The Psychology/Psychiatry Fields and Homosexuality Mythology

JohnStOnge · Post by **JohnStOnge** » Sat Aug 04, 2012 8:43 am

I realize the immediate reaction of some will be "How DARE you question the wisdom of highly educated practitioners in a field!" But I am hoping that common sense will allow some of you to see how absurd the basis for the statement that "science" has established that homosexuality is not a disorder is.

The seminal study leading to that conclusion and the removal of homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is Evelyn Hooker's, "The adjustment of the male overt homosexual," Journal of Projective Techniques, vol. 21 (1957), pp. 18-31. You can verify the role played by that study by reading articles such as the American Psychological Association discussion at http://www.apa.org/research/action/gay.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Or you can just do a Google search on "Hooker The Adjustment of the Overt Male Homosexual." The approach described in the paper is the cornerstone of the "homosexuality is not a disorder" position. In referring to "other empirical results," the article at the American Psychological Association site linked above is, as far as I can tell, referring to other studies employing the Hooker approach. Basically repeating the study in order to see if the results are consistent.

With that in mind, let's move on to the study. It can be found at http://www.well.com/~aquarius/hooker.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. There are many methological flaws. But there is one obvious problem that common sense should allow anyone to see. Go to the first full paragraph following Table 1. It begins with "In both groups subjects were eliminated...."

Dr. Hooker carefully selected the subjects of her study to ensure that none of them were characterized by any evidence of mental problems. People who were in therapy were excluded up front. Then those who were selected as potential subjects were screened and, if they showed any evidence of "considerable disturbance," they were excluded as well.

Then she compared the two groups and, shockingly, there was no "significant" difference in the average mental adjustment scores between the them. No association between being homosexual and mental adjustment problems.

This is like if I took the following approach to investigating an association between smoking and lung cancer: I select a group of people who have smoked for at least 20 years and another group of people who have never smoked. But then I exclude any subjects who have been diagnosed with lung cancer. After that, I have the subjects examined and if examinations show that any of THEM have lung cancer I throw them out too.

Then I compare the two groups and say there's no "significant" difference in the incidence of lung cancer between smokers and non smokers. No association between smoking and lung cancer.

Again, common sense should allow you to see that reaching such a conclusion on the basis of such an approach is absolute nonsense. But the news media and those who blindly trust "scientific consensus" under the assumption that there is no philosophical bias among scienTISTS think "science" has established that homosexuality is not a disorder immediately dismiss those who say otherwise.

There's also the problem of saying something is not a disorder because it's not associated with other disorders. But that is another area of discussion.

Fire away.

JohnStOnge · Post by **JohnStOnge** » Sat Aug 04, 2012 8:55 am

Oops. Wrong room Moderators, please move this to the 'politics" area.

Post by **Grizalltheway** » Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:24 am

Get over it, dude. Queers aren't going anywhere, and they aren't hurting you.

JohnStOnge · Post by **JohnStOnge** » Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:43 am

Get over it, dude. Queers aren't going anywhere, and they aren't hurting you.

So, do you doubt that the Hooker study was critical to the removal of homosexuality from the APA The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders? And will you defend the approach taken by the Hooker study?

What bothers me isn't the existence of homosexuals per se. It's the hoax pertaining to homosexuality that's been foisted upon the society whereby people who oppose the "homosexual agenda" are ridiculed based on the widespread misconception that there actually is "science" to support that "homosexual agenda."

Post by **Ibanez** » Sat Aug 04, 2012 10:20 am

Why is it that JSO posts all the gay threads?

Post by **Vidav** » Sat Aug 04, 2012 10:25 am

JohnStOnge wrote:
Get over it, dude. Queers aren't going anywhere, and they aren't hurting you.
So, do you doubt that the Hooker study was critical to the removal of homosexuality from the APA The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders? And will you defend the approach taken by the Hooker study?

What bothers me isn't the existence of homosexuals per se. It's the hoax pertaining to homosexuality that's been foisted upon the society whereby people who oppose the "homosexual agenda" are ridiculed based on the widespread misconception that there actually is "science" to support that "homosexual agenda."

