Re: Homosexuality and Psychiatry
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exposed: The Myth That Psychiatry Has Proven That Homosexual Behavior Is
Normal
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality
as a mental disorder from the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of
Mental Disorders (DSM-II).
This decision was a significant victory for homosexual activists, and they
have continued to claim that the APA based their decision on new scientific
discoveries that proved that homosexual behavior is normal and should be
affirmed in our culture.
This is false and part of numerous homosexual urban legends that have
infiltrated every aspect of our culture. The removal of homosexuality as a
mental disorder has given homosexual activists credibility in the culture,
and they have demanded that their sexual behavior be affirmed in society.
What Really Happened?
Numerous psychiatrists over the past decades have described what forces
were really at work both inside and outside of the American Psychiatric
Association-and what led to the removal of homosexuality as a mental
disorder.
Dr. Ronald Bayer explains how homosexual activists captured the APA
for political gain.
Dr. Ronald Bayer, a pro-homosexual psychiatrist has described what
actually occurred in his book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The
Politics of Diagnosis. (1981)
In Chapter 4, "Diagnostic Politics: Homosexuality and the American
Psychiatric Association," Dr. Bayer says that the first attack by homosexual
activists against the APA began in 1970 when this organization held its
convention in San Francisco. Homosexual activists decided to disrupt the
conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing
psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971,
homosexual activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front
collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971
conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, "Psychiatry is the
enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination
against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you."
Homosexuals forged APA credentials and gained access to exhibit areas in
the conference. They threatened anyone who claimed that homosexuals needed
to be cured.
Kameny had found an ally inside of the APA named Kent Robinson who helped
the homosexual activist present his demand that homosexuality be removed
from the DSM. At the 1972 convention, homosexual activists were permitted to
set up a display booth, entitled "Gay, Proud and Healthy."
Kameny was then permitted to be part of a panel of psychiatrists who were
to discuss homosexuality. The effort to remove homosexuality as a mental
disorder from the DSM was the result of power politics, threats, and
intimidation, not scientific discoveries.
Prior to the APA's 1973 convention, several psychiatrists attempted to
organize opposition to the efforts of homosexuals to remove homosexual
behavior from the DSM. Organizing this effort were Drs. Irving Bieber and
Charles Socarides who formed the Ad Hoc Committee Against the Deletion of
Homosexuality from DSM-II.
The DSM-II listed homosexuality as an abnormal behavior under section
"302. Sexual Deviations." It was the first deviation listed.
After much political pressure, a committee of the APA met behind closed
doors in 1973 and voted to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from
the DSM-II. Opponents of this effort were given 15 minutes to protest this
change, according to Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, in Homosexuality and the
Politics of Truth. Satinover writes that after this vote was taken, the
decision was to be voted on by the entire APA membership. The National Gay
Task Force purchased the APA's mailing list and sent out a letter to the APA
members urging them to vote to remove homosexuality as a disorder. No APA
member was informed that the mailing had been funded by this homosexual
activist group.
According to Satinover, "How much the 1973 APA decision was motivated by
politics is only becoming clear even now. While attending a conference in
England in 1994, I met a man who told me an account that he had told no one
else. He had been in the gay life for years but had left the lifestyle. He
recounted how after the 1973 APA decision, he and his lover, along with a
certain very highly placed officer of the APA Board of Trustees and his
lover, all sat around the officer's apartment celebrating their victory. For
among the gay activists placed high in the APA who maneuvered to ensure a
victory was this man-suborning from the top what was presented to both the
membership and the public as a disinterested search for truth."
Dr. Socarides Speaks Out
Dr. Satinover shows how APA's policies were influcenced by closeted
homosexual APA leaders.
Dr. Charles Socarides has set the record straight on how homosexuals
inside and outside of the APA forced this organization to remove
homosexuality as a mental disorder. This was done without any valid
scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality is not a disordered
behavior.
