While I believe this is true in the United States (and probably other developed nations), the vast majority of incidences of HIV in Africa is caused by heterosexual sex. In Russia, HIV is largely spread through intravenous drug use.
There is nothing inherently “gay” about HIV/AIDS.
that anal sex (regardless of who is involved) is a very dangerous activity and that male homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals or lesbians is common knowledge.
You can find “eminent psychiatrists” who say anything you want on any topic. Some “eminent psychiatrists” will say one thing, others will say the opposite and yet others will say that the whole topic does not even exist so nothing to talk about. Many eminent psychiatrists might be gay, so they would have an apparent conflict of interest when pontificating on this topic. Conversely, you probably wouldn’t expect to find too many conservative religious people in this profession, although opposition to homosexuality is by no means limited to the religious.
With respect to the curing of homosexuals, the question is, who is a homosexual? It should be obvious that “curing” heterosexual people who became bisexual for cultural reasons (like because they were born in Sparta or because they were convinced to “experiment with their sexuality” in high school and hard trouble finding female dates) would not be too hard. Conversely, there may be a group of people who would be staunchly homosexual even in a society that punishes such lifestyle by burning at the stake while providing a wife to anybody who wants one. Naturally, in a debate on whether homosexuality is curable or not one side will point at the former and the other at the latter group of people. The question of what percent of self-identified gay people can be “cured” in any given time and place (let’s say America of 2010) is a purely empirical one, and IMHO nowadays few people have any interest in finding out an empirical answer to this.
[quote=“Kyla, post:21, topic:547910”]
and there is nothing inherently “nuclear” about deaths in war because in Rwanda they do it with machetes.
Ooh, “doing it” with machetes would lead to a whole new set of sex-related ailments…
Pretty much none of this is true. Anal sex is not “very dangerous,” and while male homosexuals statistically have more partners than male heterosexuals, that’s generally a result of opportunity more than anything else.
The psychiatric evidence is not a matter of opinion, and no, you don’t find pontification by “both sides.” The emprical, peer reviewed, psychiatric data speaks for itself. Sexual orientation (which is not the same thing as behavior) is innate and fixed, and cannot be changed, even if the behavior can sometimes be modified.
There is no recognized, legitimate therapeutic treatment for “curing” homosexuality. Homosexuality is not a disorder and requires no treatment. The only entities which attempt to “cure” homosexuality are religious groups who do not employ any legitimate clinical methodology or research and which have a miserable success rate (basically zero). At best, they sometimes succeed in browbeating bisexuals into having exlusively hetero relationships or occasionally bully a gay individual into faking it with a straight relationship, but they never actually get rid of the attraction and even the altered behavior (brought about through emotional manipulation, bullying, lying and other forms of abuse and coersion) do not tend to endure very long. These kinds of programs not only lack clinical validity or recognition of any kimnd from the medical or pschiatric fiekds, they are actually recognized as psychologically harmful.
There are not two sides to this, and the questions are not that murky. Homosexuality is not a disorder, cannot be treated or “cured,” is not inherently unhealthy or dangerous, has no bearing on an individual’s ability to sustain relationships and the only mental health issues are those that arise from having to deal with social bias and bigotry – especially religious bigotry.
Well, until you get kidnapped and taken to that “conversion camp”…
Just out of curiosity, why did you read the original “religious apologia”? Was it an article? A book? Who’s the author?
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.
This is like saying that the civil rights movement pressured the federal government to make racial discrimination illegal. It’s true, but so what? Does that mean it was the wrong thing to do?
It’s those powerful Cap Letters. Sounds like the GLP (who are they?) overpowered the APA (hometown faves!) in a cage fight or something.
It’s those powerful Cap Letters. Sounds like the GLP (who are they?) overpowered the APA (hometown faves!) in a cage fight or something.
I appreciate y’all’s answers, but I’d like to have sources to back up my understanding of these issues. Do you have any good links?
(I saw the above questions to me, but I’m extremely busy today, will answer tonight or tomorrow)
I recall a discussion with a fellow who grew up on a farm (he’d be about 80 now, and celebrating his 60th anniversary with his wife). He said that anyone who spent any time at all watching farm animals would know the “animals don’t do it” argument was bullshit. He said some animals did it all the time.
I know a pair of identical twins where one is gay and one is straight, so I suspect the “nature and nuture” argument will still be up in the air for decades to come.
The implication is that the APA removed homosexuality from their list of mental disorders for political rather than medical reasons.
Of course, you could just as easily conclude that it was on the list in the first place for political rather than medical reasons.
You could, but I don’t think that’s the conclusion the author of the book wants you to make.
If you’re interested in the APA and the DSM, I really highly recommend you listen to the This American Life episode linked upthread by Taenia spp.. Usually TAL has short stories and essays, but this one is an entire hour long and the journalist who did the story interviews a lot of people involved, on both sides, in the story. It’s a really well-done and fascinating piece.
I’m going to call faux on this. There are many instances of people who, by their own reckoning, anyway, did change their orientation later in life. This isn’t a case of their finally being true to their “real selves”; again, by their reckoning, they were very passionately attracted to one gender at one time, then found themselves very passionately attracted to the other gender later on. Sheryl Swopes did this; I have several acquaintances with similar stories. Sexuality can be a very fluid thing.
Those people are full of shit (or just bisexual).
Why do you say that? If you’re going to go the “emprical, peer reviewed, psychiatric data” route again, you really should provide a citation, as well as how the researcher’s in question operationalized the immutable nature of sexual orientation.
In your second sentence you make it sound like a deliberate choice. (“I don’t wanna be attracted to [gender] so I’m gonna make myself be attracted to [other gender].”) Then at the end, you make it sound like a passive thing that oops! just happens to someone. Which is it? (In your mind.)