will be broken, or it will be tender. Nobody escapes." - Ravi Zacharias

Last edited by Funk*Sonic*7; 04-12-2010 at 11:01 AM.
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2010   #134
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 61
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Alfred Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Quote:
Originally Said by wordy View Post
Funk,

Re the Kinsey scale, it is irrelevant from a moral perspective. Too many people are obsessed with "finding themselves" and "being who they are" when they should instead study ethics, learn right from wrong, and do the right things even if it goes against their "nature." To use an extreme example to clearly illustrate my point---what if someone looked inside himself and found a pedophile orientation or a gay-bashing orientation? Should we say go be a pedophile or gay-basher, or should we say those things are wrong and you shouldn't do them? Natural bad orientations don't justify bad behavior.
A person's character or being, finding "who you are," or finding yourself has nothing to do with what or who a person is attracted to, and that is what gays, bisexuals, and lesbians are essentially doing. They are defining their very being based mostly to solely on who or what they are attracted to, and there is something inherently wrong with that whether you believe in God or not.

As far as "right to marry." There really is no such thing as a "right" to marry. Even heterosexual couples shouldn't even be given tax breaks for getting married or having children. Using the words "right to" and "marry" together, is just senseless to begin with. People ultimately choose for themselves to get married and/or have children...there should be no tax breaks for that.
__________________
"God is the shaper of your heart. God does not display his work in abstract terms. He prefers the concrete, and this means that at the end of your life one of three things will happen to your heart: it will grow hard, it will be broken, or it will be tender. Nobody escapes." - Ravi Zacharias

Last edited by Funk*Sonic*7; 04-10-2010 at 08:56 PM.
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2010   #135
Jenn and tonic
"maaaaagic!"
 
Jenn and tonic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Age: 34
Posts: 5,965
Rep Power: 120
Jenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to Jenn and tonic
Re: Truth About Alfred Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
Arguing semantics is not much different than avoiding the real issue, especially when it comes to a sensitive topic such as thus one.
I do agree, but often, semantics are resorted to when headway on a debate is not made.
__________________
When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated. Thomas Jefferson
Jenn and tonic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2010   #136
wordy
Newbie Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 8
Rep Power: 0
wordy is doing greatwordy is doing great
Re: Truth About Alfred Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Cstoll,

Before you give up, would you please enlighten us with your wisdom about why my premise is flawed. Don't you believe female minds exist? Or male bodies? Or homosexual minds? Or heterosexual bodies? (Heterosexual bodies exist, by definition and by nature, incidentally.)

And one doesn't even need to use science to conclude homosexual minds in heterosexual bodies are disorders. All you need is some logic. Bayer evidently let certain liberal preconceptions or biases or prejudices trump logic.
wordy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2010   #137
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 61
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Alfred Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Quote:
Originally Said by wordy View Post
Cstoll,

Before you give up, would you please enlighten us with your wisdom about why my premise is flawed. Don't you believe female minds exist? Or male bodies? Or homosexual minds? Or heterosexual bodies? (Heterosexual bodies exist, by definition and by nature, incidentally.)

And one doesn't even need to use science to conclude homosexual minds in heterosexual bodies are disorders. All you need is some logic. Bayer evidently let certain liberal preconceptions or biases or prejudices trump logic.
I think he rather argue that there's an "agenda" against 2% of the population as well as the politics of this issue rather than the issue itself.
But I will add my two cents, and answer that question in a different round-a-bout way...

REAL FREEDOM and TRUE LIBERATION has NOTHING to do with attraction or sex. I do not mistaken the peaceful moments or even the differences that are experienced with the opposite sex as lack of emotional or physical connection. I am a man, I do not question if I am a woman, nor am I turned on by parts that I already have. Among other things, homosexuality and lesbianism is a ideological extension of narcissism.
I do not emotionally or physically fear women sexually or intimately as homosexual men do.

Sure, it may take some work and communication, but the chances of fulfillment are a whole lot better than fabricating emotional, mental, and physical gender differences within a relationship that intrinsically has none. And to use the words "sexual" and "identity" together is the same as sexualizing your identity, and there is something inherently and fundamentally wrong with that if and when you search your soul deep enough, whether you're an atheist or a christian or whether your a liberal or conservative.

And to sum it up, environmental conditions and repeated sexual behaviors change brain structure and body chemistry, which means that the genetic/biological characteristics observed in these studies of gays and lesbians is the result of homosexual and lesbian behavior rather than the cause of it.

I also want to readdress and elaborate a bit more on the marriage issue:

Marriage isn't a "right" for anybody. It's a choice.
People choose to marry for better for worse, whether it increases their cost of living or not. People ultimately choose to have children. Marriage is a religious and/or social construct, of which the government got their greasy paws on. Take away all the tax breaks and write offs away from everybody who gets married and has children, because they choose to do it. Then see how many of these certain groups of people argue for their "right" to marry.

If it's only about love...then live together, be loyal and committed to each other, and invite all your friends and have a ceremony/party celebrating your committment to each other. Anybody can do this, so the debate is really about tax benefits and legal benefits rather than about love and commitment.