Dr. Socarides, writing in Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue
of Homosexuality writes: "To declare a condition a 'non-condition,' a group
of practitioners had removed it from our list of serious psychosexual
disorders. The action was all the more remarkable when one considers that it
involved an out-of-hand and peremptory disregard and dismissal not only of
hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports, but
also a number of other serious studies by groups of psychiatrists,
psychologists, and educators over the past seventy years."
Socarides continued: "For the next 18 years, the APA decision served as a
Trojan horse, opening the gates to widespread psychological and social
change in sexual customs and mores. The decision was to be used on numerous
occasions for numerous purposes with the goal of normalizing homosexuality
and elevating it to an esteemed status.
"To some American psychiatrists, this action remains a chilling reminder
that if scientific principles are not fought for, they can be lost-a
disillusioning warning that unless we make no exceptions to science, we are
subject to the snares of political factionalism and the propagation of
untruths to an unsuspecting and uninformed public, to the rest of the
medical profession, and to the behavioral sciences." Dr. Socarides' report
is available from the National Association for Research and Therapy of
Homosexuality: www.narth.com.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DSM
The DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) is the
most widely used diagnostic reference book utilized by mental health
professionals in the United States.
It's a manual by which all diagnostic codes are derived for diagnosis and
treatment - every single physician (an estimated 850,000*) in the United
States refers to this book in order to code for a diagnosis. In plain
English, what does this mean? It means that for over 30 years physicians
have been prevented from properly diagnosing homosexuality as an aberrant
behavior and thus, cannot, recommend a course of treatment for these
individuals.
Prior to that time, homosexuality had been treated as a mental disorder
under section "302. Sexual Deviations" in the DSM-II. Section 302 said, in
part: "This category is for individuals whose sexual interests are directed
primarily toward objects other than people of the opposite sex, toward
sexual acts . performed under bizarre circumstances. . Even though many find
their practices distasteful, they remain unable to substitute normal sexual
behavior for them." Homosexuality was listed as the first sexual deviation
under 302. Once that diagnostic code for homosexuality was removed,
physicians, including psychiatrists, have been prevented from diagnosing
homosexuality as a mental disorder for more than three decades.
*American Medical Association statistic, 2002.
.... . Timothy ... .
"1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist" <nospa...@add.com> wrote in
message news:95p%h.1888$nN...@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> Seen in passing.........
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Exposed: The Myth That Psychiatry Has Proven That Homosexual Behavior Is
> Normal
>
Of course, no such thing is 'exposed'. What followed was only the points of
view of a minority. The World Health Organisation also agrees with the view
that homosexual attraction is not classifyable as a 'mental disorder', in
the light of modern knowledge. It is frankly ludacrous to suggest that
psychiatry and health experts have bowed to political pressure over this
issue.
To some extent, this whole thread is a complete red-herring, as is the
question of causality of homosexuality. In many ways,when considering our
position on the matter as Christians, *it does not matter* whether
homosexuality is considered a mental disorder or not, or whether the causes
are hereditry, genetic, hormonal, environmental, or whatever. What we
should start from are the an *honest* look at what scripture *actually*
says, and an *honest* look at what an examination of results of research
tell us.
What I see is dishonesty on BOTH sides of this debate, in both of these
areas, coupled with attempts to shunt the whole discussion sideways into
largely irrelevant discourses on whether homosexuality is an 'illness' or
not, and what causes it.
What we have is this:-
(1) The Bible places injunctions against certain homosexual acts at least.
It never talks about homosexual *activity* in a positive light. However,
whereas the Bible always condemns lust and sexual promiscuity, it is also
true to say that the Bible never speaks negatively about *love*, even 'eros'
love (as distinct from lust or sexual acts). It does NOT condemn ANY form
of *love* between persons of the same gender, only condemning lust and
active sexual promiscuity.
(2) Removing false claims presented by dishonest people on BOTH sides of the
debate, modern research has shown that the causality of homosexuality cannot
(as yet) be definitely identified - but it seems to be complex, consisting
of several different factors mixed together in varying degrees in individual
cases. However, it seems reasonably certain that nearly ALL these causitry
factors are *beyond the control* of the subject himself (or herself).
