Gay Marriage

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

No, that is merely one persons belief on why it was removed.  Again, what science put it on there in the first place and is there any science (see my links) that justified it being removed.
 
You think proving a child molester is done through consensus?  Hee hee hee. That explains a whole lot.  Now I understand why you won't provide an answer as to what science put homosexuality in the DSM.

Both are sexual deviants and both are mentally ill. 

 

[Ms Tree]

Both are sexual deviants and both are mentally ill.

According to what peer reviewed study?

 

[signals]

Did I miss where you posted the proof used to put it in the DSM in the first place?  I know you have not posted the proof that it was removed due to politics. 
 
If there was no valid science to show that it was a mental disorder and there is no proof now to show it is a mental disorder what possible reason could there be to have it listed as such ... I mean other than it makes it easier for you to be a bigot?

The DSM is to define what is abnormal, or what deviates from the norm. It is not an absolute science since it is SOCIETY that will dictate it's contents. If society as a whole is psychotic then it goes without saying that psychos are normal!

At one time, for instance, people kept suicides quiet because it defined a psychiatric disorder that ran in the family, sort to speak. Today suicide is known, and not as 'abnormal' as it once was. Times are a changing, even I see that.

I saw it when Reagan took a bite out of the mental health community by closing mental institutions. It allowed the 'nuts' element to walk among us. Today you have the crazies running the asylums, and what was once abnormal is now normal.

Science has nothing to do with it and ANYTHING can be distorted. Whatever the DSM says, it can be used to wipe your @$$, because once the ABNORMAL outnumbers through majority or minority, society will change and so will the DSM.

 

[signals]

If it is so obvious please show us a link. Present some evidence that there was science behind the decision to put it in the DSM. Otherwise you have nothing... As usual. Go for it. I dare you.

Or easier yet, since science has advanced a bit it should be easy to find some science that proves it should still be in the DSM.

Either way... put your money where your mouth is.

Intelligence is definitely wasted on you, Capt. Obvious. It was put in because it was considered ABNORMAL at the time. Times are a changing.

 

[signals]

No, that is merely one persons belief on why it was removed.  Again, what science put it on there in the first place and is there any science (see my links) that justified it being removed.
 
You think proving a child molester is done through consensus?  Hee hee hee. That explains a whole lot.  Now I understand why you won't provide an answer as to what science put homosexuality in the DSM.

Again there is no science when it comes to psychiatry. Times are a changing.

 

[signals]

Not a fan of the DSM as it it essentially a set of criteria to describe a pattern of behavior that is then given a name like say "Bi-Polar". This is why the Mental Health Community IMO suffers as unlike regular medicine most disease has a test to identify it. Ones that do not like Wegner's Disease could at one time only be diagnosed at autopsy which wasn't all that helpful. Conversely Fibromyalgia was at first thought to a psychosomatic ailment which was later found to be wrong.
 
Conventional Wisdom is not always  supported by Science and Science is all subject to failure. The vagaries of the Universe seem to have 2 primary methods of explanation. One is Science, the application of logic and reason and the other is religion in the form of "God's Will". At times neither are are very effective and defining Homosexuality seems to be one of those areas

For the most part look at my other quotes. Now about Bi-Polar, once called Manic Depression. Like Hendricks says, "I know what I want but I just don't know..."

Manic Depression had two characteristics. You were either Manic Depression Depressed or Manic Depression Manic. One was a constant downer and the other one couldn't shut up!

 

[EastUS1]

If it is so obvious please show us a link. Present some evidence that there was science behind the decision to put it in the DSM. Otherwise you have nothing... As usual. Go for it. I dare you.

Or easier yet, since science has advanced a bit it should be easy to find some science that proves it should still be in the DSM.

Either way... put your money where your mouth is.

 
I, as previously noted, don't believe that homosexuality should have ever been considered a pyschiatric disorder...but it was.
 
Having said that: "since science has advanced a bit it should be easy to find some science that proves it should" be good for children to be raised by a "gay" couple...? Show us all the/ANY "science" that backs that ridiculous claim...? Hint: Any street-corner idiot's arrogant opinion hardly counts as "science".

 

[EastUS1]

Your ignorance is not entertaining. You do not understand there is a difference between psychology and psychiatry.

