So, anyone got the inside scoop on these secular counseling programs that help people develop a relationship with Jesus?
Agreed.
It is sometimes quite distressing to read such threads as these, and to see that people can be so delusional as to think that attraction to members of the same sex is normal, rather than the mental problem it obviously is.
Point Exprix.
I get this sort of stuff in my in-box from parts of my own family, sadly. It’s so sad that the intended audience, for the most part, can’t see the fallacies and fact-twisting.
I’m going to hold my fire until I am reassured that that was some clever satire that whooshed right past me, because I know you didn’t just say that.
cmon, folks. It’s all a game of semantics. On the face of it, its hard to deny that same-gender molesters are committing homosexual acts. On the other hand, to proclaim that the average homosexual male is more inclined to molest young boys, well, thats a ludicrous conclusion.
I personally am loathe to label people, but if people get their jollies by insisting that same-gender molesters aren’t homosexuals, well bully for them. I can go with the flow on that one. But to say that there is absolutely nothing in common between acts that are, well, almost alike other than consensuality is pushing things.
If it is obvously a “mental problem,” then why does the American Psychiatric Association NOT recognize it as such? They used to, but concluded they had been wrong. Now they are fighting ignorance. I would keep looking over my shoulder if I were you.
You are incorrect.
May I be the first to say get bent, then?
In a recent thread on feminism, I noticed that opponents of feminists who participated in the thread tended to pick up on only those statements by Dopers that supported their own ignorance. They were closed to anything else even though a majority of the posters pointed out, with some measure of politeness, the flaws in their logic. Isn’t this homophobic site doing the same thing – ignoring information that doesn’t fit their preconceived ideas?
Maybe that is stating the obvious.
It’s not a mental problem; it’s an orientation. I would suggest that you learn about the subject before you offer more of your dimwitted opinions.
Fuckhead.
Nah. What happened is that they originally had it right, but they eventually succumbed, against common sense, to the expanding cultural milieu of expressive individualism and the idea that whatever doesn’t “hurt somebody else” cannot be considered a problem. Such sentiments might be conducive to holding hands around the campfire and singing Kumbaya, but they don’t change reality.
Also, I understand that psychiatrists weren’t having much success treating homosexuality. The loss of profit potential must have been a factor in their decision. Why list something as a mental disorder when you can’t make money treating it? Of course, the lack of viable treatment now shouldn’t be taken as a sign that something isn’t a problem.
And why can’t an orientation be a problem?
Okay, Arcite, suppose we assume you are not trolling but expressing a considered opinion. When I studied abnormal psychology, a psychological problem was one that (a) was not founded in a realistic assessment of self and (b) caused the person who had it psychic stress (“psychic” here being an adjective meaning “of or having to do with the mind,” not “relating to paranormal powers”). On that basis, you should be able to give us one simple sentence spelling out the psychological problem of homosexuality. What is it?
And what other tenets of reality do you hold to that might meet with slight opposition to those of us who disagree with your notion that reality=“gay=wrong”?
Cite? And whyfore do you think this might be, prithee tell? Are there any examples of psychiatrists attempting to “treat” heterosexuality? Probably would run into the same problems as with the former; trying to stop someone from something completely natural is difficult at best, especially concerning sexuality.
If we’re going to ascribe a money-hungry property to the Psychiatric (and Psychological) community, let’s by God make it thorough. You say they couldn’t make money treating it. First let’s get a cite showing this lack of financial success. Now that we’re dealing with more than just your word: I say if they want the money bad enough there’s nothing preventing them from faking a few studies and making some new, expensive treatment designed to “get the gay out of you”, so to speak. Some people might even have “positive”-enough results (in the sense that they are able to repress their homosexual feelings for X period of time) that word gets around. And since the Psychi and Pscho circles have gotten to the point, in this country, where a fairly substantial percent of this country’s citizens are either in therapy or on medication (or, usually, both, if either), that treatment, along with doubtless others would be rather commonplace.
Forgive me for being so obtuse as well, but in my experience with these two communities (psychi and psycho) I must have missed the grand money-making venture that work with pedophiles can be. Why, just off the top of my head I remember hearing about that exposé on 20/20 on how much fucking dough this small group of counselors is making in therapy bills for only a half-dozen people who suffer from the disease. My own grandfather ran up bills over $25K (and this was beginning in the 1940s, mind you) in therapy every year.
