My apologies to belaboring what appears to be a very popular topic on this board, but I've found a scientific study that people might appreciate; (it dovetails with Mr. Card's comments)
Enjoy.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote: Information Alert
Status : 403 Forbidden
Description : Inappropriate Content Blocked by n2h2/PORN 0 1
figures. BYU blocks the funniest things.
[ February 29, 2004, 07:33 PM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Here is the abstract:
Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders Findings From the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS)
Theo G. M. Sandfort, PhD; Ron de Graaf, PhD; Rob V. Bijl, PhD; Paul Schnabel, PhD
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001;58:85-91.
Background It has been suggested that homosexuality is associated with psychiatric morbidity. This study examined differences between heterosexually and homosexually active subjects in 12-month and lifetime prevalence of DSM-III-R mood, anxiety, and substance use disorders in a representative sample of the Dutch population (N = 7076; aged 18-64 years).
Methods Data were collected in face-to-face interviews, using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview. Classification as heterosexual or homosexual was based on reported sexual behavior in the preceding year. Five thousand nine hundred ninety-eight (84.8%) of the total sample could be classified: 2.8% of 2878 men and 1.4% of 3120 women had had same-sex partners. Differences in prevalence rates were tested by logistic regression analyses, controlling for demographics.
Results Psychiatric disorders were more prevalent among homosexually active people compared with heterosexually active people. Homosexual men had a higher 12-month prevalence of mood disorders (odds ratio [OR] = 2.93; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.54-5.57) and anxiety disorders (OR = 2.61; 95% CI = 1.44-4.74) than heterosexual men. Homosexual women had a higher 12-month prevalence of substance use disorders (OR = 4.05; 95% CI = 1.56-10.47) than heterosexual women. Lifetime prevalence rates reflect identical differences, except for mood disorders, which were more frequently observed in homosexual than in heterosexual women (OR = 2.41; 95% CI = 1.26-4.63). The proportion of persons with 1 or more diagnoses differed only between homosexual and heterosexual women (lifetime OR = 2.61; 95% CI = 1.31-5.19). More homosexual than heterosexual persons had 2 or more disorders during their lifetimes (homosexual men: OR = 2.70; 95% CI = 1.66-4.41; homosexual women: OR = 2.09; 95% CI = 1.07-4.09).
Conclusion The findings support the assumption that people with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders.
From Utrecht University (Drs Sandfort and Schnabel), the Netherlands Institute of Social Sexological Research (Dr Sandfort), and the Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction (Drs de Graaf and Bijl), Utrecht, the Netherlands; and the Social and Cultural Planning Office of the Netherlands, The Hague (Dr Schnabel).
Corresponding author: Theo G. M. Sandfort, PhD, Department of Clinical Psychology, Utrecht University, PO Box 80140, 3508 TC Utrecht, the Netherlands (e-mail: t.sandfort@fss.uu.nl).
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
In short: homosexuals in general have more anxiety and depression than heterosexuals, according to this study.
Considering the prejudices against them, can you really say that it's a result of them being gay or being discriminated against?
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Life history kinds of studies really need to be made to determine that. Background studies to see why.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
In the meantime, let's continue to discriminate, no?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I note that the studies were done by professors from the Netherlands, which classicly is much more liberal than the US. My understanding is that same-sex marriages are available in Amsterdam for example.
If the subjects of the study were from the Netherlands as well, and my impression of the attitude those countries have toward homosexuals is correct, might you consider withdrawing some of that sarcasm?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Not necessarily. The netherlands, while definetely more liberal, still has a high percentage of very religious christians... unless you can show some evidence that homosexuals in the netherlands don't face enough problems to account for a definite increase in psychiatric disorers, most of the arguments that john is liable to put up as to why homosexuals have more disorders due to their homosexuality being socially rejected, are probably still going to be valid.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Considering the trash-talk treatment the Dutch have gotten for their decision, I'd say my remark is still warranted.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That doesn't support Card's position at all -- if anything, it argues for greater acceptance of homosexuals in society.
The study shows that homosexuals have a slightly higher tendency to have high anxiety, be depreseed, or have similar mood disorders.
I think it is a reasonable supposition that this is because of the additional stressors homosexuals are exposed to from society, similarly to how anyone with more stressors has, well, more problems with stress.
A corrolary of that reasonable assumption would be that were society to become more accepting of homosexuals, the incidence of stress related problems would decrease.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Both 'sides' here are assuming causality that favors their views -- shocking. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
As far as I can tell, that study's as worthless as any study in the Americas which fails to account for social factors between groups treated differently by society. It's like a study which argues that being black is bad for kids because black children are more likely to be arrested.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, its not worthless -- its that it definitely doesn't say with clarity anything about it being caused by homosexuality.