Who cares? Does it hurt you if there is a homosexual agenda? Which as best as I can tell is "We want to be treated the same as everyone else." I know that seems like it would cause global catastrophe but I bet we could make it through it.

Post by **Grizalltheway** » Sat Aug 04, 2012 10:33 am

JohnStOnge wrote:
Get over it, dude. Queers aren't going anywhere, and they aren't hurting you.
So, do you doubt that the Hooker study was critical to the removal of homosexuality from the APA The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders? And will you defend the approach taken by the Hooker study?

What bothers me isn't the existence of homosexuals per se. It's the hoax pertaining to homosexuality that's been foisted upon the society whereby people who oppose the "homosexual agenda" are ridiculed based on the widespread misconception that there actually is "science" to support that "homosexual agenda."

I honestly just don't give a flying fuck what causes gays to be gay. Why don't you put this much time and effort into analyzing groups who actually do harm others, like pre-teen fuckers, or animal abusers? Oh, that's right, those behaviors are perfectly acceptable in your fucked up version of reality.

Post by **Ibanez** » Sat Aug 04, 2012 11:52 am

JohnStOnge wrote:
Get over it, dude. Queers aren't going anywhere, and they aren't hurting you.
So, do you doubt that the Hooker study was critical to the removal of homosexuality from the APA The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders? And will you defend the approach taken by the Hooker study?

What bothers me isn't the existence of homosexuals per se. It's the hoax pertaining to homosexuality that's been foisted upon the society whereby people who oppose the "homosexual agenda" are ridiculed based on the widespread misconception that there actually is "science" to support that "homosexual agenda."

This world has more important, serious issues than the love lives and affairs of same sex couples. Men loving men and women loving women are normal. They didn't choose to be gay nor more than you chose to be straight. If they chose gay, then the logic applies that you chose to be straight. In the end, what difference does it make? Who cares?!

Post by **BlueHen86** » Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:24 pm

Ibanez wrote:Why is it that JSO posts all the gay threads?

Latent forbidden desires.

Post by **Screamin_Eagle174** » Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:27 pm

The only one with an agenda is you, JSO.

Post by **BlueHen86** » Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:29 pm

Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:The only one with an agenda is you, JSO.

I think he just likes to troll.

JohnStOnge · Post by **JohnStOnge** » Sat Aug 04, 2012 1:35 pm

Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:The only one with an agenda is you, JSO.

Oh really? Is that the kind of stuff what you guys type when other members of this board give us blow by blow updates with respect to what's happening with the homosexual agenda? You know, the ones that normally start with something like, "**** you (fill in name of place or person)." Of course I didn't start this most recent spate of threads on issues related to homosexuality either.

But I do have an agenda of sorts. I'm just doing my small part in trying to combat the corruption of science and the general quest for knowledge by egalitarianism. That study I linked really is the seminal study involved. You can gather that by looking at that American Psychological Association discussion I linked as well as by doing a Google search on it. And it really is crap. You should be able to see that for yourself once you have the actual document before you and look at what she did.

At the very least you can directly see that the American Psychological Association is willing to point to a study that is pure crap as having "debunked the popular myth that homosexuals are inherently less mentally healthy than heterosexuals" that homosexuality is unhealthy. It's right there in front of you.

Another thing: Take a look at the editorial note. It's not possible to quantitatively measure philosophical bias. But I think that any reasonable, objective person can see bias in that editorial note. It should give any reasonable person pause with respect to the idea that the "peer review" journal publication process is an objective quality control mechanism.

Post by **Grizalltheway** » Sat Aug 04, 2012 1:41 pm

JohnStOnge wrote:
Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:The only one with an agenda is you, JSO.
Oh really? Is that the kind of stuff what you guys type when other members of this board give us blow by blow updates with respect to what's happening with the homosexual agenda? You know, the ones that normally start with something like, "**** you (fill in name of place or person)." Of course I didn't start this most recent spate of threads on issues related to homosexuality either.

