Homosexuality for Technomage

[Jedidiah]

So your argument is that a psychological diagnosis changed because those doing the diagnostics were intimidated or threatened into it? Seriously?

I was reading about it in the newspapers of the day. Want to call me a liar? I won't report you.

[phank]

I was reading about it in the newspapers of the day. Want to call me a liar? I won't report you.

Don't go overboard here. I hope you understand that major scientific bodies do not fabricate 50 years of reasearch because some idiot threatened someone 50 years ago. I have no doubt that idiots threaten people every day, for every reason you can imagine. I also read about this in the newspaper.

But, just for example, do you think that the University of Alabama is going to start granting tenure to everyone because Amy Bishop went postal and shot up a bunch of biologists at a faculty meeting? Individuals might be intimidated; organizations cannot afford to be. Scientific organizations MUST stick with the science. And as research piles up, they have really no option but to go with whatever the research says.

And that's why I posted all that material you somehow omitted. Maybe you forgot to include it, or forgot what it said? Being old myself, I know about being forgetful...

[Jedidiah]

What 50 years of research shows that homosexuality is not pathological? Because it exists does not make it healthy.

I won't argue that what was reported was absolutely true, but it was widespread in the news at that time.

[phank]

What 50 years of research shows that homosexuality is not pathological? Because it exists does not make it healthy.

I'm not sure I know what you mean. Your story of intimidation was about 50 years old. A great deal has been learned in the interim. One of those things that has been learned is that human sexual orientation is a normal variable, and always has been. It's also a tough variation to consider objectively, because our sex drives are so strong that different orientations strike us viscerally as being awful, icky, distasteful, just plain WRONG. So it strokes our sensibilities to denigrate that variation as being pathological.

I really don't want to copy and paste that entire site here, but it goes into extensive detail about that research. So it's annoying when I go to the trouble of doing the homework, finding and providing the link, only to have someone say "what research"? But hey, here's the link again:

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

And here is another extract for you:

What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

Notice carefully that this paragraph addresses ALL orientations, even yours! So if all orientations are pathological, we have some terminology issues here...

[Jedidiah]

So it's annoying when I go to the trouble of doing the homework, finding and providing the link, only to have someone say "what research"? But hey, here's the link again:

I did not ask for a link. But, I read the first several paragraphs and found statements, but no research. I found references to what research has shown, but no research, just statements of opinion.

[phank]

I did not ask for a link. But, I read the first several paragraphs and found statements, but no research. I found references to what research has shown, but no research, just statements of opinion.

Are you asking me to look up these studies for you, and provide links to them? I suppose I could do that, if you really wish to read them and really can't find any on your own.

[Jedidiah]

I majored in psychology. I am familiar with what is generally considered research. It is not anything like real science. Statistical studies and surveys are the closest thing to science and you are aware, I am sure, what can be done with these. Not interested. I was simply sharing the fact that I was reading about the threats and intimidation back in the early 70s.

I put very little value on the fact that homosexuality is no longer considered pathology.

[phank]

I majored in psychology. I am familiar with what is generally considered research. It is not anything like real science. Statistical studies and surveys are the closest thing to science and you are aware, I am sure, what can be done with these. Not interested. I was simply sharing the fact that I was reading about the threats and intimidation back in the early 70s.

I certainly disapprove of threats and intimidation. I simply question whether local incidents of this nature would suffice to change the official stance of a scientific field, even a soft science, with respect to the nature of a characteristic supposedly within their special knowledge..

I put very little value on the fact that homosexuality is no longer considered pathology.

OK, here we differ. I am personally grateful that left-handedness is no longer considered a pathology (and it was). For ME, that's important to my life. If I were homosexual, being no longer classified as pathological would also be of considerable value. I gather that neither of us is much affected by this change in classification of other people, at least not direcly or not personally. I'm offended in the abstract, that my country piously claims dedication to equality, yet takes harmless or politically irrelevant human variations (such as handedness, gender, skin color, sexual orientation) and persistently uses them to enginer INequalty for those in the minority. And that one by one, each minority is obliged to do long, expensive and difficult battle to be granted what my country SAYS they were born with.

[Jedidiah]

I'm offended in the abstract, that my country piously claims dedication to equality, yet takes harmless or politically irrelevant human variations (such as handedness, gender, skin color, sexual orientation) and persistently uses them to enginer INequalty for those in the minority. And that one by one, each minority is obliged to do long, expensive and difficult battle to be granted what my country SAYS they were born with.

Well left handedness was never considered pathological, it was considered an abnormality and many folks ignorantly tried to force a change. But, the fact that we (as a society) have treated some minorities unfairly does not mean that rejecting homosexual marriage falls into that category. It is my considered opinion that the whole marriage issue is usually dishonestly presented. A minority wants special privileges - in my opinion. I have no objection to homosexuals marrying, but I do not see any reason society should be forced to accept this a a normal state.

Homosexuality is not my only concern. I am opposed to any and all sexual misbehavior. Marital infidelity should not be treated as an acceptable and minor flaw. I have a lot of views that would be considered negatively by society, but then I see our present society in a pretty negative light.