 
...And, while we're speaking of the colored feathers worn by currently fashionable tribal shamans; just what is the societal difference? 😉 Expunge our woeful ignorance and make us whole here GQ...? We live in such a sorry age as to have the likes of "Doctor Phil", one of the most pathetic possible excuses for both a "man" and much less "therapist", relieved of his license to practice through "improper" relations with a teenaged girl/"patient", yet has the eyes and ears of millions on a daily basis. Do you dare doubt the "wisdom" of even Oprah? If "Doctor Phil" comes out en pointe with some of his/its' beliefs on "science", should we even question?
 
"Your ignorance is not entertaining." Have it as you will. I find the wholesale ignorance too often displayed on this thread highly entertaining, yours included. 🙂

 

[EastUS1]

According to what peer reviewed study?

 
Sigh! What reverent awe you show for such. Have you ever personally been involved in any "peer reviewed study"? I'm guessing NOT...Are you at all familiar with term circle-jerk? I'm guessing YES. 😉 No matter. Dispassionately collected empirical observations are the best any can ever hope for. What external review of such can accomplish is always subject to both personal agendas and politics. It's always best to just stick to any/all unbiased lab/clinical results...but as humans, we don't much at all like to do that, nor does the psych community like to "rock the boat", since even the very continued existence of counseling as a profession is always wholly dependent on societal acceptance...See again listings under tribal shaman.  Seriously; what planet do you truly live on?

 

[SparrowHawk]

If as an individual I choose to behave differently. Does that make me mentally ill? Van Gogh cut off his ear. He initiated force against no one.

 

[EastUS1]

If as an individual I choose to behave differently. Does that make me mentally ill? Van Gogh cut off his ear. He initiated force against no one.

 
Indeed, but should we at least establish an unbiased study of those members of society that've opted to brutally deprive themselves of an ear for love, and the subsequent (and long term) effects said act had on their lives and those of their offspring? Should we instead, simply assert that such are completely "healthy" individuals? All that said for humor, but seriously; one simply can't make grandiose assumptions for society without a whole-hell-uv-a-lot of observed data to begin with, and we've precious little, if really any to go on, regarding the gay marriage issue.
 
The ONE thing that's universally understood in ANY "study" is that the children in any such unions DO suffer social stigma....So how's this really such great idea where children are concerned?
 
Nowhere within my personal ethics and beliefs can I find ANY excuse for essentially abusing helpless kids for ANYONE'S selfish reasons...but then, I'm not a "liberal".....

 

[EastUS1]

You think proving a child molester is done through consensus?  Hee hee hee.

 
Actually, any person ever convicted of any crime is always done through a consensus of at least themselves and an accuser, perhaps prosecutor and jury to boot, or are you now pretending wholesale ignorance of how even the legal process works?

 

[Ms Tree]

 

 
I, as previously noted, don't believe that homosexuality should have ever been considered a pyschiatric disorder...but it was.
 
Having said that: "since science has advanced a bit it should be easy to find some science that proves it should" be good for children to be raised by a "gay" couple...? Show us all the/ANY "science" that backs that ridiculous claim...? Hint: Any street-corner idiot's arrogant opinion hardly counts as "science".

 

I doubt there are any that would satisfy you. By the same token, there is nothing out there that shows children raised in same sex households are at any more of a disadvantage than other children.

 

[Ms Tree]

 

 
Indeed, but should we at least establish an unbiased study of those members of society that've opted to brutally deprive themselves of an ear for love, and the subsequent (and long term) effects said act had on their lives and those of their offspring? Should we instead, simply assert that such are completely "healthy" individuals? All that said for humor, but seriously; one simply can't make grandiose assumptions for society without a whole-hell-uv-a-lot of observed data to begin with, and we've precious little, if really any to go on, regarding the gay marriage issue.
 
The ONE thing that's universally understood in ANY "study" is that the children in any such unions DO suffer social stigma....So how's this really such great idea where children are concerned?
 
Nowhere within my personal ethics and beliefs can I find ANY excuse for essentially abusing helpless kids for ANYONE'S selfish reasons...but then, I'm not a "liberal".....

 

Children have stigmas in all sorts of situations. Interracial children, children from poor back grounds, children of different ethnic or national back grounds... the list goes on.

 

[Ms Tree]

 

 
Actually, any person ever convicted of any crime is always done through a consensus of at least themselves and an accuser, perhaps prosecutor and jury to boot, or are you now pretending wholesale ignorance of how even the legal process works?

 

Post #1211. Try and keep up with the conversation. No one here but you is talking about a criminal conviction.