Study on gay marriage views retracted after allegations of fake data

[BmorePat87]

(05-25-2015, 06:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: My response is to the silly notion that if Homosexuality is considered to be a mental illness, then we must include everything that has been considered deviant behavior as a mental illness. Hence, changing the definition.

I will ask you the question. To you consider being a homosexual and being a member of the KKK to be the same thing?

I wonder what folks would think if I said they were the same?

Well the two of you were discussing how the category of mental illness changed to no longer include all deviant behaviors as they did not fit the definition of mental illness. You then repeatedly referred to this as "changing the defiition", though reclassifying or clarifying would probably be a more accurate word to use.

You then said "Unless the definition changes " when Matt said "However [the reclassification of mental illnesses to include homosexuality] has not been the case because even if this is a "brain abnormality" as you put it earlier, it is still only deviant behavior and not an illness or a disorder and so will not be seen as such."

Going off the words you used and the context of the conversation, everyone else seemed to believe you were saying "unless the definition of mental illnesses changes to include deviant behavior". That's the only rational thing considering Matt's post that you were responding to.

I would advise you to either be less vague or use the correct words when you speak (or type) considering the fact that everyone else read this the way Matt did and not how you say you intended it to be read.

[Belsnickel]

(05-25-2015, 06:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: BTW the mod never did answer if he considers homosexuality and being a member of the Klu Klux Klan to be in the same category.

I sure did.

Edit: Sorry, I did not that you can see. I forgot that I deleted that post because I wasn't happy with how it sounded upon re-reading and since you had said you were done I figured it wasn't worth it to bother fixing and just leave it lie there.

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2015, 06:29 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Well the two of you were discussing how the category of mental illness changed to no longer include all deviant behaviors as they did not fit the definition of mental illness. You then repeatedly referred to this as "changing the defiition", though reclassifying or clarifying would probably be a more accurate word to use.

You then said "Unless the definition changes " when Matt said "However [the reclassification of mental illnesses to include homosexuality] has not been the case because even if this is a "brain abnormality" as you put it earlier, it is still only deviant behavior and not an illness or a disorder and so will not be seen as such."

Going off the words you used and the context of the conversation, everyone else seemed to believe you were saying "unless the definition of mental illnesses changes to include deviant behavior". That's the only rational thing considering Matt's post that you were responding to.

I would advise you to either be less vague or use the correct words when you speak (or type) considering the fact that everyone else read this the way Matt did and not how you say you intended it to be read.

Only matt knows what he meant. Sometimes we just try too hard to explain how our friends were right.

Do you think it was silly to suggest that if Homosexuality was considered a mental illness that we must include everything that has been labeled deviant behavior in the past?

You can answer honestly, He has already stated he won't ban you because of it.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(05-25-2015, 06:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'll admit I was dragging on the back and forth with Fred; however, I was at a cookout posting on a tablet (plus he never really answered). I didn't want to provide my answer until I could sit down and type a thought out response; as I knew it would draw criticism from this crowd.

Trust me I'm sure it's equally frustrating debating with fred

We're going to draw some criticism I've drawn criticism before from some of the more conservative crowd. However I say what I mean and mean what I say. Sometimes we find common ground, sometimes we have to agree to disagree, and on very rare occasion we might just change the others view (that takes a slight miracle from god)

[Belsnickel]

(05-25-2015, 06:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: My response is to the silly notion that if Homosexuality is considered to be a mental illness, then we must include everything that has been considered deviant behavior as a mental illness. Hence, changing the definition.

My point was more to the effect of homosexuality was only a mental disorder because it was deviant behavior, there was no other reason. So if that was the only reason and we were to reclassify it as a mental illness than would it not stand to reason other deviant behaviors would then also be reclassified?

[BmorePat87]

(05-25-2015, 06:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Do you think it was silly to suggest that if Homosexuality was considered a mental illness that we must include everything that has been labeled deviant behavior in the past?

Well no one ever suggested this. I saw someone say "unless the definition changed" to once again include deviant behaviors into the category of mental illnesses.