[phank]

Well left handedness was never considered pathological, it was considered an abnormality and many folks ignorantly tried to force a change.

I'm sensitive to the terminology. I don't like words like "abnormal" and "pathological" because they either imply, or straight out MEAN, deformity, disease, injury, defect, organic dysfunction, etc. And neither left handedness nor homosexuality is properly classified as any of these things. Normal human variation is normal, even variations possessed by a minority of people.

But, the fact that we (as a society) have treated some minorities unfairly does not mean that rejecting homosexual marriage falls into that category. It is my considered opinion that the whole marriage issue is usually dishonestly presented. A minority wants special privileges - in my opinion.

Can you be more specific? If I am allowed to marry someone I love, but my neighbor is not, which of us has the special privilege? Perhaps we need to focus more closely on what we mean by "unfairly" or "dishonestly". I have a personal rule of thumb that I apply to these things: If someone else is doing something which not only does me no injury, but if I weren't told I'd have absolutely no way of even knowing about, then whatever they are doing is harmless and should be permitted. And sure enough, the courts have considered this matter and found that denial of the rights of the majority does real injury to nobody's benefit, while granting equal rights confers real benefit while injuring nobody. In a free country, there is simply no rationale for denying such rights. I admit I simply cannot understand how someone asking for exactly the same rights you have, is "wanting special privilege". What IS that privilege? The right to equal treatment under the law?

I have no objection to homosexuals marrying, but I do not see any reason society should be forced to accept this a a normal state.

I do not understand this comment at all. There are countless things it's legal to do, that are unusual. Is society being "forced to accept" that some people like sports cars while others like stamp collecting? Now, I understanding that stamp collecting is pretty non-normal these days, but if someone else wishes to indulge in stamp collecting, I don't feel I'm being "forced to accept" it. I don't even think about it. If homosexuals marry, it's the same thing. Nobody is forcing you to accept anything, or agree with anything, or even notice anything. You just go on about your life and nothing will change.

Homosexuality is not my only concern. I am opposed to any and all sexual misbehavior.

That's a mighty broad term. What IS "sexual misbehavior"? Sex without protection? X-rated movies? Molesting children? Masturbation? Fellatio? Prostitution? I think we would need to get literal-minded here, so that we'd know what behaviors are "mis". Otherwise, the idea is too vague to be useful.

Marital infidelity should not be treated as an acceptable and minor flaw.

Treated by whom? I can tell you, if I were ever to be unfaithful I'd be risking truly serious punishment. Guaranteed to make my life miserable and difficult for a very long time. This is NOT acceptable within my marriage, nor is it minor. It is catastrophic. I think this is the case with most marriages -- and I think if it were NOT the case, those don't quite count as "marriages" the way I understand the term. More like government-sanctioned relationships of temporary convenience. But if the relationship is genuinely entered into by all parties AS something of temporary convenience, then I see no problem. I certainly would not want the legal powers of the state trying to punish people for "crimes" created solely for the purpose of seeing people punished for doing something I wouldn't do. I'm not that petty. If others wish to play with fire, they are welcom to risk being burned. None of my business.

I have a lot of views that would be considered negatively by society, but then I see our present society in a pretty negative light.

I may be starting to understand this. If I considered it important that everyone share my values, my goals, my habits, my beliefs, and that if most people do NOT share them my society is the worse for it, then I'd be negative too. But just personally, I revel in variation, I'm constantly fascinated by the different views people have of their lives and their world, the often incomprehensible (to me) convictions they cherish.

The wag's dictionary defines "Puritanism" as "the terrible suspicion that someone, somewhere, is having fun." Or as Robert Louis Stevenson wrote, "The world is so full of a number of things, I'm sure we should all be as happy as kings." I'm with Stevenson on this. What a grim world it would be without lefties, homosexuals, Baptists, even Belgians.

[technomage]

Not in this case.

Bare assertion.

No, I just know when to differentiate between objectivity and ideological blindness.

How lucky the world is to be blessed by your omniscience. </sarcasm>

[Jaecp]

I may be starting to understand this. If I considered it important that everyone share my values, my goals, my habits, my beliefs, and that if most people do NOT share them my society is the worse for it, then I'd be negative too. But just personally, I revel in variation, I'm constantly fascinated by the different views people have of their lives and their world, the often incomprehensible (to me) convictions they cherish.

Hear Hear!

Incidentally, the ability to look at the brain via various brain scanning techniques has really elevated our ability to conduct research about our psychology. Mere "Survey" type ones that occur on my campus include wearing various thing that monitor your physiology, designed to see when your body goes into the stress response, at which point people say what they were doing when the devices goes off.

[Epoetker]

Individuals might be intimidated; organizations cannot afford to be. Scientific organizations MUST stick with the science. And as research piles up, they have really no option but to go with whatever the research says.

This incredibly naive statement SO explains phank's obtuseness about evolution in the Lenski thread, reviving for future reference.