Factors believed to be involved are: Genetic or hereditry, hormonal
balances in the womb during gestation, environmental factors in the first
few years of life, and behaviours learnt and established very early on in
life. Secondly (and contrary to false claims) it is not *usually* possible
to change a homosexual orientation once it is established, by treatments,
therapies, etc. These, at very best estimates, have an *extremely low* rate
of success.
Thus, whether homosexuality is deemed an 'illness' or not, and whatever its
causes, the following seem to be reasonable conclusions:
(1) The Bible does not condemn same-sex love, only same-sex acts and lust.
(2) People who have an orientation or attraction to their own sex arrived
in that state through no fault of their own, as a result of factors beyond
their control.
(3) Even though it might be possible in a very small number of cases, for
the vast majority of people attracted to their own sex, orientation cannot
be changed reliably or permanently by any means so far discovered.
(4) Attempts to change orientation nearly always fail, and often cause
psychological damage in the process, so it is very debatable whether it is
ethical to attempt such 'treatments' in the first place.
Thus, it is my opinion that we should accept and include people of
homosexual orientation fully in society and church, irrespective of whether
they are 'ill' or 'made that way', on the grounds that (1) their state is
not their fault, and (2) there is no known way to change it (at least for
the vast majority of individuals).
The Bible only condemns certain sexual acts - it does not bar us from
accepting and affirming their *love*, both in personal relationships, and in
matters of Ordination. If they are siinners, well, we are all sinners.
Tim.
andrew fox
> Exposed: The Myth That Psychiatry Has Proven That Homosexual Behavior Is
> Normal
>
>
it is normal in prison , in the army and navy and when folks dont have
enough social skills to get and keep a woman ( and that is pretty hard!!!¬)
amdrew
>
Pastor Dave
<andrew...@ntlworld.com> claimed:
Something occurring, does not make it normal.
And FYI, while it occurs in prison, it is not
"normal".
--
Pastor Dave
Tragedy is a tool for the living to gain wisdom.
not a guide, by which to live. - Robert Kennedy
.... . Timothy ... .
"andrew fox" <andrew...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:YiH%h.1989$nN5...@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
'Normal' is a rather rubbish word to use, really. In the sense that normal
= 'what usually happens', then homosexual behaviour is not normal - it is
unusual, although not rare. However, it does not follow that something
which is not the usual occurrance (ie 'normal') is necessarily bad.
Tim.
news.cable.ntlworld.com
"Pastor Dave" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:t7pu33punrclpfm6n...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 07 May 2007 15:09:44 GMT, andrew fox
> <andrew...@ntlworld.com> claimed:
>
>
> >> Exposed: The Myth That Psychiatry Has Proven That Homosexual Behavior
Is
> >> Normal
> >>
> >>
> >
> >it is normal in prison , in the army and navy and when folks dont have
> >enough social skills to get and keep a woman ( and that is pretty
hard!!!¬)
Ooooer - missus!
andrew fox
> On Mon, 07 May 2007 15:09:44 GMT, andrew fox
> <andrew...@ntlworld.com> claimed:
>
>
>>> Exposed: The Myth That Psychiatry Has Proven That Homosexual Behavior Is
>>> Normal
>>>
>>>
>> it is normal in prison , in the army and navy and when folks dont have
>> enough social skills to get and keep a woman ( and that is pretty hard!!!¬)
>
> Something occurring, does not make it normal.
> And FYI, while it occurs in prison, it is not
> "normal".
>
>
it is normal in prison as there is no alternative
if you hadnt had a women for a year or two are you saying you would turn
down a bloke offering you a BJ??
95 % of blokes would, so its pretty normal to me
andrew
Pastor Dave
<andrew...@ntlworld.com> claimed:
>Pastor Dave wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 May 2007 15:09:44 GMT, andrew fox
>> <andrew...@ntlworld.com> claimed:
>>
>>
>>>> Exposed: The Myth That Psychiatry Has Proven That Homosexual Behavior Is
>>>> Normal
>>>>
>>>>
>>> it is normal in prison , in the army and navy and when folks dont have
>>> enough social skills to get and keep a woman ( and that is pretty hard!!!¬)
>>
>> Something occurring, does not make it normal.