I have to admit, when I saw that, I did think of that long list that Dino posted about all the things we once considered grounds for admitting people into asylums. The days when we lobotomies were a legitimate science and used to treat homosexuality.

With regards to your question, I would have to question why homosexuality was the only deviant behavior being considered a mental illness. That seems quite odd. It's not silly to then suggest that if homosexuality was added that all other deviant behaviors would also be added.

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2015, 06:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: My point was more to the effect of homosexuality was only a mental disorder because it was deviant behavior, there was no other reason. So if that was the only reason and we were to reclassify it as a mental illness than would it not stand to reason other deviant behaviors would then also be reclassified?

And as I said "only if we change the definition" (my bad I mean classification, don't want to use the wrong word).

So you consider being a homosexual and being a member of the Klu Klux Klan to be the same?

I may be in the minority around here, but I do not. I also would not be ignorant enough to suggest if Homosexuality is determined to be an issue in the brain, that we must the include all deviant behavior as a mental illness. I would hope there are those bright enough to figure out that some deviant behavior is due to culture.

I should have listened to myself earlier when I said I was done. This has gotten beyond ridiculous. I wonder what folks around here would think if I said homosexuals are deviants an akin to Klansmen? I don't "You're right bfine" would have been the 1st response.

[BmorePat87]

(05-25-2015, 07:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I would hope there are those bright enough to figure out that some deviant behavior is due to culture.

All deviant behavior is defined by society. Society determines which behaviors are normal and which are deviant. Some behavior may be influenced by genetic factors, but whether or not that behavior is deviant is due to society/culture.

[Belsnickel]

(05-25-2015, 07:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And as I said "only if we change the definition" (my bad I mean classification, don't want to use the wrong word).

So you consider being a homosexual and being a member of the Klu Klux Klan to be the same?

I may be in the minority around here, but I do not. I also would not be ignorant enough to suggest if Homosexuality is determined to be an issue in the brain, that we must the include all deviant behavior as a mental illness. I would hope there are those bright enough to figure out that some deviant behavior is due to culture.

I should have listened to myself earlier when I said I was done. This has gotten beyond ridiculous. I wonder what folks around here would think if I said homosexuals are deviants an akin to Klansmen? I don't "You're right bfine" would have been the 1st response.

Excellent straw man response.

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2015, 08:01 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: All deviant behavior is defined by society. Society determines which behaviors are normal and which are deviant. Some behavior may be influenced by genetic factors, but whether or not that behavior is deviant is due to society/culture.

Tell it to Matt. I agree with this. And as you mentioned the definition (or is it classification) that homosexuality may be changing, as it has pretty much become an accepted part of society; although, it only effects about 3% of the population.

I disagree with the assertion that IF homosexuality were determined to be a mental disorder then we must classify all deviant actions as mental disorders, push psychological advancement back 100 years, and welcome back lobotomies.

Is it really that hard to understand?

[BmorePat87]

(05-25-2015, 08:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Tell it to Matt. I agree with this. And as you mentioned the definition (or is it classification) that homosexuality may be changing, as it has pretty much become an accepted part of society; although, it only effects about 3% of the population.

Well the definition of homosexuality is concrete. It's a sexual attraction to the same sex. Whether or not it is considered deviant by society is more arbitrary at this point, but we really shouldn't get hung up over which word to use to describe the process in which a deviant behavior is normalized by society (maybe "normalized" works as in "homosexuality is being "normalized").

Quote:I disagree with the assertion that IF homosexuality were determined to be a mental disorder then we must classify all deviant actions as mental disorders

No one is suggesting this, though I am not sure how it would be classified as a mental disorder. The DSM is very specific in that a disorder or illness must cause dysfunction or suffering. Society's reaction to you being gay may cause you suffering, but being gay itself does not. Matt eluded to this when he spoke of how people suffered from other conditions in less accepting days when they were gay. That is why deviant behaviors are no longer classified as mental disorders/illnesses. We recognize that these things do not inherently cause suffering or pain.

Quote:, push psychological advancement back 100 years, and welcome back lobotomies.

Is it really that hard to understand?