Dback and other gays are only interested in being treated equally. They aren't trying to convert people to homosexuality or denounce straight people.

Post by **Ibanez** » Sat Aug 04, 2012 1:53 pm

Grizalltheway wrote:
JohnStOnge wrote:
Oh really? Is that the kind of stuff what you guys type when other members of this board give us blow by blow updates with respect to what's happening with the homosexual agenda? You know, the ones that normally start with something like, "**** you (fill in name of place or person)." Of course I didn't start this most recent spate of threads on issues related to homosexuality either.
Dback and other gays are only interested in being treated equally. They aren't trying to convert people to homosexuality or denounce straight people.

Boom goes the dynamite!

JohnStOnge · Post by **JohnStOnge** » Sat Aug 04, 2012 2:06 pm

Dback and other gays are only interested in being treated equally. They aren't trying to convert people to homosexuality or denounce straight people.

They denounce "straight people" who disagree with them all the time. They, like others in the "normalization of homosexuality" movement, are extremely aggressive in that regard. And in general that movement is interested in much more than being treated equally. They are interested in practically forcing people to believe certain things. Accept their view or else.

As I've demonstrated many times before, homosexuals are not being subjected to unequal treatment by virtue of having marriage defined as involving one male and one female. And the issue to them is not being treated equally as a practical matter anyway. We could define civil unions so as to ensure that they carry exactly the same benefits as marriage does and they would still press for "marriage" because they want to force people to look at homosexual relationships as equivalent to heterosexual relationships. And for the future they want to make as sure as they can that those being socialized are indoctrinated into that perception. Of course I'm not talking about every single homosexual. But that is the dominant outlook among homosexuals pressing for homosexual "marriage."

Post by **BlueHen86** » Sat Aug 04, 2012 2:11 pm

JohnStOnge wrote:
Dback and other gays are only interested in being treated equally. They aren't trying to convert people to homosexuality or denounce straight people.
They denounce "straight people" who disagree with them all the time. They, like others in the "normalization of homosexuality" movement, are extremely aggressive in that regard. And in general that movement is interested in much more than being treated equally. They are interested in practically forcing people to believe certain things. Accept their view or else.

As I've demonstrated many times before, homosexuals are not being subjected to unequal treatment by virtue of having marriage defined as involving one male and one female. And the issue to them is not being treated equally as a practical matter anyway. We could define civil unions so as to ensure that they carry exactly the same benefits as marriage does and they would still press for "marriage" because they want to force people to look at homosexual relationships as equivalent to heterosexual relationships. And for the future they want to make as sure as they can that those being socialized are indoctrinated into that perception. Of course I'm not talking about every single homosexual. But that is the dominant outlook among homosexuals pressing for homosexual "marriage."

If you would just treat them as equals they would stop complaining and you wouldn't even know they were there. Instead you choose a stance that oppresses them and then complain when they resist.

You bring the problem on yourself.

Post by **Grizalltheway** » Sat Aug 04, 2012 2:21 pm

BlueHen86 wrote:
JohnStOnge wrote:
They denounce "straight people" who disagree with them all the time. They, like others in the "normalization of homosexuality" movement, are extremely aggressive in that regard. And in general that movement is interested in much more than being treated equally. They are interested in practically forcing people to believe certain things. Accept their view or else.

As I've demonstrated many times before, homosexuals are not being subjected to unequal treatment by virtue of having marriage defined as involving one male and one female. And the issue to them is not being treated equally as a practical matter anyway. We could define civil unions so as to ensure that they carry exactly the same benefits as marriage does and they would still press for "marriage" because they want to force people to look at homosexual relationships as equivalent to heterosexual relationships. And for the future they want to make as sure as they can that those being socialized are indoctrinated into that perception. Of course I'm not talking about every single homosexual. But that is the dominant outlook among homosexuals pressing for homosexual "marriage."
If you would just treat them as equals they would stop complaining and you wouldn't even know they were there. Instead you choose a stance that oppresses them and then complain when they resist.