>> And FYI, while it occurs in prison, it is not
>> "normal".
>>
>>
>
>
>it is normal in prison as there is no alternative
That is not true and it is a ridiculous statement
that shows that you really haven't a clue and
you're not very bright.
.... . Timothy ... .
I would have thought most men in such circumstances would make do with
self-masturbation and fantacise or remember past sexual encounters whilst
doing so. I don't personally believe that the *majority* of prisoners
indulge in same-sex activity - although undoubtedly it does happen to some
extent.
Tim.
Rupert
<nospamat...@add.com> wrote:
> Seen in passing.........
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By what criterion can a pattern of sexual desire be considered
mentally unhealthy?
Rudy Canoza
>
> By what criterion can a pattern of sexual desire be considered
> mentally unhealthy?
So...you *are* queer.
Rupert
You really are too hysterical, Ball. You talk about my youth, when you
yourself appear to be stuck in primary school.
I really have no idea why you are so interested in my sexuality, and
frankly I don't think it's any of your business, but since you seem to
be dying to know, I guess I don't mind telling you: I am heterosexual.
If I were homosexual or bisexual I would not be the least bit
motivated to conceal this fact from you. I don't regard it as anything
to be the least bit ashamed of. I assume your response was just
intended to irritate me, but I don't find it irritating, I find it
very funny.
The fact that I asked that question obviously has no bearing on
whether I am homosexual. It is just a question, not a rhetorical one,
I'm genuinely interested. I don't know what the answer is. I'm not
trying to imply that the answer must be "There are no such criteria",
maybe there are. It is not a question about homosexuality
specifically. The inference that I am homosexual was obviously
ludicrous. Your response was just silly and childish beyond all
belief. It really is bizarre how you occasionally manage to do a
reasonable job of impersonating a sophisticated adult, when you are
clearly just a silly little child.
ChapelMouse
<snip>
> By what criterion can a pattern of sexual desire be considered
> mentally unhealthy?
I don't think any desire, _per se_ is inherently mentally
unhealthy. Most people, we know now, have fantasies
which they might not ever want to carry out in real life.
Sometimes things are exciting just *because* they are
considered forbidden, and sometimes, too, fantasies are
"code" for a person for something completely different in
real life, like the symbols in dreams.
If it is something more basic than simply a desire -- such
as a sexual orientation -- it seems to me that the same
criteria apply as in any other issue of mental health:
does the desire/orientation result in behavior? And is
that behavior harmful to the person or to someone else?
Something perfectly harmless in itself ( say a passion
for chocolate or an enthusiasm for gambling or playing
video games ) can be unhealthy if carried to excess, to the
point where the person neglects relationships with other
people, or work, or the needs of budget. The most
"normal" orientation can be mentally unhealthy if it
results in antisocial behavior ( say heterosexual rape ).
A more unusual desire can be socially beneficial and
mentally healthy if it does not cause any harm to others
and has positive results ( say, Lewis Carroll's love
of children leading him to write _Alice in Wonderland_
or a shoe fetishist becoming a great fashion designer.)
Rupert
I am a little uncomfortable with the idea that if a state of mind
leads to behaviour which is perceived to be undesirable, that is a
sufficient reason for calling it mentally unhealthy. Lots of people
behave in ways that I regard as being in some way undesirable, I do
not want to say that all these people have a mental health problem. I
would like to see fewer people buying factory-farmed meat, for
example, but I do not think that mental health is really the issue
here. However, on that note, did you know that the theory was once put
forward that people who were opposed to experiments on animals
suffered from "zoophil-psychosis", an exaggerated level of concern for
animals that led to distorted thinking?