The only way for homosexuality to be listed as a mental disorder is for the APA to either lie about the effect it has on those who are gay or for them to change the definition of mental illness to include behaviors that do not cause suffering/dysfunction but are considered deviant by society.

That would be a huge regression.

[BmorePat87]

a lot of this is taught in intro abnormal psych and sociology classes.

[Aquapod770]

(05-23-2015, 05:27 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: People will reach for anything to say that people aren't born gay.  It's gotta be all of those factors above rather than genetics.  Why?  Because people think it makes you less of a dbag if you deny them rights if their lifestyle is a choice.  It doesn't though. They'll get the rights that they deserve soon regardless of whether it's a choice or not.....because it really doesn't even matter.

There is very little credible proof that being gay is the result of social, cultural, external, or parental factors...but don't let that stop you from deciding the it just has to be a combination of all of those factors.

Easy answer: Because it's wayyyyyy easier to find genetic proof compared to the other factors that I've listed.

And when did I ever mention denying rights? Lolz you say because there is little credible proof behind what a majority of scientists believe influences homosexual preference that we should all agree that something with even less proof behind it is the answer. As of right now, psychological factors play a much bigger role in sexual preference than genetics. There is really no arguing that.

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2015, 09:44 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No one is suggesting this, though I am not sure how it would be classified as a mental disorder. The DSM is very specific in that a disorder or illness must cause dysfunction or suffering.

Could the inability to be sexually attracted to the sex that it is required that you mate with for the continuation of your species be considered a dysfunction?

[BmorePat87]

(05-25-2015, 10:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Could the inability to be sexually attracted to the sex that it is required that you mate with for the continuation of your species be considered a dysfunction?

Dysfunction in the field of psychology would mean that the individual's ability to function in everyday life is hindered, so no.

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2015, 09:45 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: a lot of this is taught in intro abnormal psych and sociology classes.

No doubt:

Quote:DSM-IV notes that “… although this manual provides a classification of mental disorders, it must be admitted that no definition adequately specifies precise boundaries for the concept of ‘mental disorder.’

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3101504/

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2015, 10:13 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Dysfunction in the field of psychology would mean that the individual's ability to function in everyday life is hindered, so no.

So the fact that we are not motivated to continue the existence of our species doesn't effect our ability to function in everyday life?

I swear you cannot make this stuff up.

[BmorePat87]

(05-25-2015, 10:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So the fact that we are not motivated to continue the existence of our species doesn't effect our ability to function in everyday life?

I swear you cannot make this stuff up.

You asked "Could the inability to be sexually attracted to the sex that it is required that you mate with for the continuation of your species be considered a dysfunction?".

Not sure how that equates to individuals not being motivate to continue the existence of their species. Many gay couples are extremely motivated to have their own children with the help of a surrogate or adopt.

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2015, 10:21 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You asked "Could the inability to be sexually attracted to the sex that it is required that you mate with for the continuation of your species be considered a dysfunction?".

Not sure how that equates to individuals not being motivate to continue the existence of their species. Many gay couples are extremely motivated to have their own children with the help of a surrogate or adopt.

..but they are not motivated to ensure the existence. They must leave that to the non-dysfunctional ones.

[BmorePat87]

(05-25-2015, 10:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No doubt:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3101504/

Your link goes on to state

Quote:DSM-IV goes on, however, to note that, “Despite these caveats, the definition of mental disorder that was included in DSM-III and DSM-III-R is presented here because it is as useful as any other available definition and has helped to guide decisions regarding which conditions on the boundary between normality and pathology should be included in DSM-IV. In DSM-IV, each of the mental disorders is conceptualized as a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress (e.g., a painful symptom) or disability (i.e., impairment in one or more important areas of functioning) or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom. In addition, this syndrome or pattern must not be merely an expectable and culturally sanctioned response to a particular event, for example, the death of a loved one. Whatever its original cause, it must currently be considered a manifestation of a behavioral, psychological, or biological dysfunction in the individual. Neither deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) nor conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict is a symptom of a dysfunction in the individual, as described above.”