And it is definitely a reasonable assumption that problems known to be associated with a particular characteristic (for instance, stress from teasing and harassment being associated with homosexuality) behave as they do with everybody else and cause stress related problems.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
I don't think it's worthless. It just gives us another risk factor for depression and anxiety disorders. That way, when doctors treat homosexuals, they can be particularly sensitive to signs of depression or anxiety. It is the same with obesity; doctors are more likely to be sensitive to heart problems in the corpulent population because they know obesity is a risk factor associated with heart problems.
Posted by MRNLegato (Member # 6259) on :
If you read the conclusions of the full article (look for it online if it's blocked for some reason), it has some interesting comments that address some of the concerns of the previous posts. Here are some quotes;
"Compared with heterosexual men, homosexual men might have been less reluctant to admit specific complaints."
"It is unclear to what extent findings from this Dutch study can be generalized to other cultures or nations. Compared with other Western countries, the Dutch social climate toward homosexuality has long been and remains considerably more tolerant.34-36 To the extent that the level of social acceptance of homosexuality induces differences in mental health status in relation to homosexuality, the observed differences might be greater in other Western countries than in the Netherlands."
"Given that no homosexual man reported being infected with HIV, we do not believe that HIV infection can account for the observed mental health differences in this study."
"In conclusion, this study offers evidence that homosexuality is associated with a higher prevalence of psychiatric disorders. The outcomes are in line with findings from earlier studies in which less rigorous designs have been employed."
This implies to me that the problems are inherent, not socially acquired. And hence a destructive behavior that a state should not need to support.
Also look into the articles that cite this paper (listed at the bottom of the abstract). Indeed, there you will find *one* example of a discrimination-related conclusion (that was drawn from a smaller sample population in a less-accepting (relatively) environment).
The others, though, have similar conclusions to this paper.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Okay ... you guys do realize that DSM IIIR [the diagnostic tool for this study] was outdated by seven years by the time this study was published? That this data was collected in 1996 -- two years after the DSM IV was published -- and that this data would have been analyzed still later than this?
Two years is a long time to, oh, not realize that the way of diagnosing with the data you want to obtain has completely frequin' changed.
One wonders why a research collarboration would use an outdated tool to analyze data. Perhaps the fact that DSM IV was the first set of mental health diagnosis guidelines which was based on scientifically collected and established data, and that it was the first edition which reflects that homosexuality itself is not recognized as disorder, played a part?
Sheesh. You can't be serious.
(And you can't do a critical analysis of stats without first examining the initial assumptions.)
[ March 01, 2004, 12:44 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:One wonders why a research collarboration would use an outdated tool to analyze data.
Because they have to find some way to say "homosexuality is bad, mmm-kay?"
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I don't get it, John. There is no reason to use an outdated analytic tool unless you are trying to support a particular conclusion. I mean, the article itself states that the data was collected from Feb 1996 to Dec 1996, and the new edition had been out since at least May 1994.
By the way, the primary changes from DSM IIIR to DSM IV were in the areas of diagnosis for anxiety, mood, and personality disorders.
It isn't even like they had collected the data while the old instrument was still in place. In that case, the questions asked on the survey might not have given them data which could be used in the new tool.
But two years later? What the heck's going on?
[ March 01, 2004, 12:44 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Okay, so the study definitely had a highly flawed methodology. Plus, I rather suspect that more tolerance does not equal complete acceptance. Their assertions as to what the data means, even were their methodology not flawed, are largely irrelevant. They did not collect data on stressors in these people's lives, they collected data on stress caused disorders. If they had collected data on stressors they could start to make correlatory conclusions which held meaning, but they didn't. Anything beyond what the data indicates is speculation.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Interestingly, the newest study on the cited list (and, BTW, the only article from the American Journal of Psychiatry), states in its abstract:
quote:RESULTS: The 7-day prevalence of depression in men who have sex with men was 17.2%, higher than in adult U.S. men in general. Both distress and depression were associated with lack of a domestic partner; not identifying as gay, queer, or homosexual; experiencing multiple episodes of antigay violence in the previous 5 years; and very high levels of community alienation. ...
- "Distress and Depression in Men Who Have Sex With Men: The Urban Men's Health Study"
Which suggests that yes, there likely are higher rates of distress and depression in gay men ... particluarly those that are not "out," feel alienated by their communities, and/or have experienced anti-gay violence.
I can't access the full text of that article, so a good analysis would have to wait. But at least at first read, this looks like pretty good evidence against the approach of "playing straight," at least if they want to maximize their mental health by avoiding depression and distress.
[ March 01, 2004, 12:42 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Argggh, I completely forgot something very important:
MRNLegato, welcome to Hatrack! We are generally much more friendly than this, but there has been an influx of new posters, and it's hard to keep people straight.
I hope you enjoy your time here. Bringing linked data is a very cool way to start.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
We are generally much more friendly than this, but there has been an influx of new posters, and it's hard to keep people straight.