Recall that in Stalinist Russia people with political views that were
perceived by the government as undesirable were often
institutionalized as "schizophrenic", and in Orwell's fictional
totalitarian state Winston Smith's hatred of the Party was referred to
by O'Brien as a mental illness. If you regard the war on drugs as a
violation of individual rights, then you might be suspicious of the
tendency to view recreational substance use in medical terms. There is
a widespread tendency to think that if an individual decides to
recreationally use substances which have been prohibited by the
government, then they are compensating for some other sort of problem.
In a society which was more respectful of people's rights to make
decisions about their own bodies, this assumption might not be so
widespread.
Or consider the case of Tom O'Carroll, who has written a book arguing
for the abolition of the age of consent, and has recently been
incarcerated for possession of child pornography. It seems unclear
whether he has actually had sexual contact with children, but probably
the use of child pornography would be sufficient to get him a
diagnosis of paedophilia under DSM-IV criteria. It seems to me to be
wrong to characterize the debate about the rights and wrongs of his
ideas and his behaviour as a debate about mental health. Or, to put it
another way, I don't see why this particular debate is one where the
psychiatrist has some special competence to say something of interest,
as opposed to debates about abortion, animal rights, children's
rights, how big the foreign aid budget should be, and so forth. These
too are debates which arouse strong emotions and which have very
important implications for the welfare of sentient beings (and perhaps
beings who are not yet sentient, if we regard that as important as
well), but nobody suggests that the psychiatrist has some special
competence here.
Debates about which forms of behaviour are desirable and which are
undesirable are political debates, the views that people hold on these
matters shape the power structures in our society and their effects on
people. When psychiatrists claim the authority to talk about and treat
certain types of behaviour, such as gambling, various unusual sexual
proclivities, recreational substance use, and so forth, they are
assuming a certain role in the political process. If we are going to
tie our ideas about what is healthy to our views about how humans
should live and what sort of societies there should be - which is
perhaps inevitable - then debates about what is healthy are political
debates and cannot claim the "value-free" status frequently accorded
to science.
BB
"ChapelMouse" <Chape...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f1vbn6$ses$1...@reader2.nmix.net...
> Rupert wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > By what criterion can a pattern of sexual desire be considered
> > mentally unhealthy?
>
> I don't think any desire, _per se_ is inherently mentally
> unhealthy.
Really? Perhaps you need to read a bit of Scripture. . . You seem to have an
inability to understand God and the nature of sin. . .
BB
Rupert
> "ChapelMouse" <ChapelMo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f1vbn6$ses$1...@reader2.nmix.net...
>
> > Rupert wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > By what criterion can a pattern of sexual desire be considered
> > > mentally unhealthy?
>
> > I don't think any desire, _per se_ is inherently mentally
> > unhealthy.
>
> Really? Perhaps you need to read a bit of Scripture. . . You seem to have an
> inability to understand God and the nature of sin. . .
>
> BB
>
But the connection between our views about morality and our views
about mental health is precisely what we are talking about. Is any
state of mind that leads to sin necessarily mentally unhealthy? Take
the slaveowners in the 19th century, for example. Was poor mental
health really the issue here?
>
>
> > Most people, we know now, have fantasies
> > which they might not ever want to carry out in real life.
> > Sometimes things are exciting just *because* they are
> > considered forbidden, and sometimes, too, fantasies are
> > "code" for a person for something completely different in
> > real life, like the symbols in dreams.
>
> > If it is something more basic than simply a desire -- such
> > as a sexual orientation -- it seems to me that the same
> > criteria apply as in any other issue of mental health:
> > does the desire/orientation result in behavior? And is
> > that behavior harmful to the person or to someone else?
> > Something perfectly harmless in itself ( say a passion
> > for chocolate or an enthusiasm for gambling or playing
> > video games ) can be unhealthy if carried to excess, to the
> > point where the person neglects relationships with other
> > people, or work, or the needs of budget. The most
> > "normal" orientation can be mentally unhealthy if it
> > results in antisocial behavior ( say heterosexual rape ).
> > A more unusual desire can be socially beneficial and
> > mentally healthy if it does not cause any harm to others
> > and has positive results ( say, Lewis Carroll's love
> > of children leading him to write _Alice in Wonderland_
> > or a shoe fetishist becoming a great fashion designer.)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
ChapelMouse
> "ChapelMouse" <Chape...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f1vbn6$ses$1...@reader2.nmix.net...
>> Rupert wrote:
>> <snip>
>
>>> By what criterion can a pattern of sexual desire be considered
>>> mentally unhealthy?
>> I don't think any desire, _per se_ is inherently mentally
>> unhealthy.
> Really?
Yes, really. :)
> Perhaps you need to read a bit of Scripture. . . You seem to have an
> inability to understand God and the nature of sin. . .
This leads directly into the answer I am planning to write to
Rupert. Something may be perfectly mentally *healthy* in
the sense psychiatry uses the term, while being sinful as
the church sees it. Or something may be seen as virtuous by
the church at some times and places, while psychiatry might
well see it as mentally unhealthy. The definition of unhealthy,
it seems to me, is something that makes the person
dysfunctional. That has nothing to do with right/wrong or
virtuous/sinful.
ChapelMouse
<snip>
> I am a little uncomfortable with the idea that if a state of mind
> leads to behaviour which is perceived to be undesirable, that is a
> sufficient reason for calling it mentally unhealthy. Lots of people
> behave in ways that I regard as being in some way undesirable, I do
> not want to say that all these people have a mental health problem.
I agree. "Undesirable" is a value judgment and depends on who
doesn't desire a thing. "Harmful" is a bit more objective, although it
can be argued too in some cases. I'd say probably the best
concept is something like "dysfunctional".
There are a whole complex of judgments, and things which are wrong
in one system may be neutral, or even positive, in another. Mentally
healthy is not the same thing as socially desirable, ethical, good,
decent, or virtuous according to a religious system. Something may
be seen as sinful by some (greed, pride), while being seen as virtue
in a capitalistic society, and certainly as mentally healthy in a
society which approves of ambitious, self-confident go-getters who
want to make it to the top. OTOH, in a society which values
cooperation, harmony, humility, fitting in ( like the Hopi for
example ), the executive type considered mentally healthy in
mainstream American society would be seen as mentally unhealthy
and a social misfit and troublemaker -- an undesirable.
> I
> would like to see fewer people buying factory-farmed meat, for
> example, but I do not think that mental health is really the issue
> here. However, on that note, did you know that the theory was once put
> forward that people who were opposed to experiments on animals
> suffered from "zoophil-psychosis", an exaggerated level of concern for
> animals that led to distorted thinking?
Yes. OTOH, some AR supporters think anyone who doesn't support
AR is mentally ill. I tend to see anyone who can read about factory
farming, or abuse of domestic companion animals, or wholesale
ecological destruction, without getting angry and wanting to stop it
as someone seriously lacking in basic ethical sense and compassion.
But I wouldn't necessarily say they are mentally ill. Ethically
ill, yes....
> Recall that in Stalinist Russia people with political views that were
> perceived by the government as undesirable were often
> institutionalized as "schizophrenic", and in Orwell's fictional
> totalitarian state Winston Smith's hatred of the Party was referred to
> by O'Brien as a mental illness.
Yes -- the idea certainly can be misused for any number of reasons.
If you regard the war on drugs as a
> violation of individual rights, then you might be suspicious of the
> tendency to view recreational substance use in medical terms. There is
> a widespread tendency to think that if an individual decides to
> recreationally use substances which have been prohibited by the
> government, then they are compensating for some other sort of problem.
> In a society which was more respectful of people's rights to make
> decisions about their own bodies, this assumption might not be so
> widespread.
Agreed also. I don't think using recreational drugs is either
wrong or mentally unhealthy, and the drugs that are illegal are
usually prohibited for political or racist reasons, not because
they are worse than the legal ones like alcohol or tobacco or
prescription drugs. When drug use becomes mentally unhealthy,
I'd say, is when the use is out of the person's rational
control and makes the person unable to function in everyday
life. I see no reason to make any drug illegal across the
board. I'd also say that drug use should not be illegal even
if people do harm to *themselves* -- it's their own body --
but if they cause harm to others, they should be held responsible.