:rolleyes:
Ascribing lack of financial success to the removal of a term from the DSM is like saying that Dusty Baker got hired as coach of the Chicago Cubs because he doesn’t have any facial hair.
Why should it be, in this case?
I’m going to give you a straighter answer than your drek deserves, because logically it’s so internally inconsistant that it’s laughable.
#1 The most logical reason for a psychiatrists not “having much success treating homosexuality” is that homosexuality isn’t a “disorder” that needs to be treated. I guarantee you that Psychiatrists wouldn’t have much luck “treating” my heterosexuality.
#2. The rest of that paragraph, about the proffit potential in homosexuality, in internally contradictory. If all psychiatrists care about is their ability to milk the cash cow, a “disorder” that can’t “be successfully treated” is exactly what they would be looking for, you moron. Think of the opportunity for proffit: Years and years and years of ongoing “treatement” with no hope of a resolution. Why, one could fleese these gullible fags forever!
:rolleyes:
Yep. A game of semantics it is.
Same gender molesters fit the dictionary definition of committing a homosexual act.
As a result, this guy can say that the ratio of homosexual acts of child molestation compared to heterosexual acts of child molestation occur in a disproportionate ratio compared to the ratio of consenting homosexual relations to consenting heterosexual relations.
The website, while it doesn’t seem to actually come out and say it, wants us to infer from that information that your typical homosexual that you might see frequenting gay bars or going to gay pride parades is therefore more dangerous to your children than your average Joe Straight.
This is a textbook example of “statistics don’t lie, but liars use statistics.”
Nonsense. A homosexual act, or at least the definition I’d say is credible, is a sexual act between two consenting human adults (here in the sense that both are post-pubescent) of the same sex. Child rape, therefore, is not a homosexual act (and in fact is not an act to gratify physical lust, and the child’s gender has jack to do with the situation).
Well, you show a little bit of self-awareness, at least.
My only question is how you’ve managed to stay on the boards for well over a year without coming out of the asshole closet.
Unless your meds recently expired, or something.
I only see one person with problems, and I hope you get help for them soon.
Actually, I’m curious. Arcite, why do you consider homosexual orientation to be problematic? Does it stem from religious reasons? Upbringing? A general sense that it is problematic?
If you’d like to let us know where you’re coming from, it may make it easier to address your concerns about the mental health state of those afflicted/blessed with homosexual orientation.
Okay, I’m going to be away for the rest of the weekend, but here’s a quick answer.
First, I am a Christian. I take the word “Christian” to mean one who subscribes to the tenets and creeds of historical, orthodox Christianity, though not necessarily some of the fundamentalist additions of the 20th century. For example, I would consider belief that Jesus was physically resurrected, and that he did in fact say all of the sayings ascribed to him in the Gospels, as essential to Christianity, but I do not insist on a literal 6 day, 24 hour Creation. Liberal Christianity, on the other hand, I see as starting with the premise that the tenets and wisdom of modern, secular society, with its inherent distrust of revealed religion and rejection of any beliefs that might appear “exclusivist,” are true, and working backward from there, trying to make the conception of God and the sayings and actions of Jesus jibe with that worldview. I don’t wish to personally offend the Polycarps of the world with this statement, but I subscribe to J. Gresham Machen’s thesis that Christianity and liberal Christianity are in fact two entirely different religions.
The idea of homosexual behavior being immoral is, as I’m sure most liberal Christians and non-believers will agree, an incontrivertible doctrine of the former worldview, the one I’m simply calling “Christianity.” Homosexual “orientation,” on the other hand, is not something that Christians have had much to say about historically, because it is a fairly new concept. Identifying oneself by one’s sexual desires was not something people did in the past. If you were a man who was attracted to other men, you were still a man, albeit one who had this strange fluke of being attracted to other men. You were not a “gay person.” What frustrates me is that even many conservative Christians have bought into the “gay person” view. I wince everytime I see a William Bennett or an Antonin Scalia saying “I have no problem with gay people per se, I just happen to believe they should refrain from buggering each other,” because nobody believes them anyway, and they’re just undermining their/our own cause by conceding that “gayness” is a valid concept. I think it’s quite problematic that the idea of “gayness” is gaining so much acceptance, because it allows social/cultural liberals to paint those who believe homosexuality to be immoral or problematic with the “racist/bigot” brush, as though there’s no difference between disapproval of homosexuality and the belief that blacks should be lynched or Jews sent to concentration camps, when of course I find those last two ideas as abhorrent as anyone else does.
Anyway. Carry on.