You bring the problem on yourself.

Exactly. If JSO had been an adult in the 50s, he would have been telling black people they had a skin disorder and to quit being uppity.

Post by **BlueHen86** » Sat Aug 04, 2012 2:28 pm

Grizalltheway wrote:
BlueHen86 wrote:
If you would just treat them as equals they would stop complaining and you wouldn't even know they were there. Instead you choose a stance that oppresses them and then complain when they resist.

You bring the problem on yourself.
Exactly. If JSO had been an adult in the 50s, he would have been telling black people they had a skin disorder and to quit being uppity.

Yup, and he'd be using his encyclopaedia Brittanica and slide rule to find scientific studies to support his position.

Post by **Screamin_Eagle174** » Sat Aug 04, 2012 2:35 pm

Ibanez wrote:
Grizalltheway wrote:
Dback and other gays are only interested in being treated equally. They aren't trying to convert people to homosexuality or denounce straight people.
Boom goes the dynamite!

Premature.

Post by **Screamin_Eagle174** » Sat Aug 04, 2012 2:35 pm

Grizalltheway wrote:
BlueHen86 wrote:
If you would just treat them as equals they would stop complaining and you wouldn't even know they were there. Instead you choose a stance that oppresses them and then complain when they resist.

You bring the problem on yourself.
Exactly. If JSO had been an adult in the 50s, he would have been telling black people they had a skin disorder and to quit being uppity.

There's the BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE.

JohnStOnge · Post by **JohnStOnge** » Sat Aug 04, 2012 2:59 pm

This is interesting. I did a Google search on "correlation between homosexuality and mental health problems" because I wanted a reference to point to when I came back here and noted that that's the situation and was surprised to find this:

http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article ... eid=481699" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The conclusion is:

The findings support the assumption that people with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders.

And yes I know that could be because they are mistreated, etc. That is discussed in detail immediately after the above quoted conclusion is stated. If you're interested enough, however, I suggest you read the entire "conclusions" section and ask yourself if it suggests that the "science" debunks certain things as you may have thought it "debunks" them.

Also, I think you will see some language consistent with the belief that ideology played a role in the American Psychiatric Association decision to remove homosexuality from its list of disorders.

I Googled the lead author to see if anyone has attacked him as a nut or something. Not that an attack would convince me of that but I wanted to see. I didn't see such attacks. He appears to be well respected (http://www.hivcenternyc.org/people/theosandfort.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).

JohnStOnge · Post by **JohnStOnge** » Sat Aug 04, 2012 3:09 pm

f you would just treat them as equals they would stop complaining and you wouldn't even know they were there. Instead you choose a stance that oppresses them and then complain when they resist.

You bring the problem on yourself.

They are not oppressed by virtue of having marriage defined as involving a male and a female.

So when are you guys going to actually engage the substance of my posts instead of trying to insult me and trying to come up with what you think are clever little quips?

Post by **Ivytalk** » Sat Aug 04, 2012 3:18 pm

Why is this thread in two forums? Or fora, for the classically correct. Wondering about the psychological implication of putting it in the "Locker Room" as well as Politics.

Post by **Vidav** » Sat Aug 04, 2012 3:20 pm

Ivytalk wrote:Why is this thread in two forums? Or fora, for the classically correct. Wondering about the psychological implication of putting it in the "Locker Room" as well as Politics.

It's in the Politics forum. JSO had made it in the Locker Room and I moved it.

Post by **BlueHen86** » Sat Aug 04, 2012 3:29 pm

JohnStOnge wrote:
f you would just treat them as equals they would stop complaining and you wouldn't even know they were there. Instead you choose a stance that oppresses them and then complain when they resist.

You bring the problem on yourself.
They are not oppressed by virtue of having marriage defined as involving a male and a female.

So when are you guys going to actually engage the substance of my posts instead of trying to insult me and trying to come up with what you think are clever little quips?

They are oppressed by virtue of people like you who go out of their way to oppose them, even though it doesn't improve your life in any way.

Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums