Why would someone be "proud" of being gay?

[Andy9o8 0]

A well-discussed point. Food for thought.

[The111 0]

narcimund

I don't know where it comes from

While I applaud you for your honesty, the general statement "I don't know where x comes from and I don't care" isn't something that I would see a religious person ever saying. Religion exists as "the answer" to all of life's impossible questions.

Perhaps this is why people willfully fall into the trap of trying to prove biologicial causation. They suspect that if the meddlers believe that "God made homos gay" then the argument and political meddling would most likely disappear.

Although, the meddlers know that nobody can ever prove that point, which is probably why they stick to it as their main defense. Ironic, considering that the divine basis for their beliefs is also beyond proof.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[narcimund 0]

Thanks for saying so. It's fun to think hard on a complex intertwined social and scientific issue and share some headway in understanding.

But I should also say that as much fun as it is to overthink all intullekshual about it, the way being gay mostly plays out for me is sharing a life with a wonderful guy, supporting each other's dreams, commiserating in setbacks, and with some regularity being frisky in bed. Or in the woods or a mountaintop. Or the pool table... against the refrigerator... in the hottub...

Hey! Now that I think of it that's also the same kinds of goals straight couples have.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[narcimund 0]

The111

While I applaud you for your honesty, the general statement "I don't know where x comes from and I don't care" isn't something that I would see a religious person ever saying. Religion exists as "the answer" to all of life's impossible questions.

Perhaps this is why people willfully fall into the trap of trying to prove biologicial causation. They suspect that if the meddlers believe that "God made homos gay" then the argument and political meddling would most likely disappear.

Although, the meddlers know that nobody can ever prove that point, which is probably why they stick to it as their main defense. Ironic, considering that the divine basis for their beliefs is also beyond proof.

I think you're right. Causation seems a firmer lever to press against. And I can't argue with the results. Society has swung hard in the direction I'd like them to. I just don't respect the argument that got them there very much.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[RonD1120 58]

He does an excellent job explaining his side of the issue. My take away from his statement is this, it is his decision for his life. Furthermore, it is no one's business how or why he arrived at that decision in the manner that he did.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[normiss 622]

You just can't do it can you?

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

Hey! Now that I think of it that's also the same kinds of goals straight couples have.

pfff, how could you possibly know? You are genetically different.

[RonD1120 58]

I have again spent some time examining and researching the nature vs. nurture argument regarding homosexuality. I did the standard Google search, had a conversation with two friends that have gay offspring and observed the reaction of a homosexual member of my church upon encountering a female romantically. The end result follows what seems to be the logical determination of the LGBT lifestyle.

When I attended graduate school at the University of South Florida, Rehabilitation Studies, the guide for mental illness was from the American Psychiatric Association. At that time the APA considered homosexuality as a mental illness. We did not discuss the subject in class but the general attitude was that it was a choice not an illness. The nurturing aspect of classical homosexuality was that the male was raised in an environment of a weak or absent father and a strong domineering mother. Thus, the male child enters adulthood seeking the love of a father that he did not have while growing up.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, was not part of the curricula. However, the DSM-II was in use in the professional field and underwent a revision in 1973, the year of my graduation.

Basically, the DSM defines mental disturbances. As a group homosexuals were not observed to have mental disturbances as a result of their homosexual behavior. https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070313144952AACXBBj The DSM-II considered homosexuality as a sexual deviation.

The controversy centered around the argument that a small but vocal group demanded that the American Psychological Association remove the classification as deviant sexual behavior. This group believed that use of the classification could deny civil rights and it created an adversarial relationship between homosexuals and psychiatry.

However, the controversy was even more complicated. Rick Myers and Allen V. Horwitz, in an article titled, “DSM-III and the revolution in the classification of mental illness ,” and summarized by Wiley Periodicals, Inc, in an abstract at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jhbs.20103/abstract stated “The paradigm shift in mental health diagnosis in the DSM-III was neither a product of growing scientific knowledge nor of increasing medicalization. Instead, its symptom-based diagnoses reflect a growing standardization of psychiatric diagnoses. This standardization was the product of many factors, including: (1) professional politics within the mental health community, (2) increased government involvement in mental health research and policymaking, (3) mounting pressure on psychiatrists from health insurers to demonstrate the effectiveness of their practices, and (4) the necessity of pharmaceutical companies to market their products to treat specific diseases.”

From the beginning of the change in classification and therapy in all diagnoses politics and financial interests played a major part.

The APA, in their Position Statement, December, 1973 declared four undisputed statements.

1. Homosexuality refers to an interest in sexual relations or contact with members of the same sex. Some experts in our field believe that predominant or exclusive homosexuality is pathological; other experts believe it a normal variant.
2. A significant proportion of homosexuals are apparently satisfied with their sexual orientation, show no significant signs of manifest psychopathology (other than their homosexuality, if this is considered by itself psychopathology), and are able to function quite effectively. These individuals may never come for treatment, or they may be seen by a psychiatrist because of external pressure (e.g., court referral, family insistence) or because of other problems requiring psychiatric help (e.g., depression, alcoholism).
3. A significant proportion of homosexuals are quite bothered by, in conflict with, or wish to change their sexual orientation. There is debate within our profession as to why this is so. Some argue that it is an inevitable result of the underlying conflicts that cause homosexual behavior in the first place, while others argue that it is derived from a host of social and cultural pressures that have been internalized. Nonetheless, some of these individuals come voluntarily for treatment, either to be able to accept their sexual feelings towards members of the same sex, or to increase their capacity for sexual arousal by members of the opposite sex.
4. Modern methods of treatment enable a significant proportion of homosexuals who wish to change their sexual orientation to do so. At the same time, homosexuals who are bothered by or in conflict with their sexual feelings but who are either uninterested in changing, or unable to change, their sexual orientation can be helped to accept themselves as they are and to rid themselves of self-hatred.

http://www.torahdec.org/downloads/dsm-ii_homosexuality_revision.pdf

Therefore, from a purely therapeutic standpoint, help is to offered to the homosexual only if that individual is bothered by his orientation and/or behavior.

When Google is queried regarding the biological determination of homosexuality the sites reflect about a 50/50 reference for genetics pro and con. One of the newer researching theories points to epigentic causation in favor of genetic. That is to say, that homosexuality is determined in the womb. Consequently, I must conclude that the question has not been scientifically answered.

I now refer to my conversation with long time friends I will call Fred and Kathleen. Fred is a retired attorney and Kathleen is a retired registered nurse. They have been married about twenty years, a second marriage for both. Fred is a recovering alcoholic and has three children. One is a heterosexual male, one is a lesbian in graduate school and one is a female suffering from paranoid schizophrenia with borderline personality disorder, as described by Kathleen.

Kathleen also in recovery and has three children. One is a homosexual male employed as an elementary school teacher and married to a man employed as an emergency room physician. They have been together for about twenty years. He has frequently shared his long term and ongoing fantasy romantic crush on an actress known for her vocal accomplishments as well. He has a social relationship with her and has said that if he were to ever go straight it would be for her. Kathleen's daughter is heterosexual and married. Her oldest son is in recovery from substance use disorder, not in a program, and is employed as a registered nurse. He is currently not married.

I asked Kathleen if she believed her homosexual son was born that way or did he choose that behavior as a result of a dysfunctional family environment. Kathleen and her first husband were both active alcoholics. She said she knew that her son was different from the other two as soon as she brought him home from the hospital. Therefore, she believes he was born homosexual.

Fred declined to make a judgment regarding his daughter. His basic position was that the nurture vs. nature argument was useless. The argument can be applied to every incarcerated criminal. He did state his belief that many homosexuals do in fact choose the lifestyle because it provides a greater level of independence and freedom from certain responsibilities.

Lastly, I mention a brief interaction with a gentleman that attends my church. He is basically a very quiet homosexual and does not discuss or demonstrate his lifestyle. He seems to drift from relationship to relationship with an ongoing state of dysthemia or depression. The other day he made the declaration, “I kissed a girl and I liked it.”

In conclusion, my brief experimental and elementary research has not changed my thinking. I remain as before believing that homosexuality is a choice and orientation is learned. I readily admit my position cannot be proven. It is just the way I roll.

The APA made changes in diagnostic principles based on a variety of factors. Genetic research has failed to provide any conclusive proof for genome determination.

What remains for me is the bottom line of therapy. That is if a homosexual is comfortable with his lifestyle and is not suffering from personal or social complications then it is none of my business. If the homosexual is not comfortable and desires change and seeks help from me then I am encouraged to counsel.

As a Christian I am obligated to share what God's word has to say about sin and the deliverance from it through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. For the homosexual that position must in the end be reconciled between him and God. I can make no judgment here any more than I can judge any other sin.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[normiss 622]

I was always under the impression the DSM was created by psychologists seeking to justify their distribution of pharmaceuticals to continue the cycle of their profession.
It's all made up. Anything that cannot be explained with science and medicine gets put in the DSM with some fancy name and a list a chemicals you can proscribe as "treatment".
I call mostly bullshit. I think a large portion of it is simply made up descriptions of behavior the shrinks cannot explain.

I think they're wrong on homosexuality based simply on the people I've known in my life. They didn't chose.
Given the abuse they've had to tolerate, I cannot imagine anyone choosing it as a "lifestyle".

[Bolas 5]

Idea for thought:

Orientation is genetic, but may not just be a simple off/on genotype.

Multiples genes are involved allowing people to range from asexual to only attracted to one sex.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[normiss 622]

Agreed.
I know a few folks in that arena of play as well.

[RonD1120 58]

We are now up to the fifth revision of the DSM. We were on the fourth with a technical revision when I retired. Most of the work is completed by Licensed Clinical Social Workers, a very powerful professional field.

Psychiatrists, which are MDs, can prescribe medications. That has been expanded to include, at least in FL, LCSWs and Licensed Mental Health Counselors. The latter was proposed when I retired and I assumed enacted.

The DSM is man's guide book when dealing with mental illness and emotional disturbances. Its application is a business for all levels of those concerned with dispensing treatment.

God has a rule book also. It is called the Holy Bible.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[normiss 622]

Gotta feed big pharma somehow.

My ex wife's mother is STILL addicted to prescription pills.
Her looney doc has been feeding her habit for 20+ years.
She travels with a suitcase just for her meds.
It's disgusting.