If it's about love and not the tax breaks/money, then that's what they would be satisfied with. Otherwise, they are just hypocrites that never use logic or reason, but only go on irrational emotion, and who always think of everything in absolutes or "one size fits all" mentality.

And as far as the conservatives, they are also hypocrites, for buying into the stupidity that marriage is a right by arguing against others "right" to marry, all the while taking full advantage of all the legal and tax breaks they get.

If I ever become married and have children, it's because her and I ultimately choose to and wanted to.
We shouldn't be rewarded tax breaks for that...nobody should.

Marriage isn't a right for anybody, not even for heterosexuals. It's the celebration of love and commitment that 2 people both mutually choose to have and feel for one another.

What it comes down to (like with most things) is an issue of personal responsibility. Nobody has the fucking guts to take responsibility for their own selves anymore. Society is becoming either posers or people who fear posers. I guess that's what happens when people defeminize or emasculate each other too much, or when people start believing their identity is correlated to who or what they feel attracted to, rather than their self-worth having to do with actually having good character. We need to start being true to our authentic selves.

And about Evelyn Hooker, and her study...

Hooker's work has helped the homosexual movement - in keeping with the Marxist theories from which it came - that is, through political means convince judicial and legislative bodies such as the US Supreme Court that homosexuality comprises an oppressed "class" whose rights have been trampled by irrational prejudice...once again based on political activism.

Hooker's work itself was the product of a deliberate effort by homosexual activists to bring forward particular, pre-arranged outcomes, an approach that precludes scientific objectivity.

While teaching at UCLA in the late 1940's, Hooker fell in with a group of homosexuals and the newly formed activist organization, the Mattachine Society. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattachine_Society

Founded by leading thinker and member of the US communist party, Harry Hay, the Mattachine Society members convinced Hooker to embark on a research study of homosexuality on their behalf in order to advance the movement.

The study's subjects were selected entirely by the Mattachine Society, a group that Hooker herself admitted in the report had "as its stated purpose the development of a homosexual ethic...". In the same section she concedes the possibility that homosexuals are indeed pathological. The inadequacy of her methodology was acknowledged by the Journal of Projective Techniques that published it.

In the study, "The adjustment of the male overt homosexual," Hooker administered three standard personality tests to two groups of 30 men, one homosexual and screened by the Mattachine Society and the other heterosexual. Despite the fact that the purpose of the study was ostensibly to examine the possibility of mental instability in homosexuals, individuals who showed signs of mental instability were removed from the groups, which further predetermined the study's conclusion.

As with many other such "groundbreaking" studies seminal to the sexual revolution however, although Hooker's research has been criticized, and for all practical purposes debunked, the movement she helped to launch has not slowed.

To this day, the Hooker study is the only paper referenced in detail on the main website of the American Psychological Association in its discussion of Gay and Lesbian issues.
It was one of the two upon which, in 1973, the APA decided to remove homosexuality from the list of psychological disorders. It was the one and only study discussed in the APA's brief in 2003 while all others were disregarded in the Lawrence v. Texas case that struck down the criminal prohibition of homosexual sodomy in Texas.

While homosexuals and lesbians suffer from much higher than average rates of psychological and social disorders comparatively to heterosexuals, the mainstream medical organizations have remained in a political activist lockstep with the gay movement's explanation.
The establishment's position is that the higher rates of mental disorders experienced by the GLBT community including but not limited to suicide, substance abuse, and depression are exclusively the result of "discrimination," and lack of acceptance by the greater society.

There lists a host of psychological difficulties at higher rates, instances, occurrences faced by those who accept a 'homosexual ad lesbian orientation' as normal. These include depression, suicidal ideation and attempts, anxiety disorders, substance abuse, conduct disorder, low self-esteem, and sexual promiscuity with the greater inability to maintain committed relationships.

"'Homophobia' is not the cause of these disorders, as many of these studies were done in cultures in which homosexuality and lesbianism is widely accepted." These studies, he said, along with evidence of the medical problems associated with unnatural sexual practices, have been ignored by the APA.

Even one member of the APA said that the organization had overstepped its bounds. Dr. Daniel Cowell, a member of the West Virginia Psychiatrist Association said, "There's just not any science backing these policies. I think organizations ought to be guided by science, not activism."I think the rationale makes sense only if the APA is involved in political issues--and it most certainly is not. This strays beyond our bounds.
We should stay out of the politics of it."

The GLBT "lifestyle" and "identity" always progresses towards fascist political activism, because true fulfillment can never seem to be achieved within their relationships. The removal of homosexuality as a disorder from the APA was clearly done out of militant political pressure, and not based on any conclusive studies or scientific research.

Anyway, here are videos that tell the truth about Kinsey...

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archi...videos_on.html
__________________
"God is the shaper of your heart. God does not display his work in abstract terms. He prefers the concrete, and this means that at the end of your life one of three things will happen to your heart: it will grow hard, it will be broken, or it will be tender. Nobody escapes." - Ravi Zacharias

Last edited by Funk*Sonic*7; 10-01-2010 at 07:21 PM.
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2000 - 2006, Almost Smart