Saying they were drunk or stoned when they hurt someone, or
had a car accident which hurt someone, doesn't excuse them. They
decided to use the drug in the first place. They have to take
responsibility for the results.
> Or consider the case of Tom O'Carroll, who has written a book arguing
> for the abolition of the age of consent,
I have a copy of his book.
> and has recently been
> incarcerated for possession of child pornography. It seems unclear
> whether he has actually had sexual contact with children, but probably
> the use of child pornography would be sufficient to get him a
> diagnosis of paedophilia under DSM-IV criteria. It seems to me to be
> wrong to characterize the debate about the rights and wrongs of his
> ideas and his behaviour as a debate about mental health.
Agreed.
> Or, to put it
> another way, I don't see why this particular debate is one where the
> psychiatrist has some special competence to say something of interest,
> as opposed to debates about abortion, animal rights, children's
> rights, how big the foreign aid budget should be, and so forth. These
> too are debates which arouse strong emotions and which have very
> important implications for the welfare of sentient beings (and perhaps
> beings who are not yet sentient, if we regard that as important as
> well), but nobody suggests that the psychiatrist has some special
> competence here.
> Debates about which forms of behaviour are desirable and which are
> undesirable are political debates, the views that people hold on these
> matters shape the power structures in our society and their effects on
> people. When psychiatrists claim the authority to talk about and treat
> certain types of behaviour, such as gambling, various unusual sexual
> proclivities, recreational substance use, and so forth, they are
> assuming a certain role in the political process. If we are going to
> tie our ideas about what is healthy to our views about how humans
> should live and what sort of societies there should be - which is
> perhaps inevitable - then debates about what is healthy are political
> debates and cannot claim the "value-free" status frequently accorded
> to science.
Also agreed.
BB
If you believe Scripture, it tells us that humans are made in the image of
God. Since He made us He most certainly knows what is good for us. As such,
God has given us Scripture to help guide us as we live. The problem with
your definition is that there is no standard to determine what is "normal"
and not dysfunctional. For Christians, truth is not subjective to what one
chooses to believe but depends on God's definition of what is true. The same
applies to "normal" behaviour - it is based on the principles that God has
given us and is not open for manipulation by humans.
BB
ChapelMouse
<snip>
> If you believe Scripture, it tells us that humans are made in the image of
> God. Since He made us He most certainly knows what is good for us. As such,
> God has given us Scripture to help guide us as we live. The problem with
> your definition is that there is no standard to determine what is "normal"
> and not dysfunctional. For Christians, truth is not subjective to what one
> chooses to believe but depends on God's definition of what is true. The same
> applies to "normal" behaviour - it is based on the principles that God has
> given us and is not open for manipulation by humans.
People confuse "normal" with both "healthy" and "good/virtuous".
it is neither. "Normal' is just what is the norm, or the most
common thing. It is not a question of good or bad, virtuous or
sinful.
Were the saints "normal"? Was Christ "normal"? Obviously
not. The saints and Christ were abnormal -- different from
the norm -- by being better or more godly than the norm.
Nowhere in Scripture does God command us to be normal. He
commands us to be "perfect" -- which is distinctly
abnormal, and indeed impossible.
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
"BB" <B...@NOSPAM.COM> wrote in message news:0wH1i.2402$R97.499@trndny03...
Spot on BB.
And homosexuality is NOT a "normal" behaviour pattern before God.
Thus same-sex offenders will not be granted access to God's Kingdom.
Jeff...
ChapelMouse
<snip>
.
> And homosexuality is NOT a "normal" behaviour pattern before God.
Strange, then, that He created so many beings, human and
non-human, who have a homosexual orientation. Tell me --
are all those gay rams and lions and geese damned?
> Thus same-sex offenders will not be granted access to God's Kingdom.
Nor the opposite-sex ones either, one may assume....