posted
I'm afraid these estimates don't match up with the extensive polling data I've uncovered. My new study reveals that 66.6% of the males within my department are homosexual. Clearly the 5% estimate is way off.
posted
Hmm. Yea, 50% of the people in my residential dwelling at college are not straight. 100% confidence.
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I just polled my workplace and I'm 100% straight. Well...okay, I had that one weird dream back in high school, but that's it. Really!
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
I believe that in the context you used "queer" (ie: You were supporting LBGs) no one would take offence.
"Queer" is used quite a bit in the LBG community.
Pix
Despite its use in the GLBT community, I detest the word and find it offensive.
And, just for the record, because maybe people don't realize it, but the "GLBT community" doesn't represent all people who are GLBT. I am a lesbian, but I have very little in common with that community. I'm an Orthodox Jew, and beyond libertarian in my politics. My values are not theirs, and if they want to "reclaim" the word "queer", well, bully for them, but I still think it's offensive.
And I find homosexual to be offensive because, to me, it means that anyone who isn't straight is same-sex oriented, which definately isn't the case. Can a bisexual person be denied the same things that a gay or lesbian person can? Yes. And I'm not going to get into gender identity right now.
The reason that I use queer is because it can encompass all varieties of sexual orientation and gender identity and it's positive (to me), whereas saying "not straight" is negative.
I have chosen to identify myself as queer at times, lesbian at others, and dyke at others. I refuse to call myself a homosexual because it's a very loaded term. I didn't intend to offend you by my choice of words.
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The 1973/74 decision took place within the context of two wider cultural shifts that may make what happened somewhat clearer.
The first was a redefintition of the purpose of sex across the cultural board. The introduction of effective, reliable contraception and the century or so of efforts by contraception advocates had brought about a sharp change in the public perception of the purpose of sex. As the physical reality of sex leading to reproduction had been largely obviated, the idea that sex was primarily about reproduction was also falling by the wayside. By the 70s, even the Catholic Church had altered it's millenia-old view of sex by raising pleasure from a secondary role to procreation to of equal importance. Though thwarted by papal intervention, a commission called in 1966 even said that there was no reason in doctrine or practice for the Church to be against birth control. Outside the sexual arch-conservatism of the Catholic Church, the idea that sex solely for pleasure was ok and even healthy became widely accepted.
More specifically, the 50s and 60s saw a widespread attack on the two dominant schools of psychology, Pschyoanalytic (the traditioanl couch jockeys - pretty much like Freudian) and Behavioral (what of the rewards and punishments, Pavlov, Thorndike, Watson, and such). Experimental analysis of the predictions of these two theories often found them wanting. In the field of psychopathology, new therapies were being developed and applied with remarkable sucess. Albert Ellis and others developed treatments based on their patients cognitions, fueling the fledgling Cognitive school of psychology. Advances is the biological understanding of the brain led to the development of a wide array of pharmocological treatments.
As these two schools of psychology weakened, so did their way of approaching and defining psychopathology. Several people touched on the idea of homosexuality as a deviation. That what the inital definition of what was a mental illness relied on: deviations. A person was sick when they deviated from most people in society, from what society expected of them, and most importantly, from what the theory the therapist adhered to said was normal.
There was a growing dissatisfaction with this theoretical orientation, both from people who believed the the theories involved were highly flawed and from people who were noticing the problems with labeling people as "ill" and that some of the people so labeled didn't seem to be having any real problems.
While there were isolated extremists such as Thomas Szasz before this, these issues really came to a head when the gay activists used sophisticated (and some not so sophisticated) political protests to force confrontations at APA meetings during 1972 and 73. Out of these confrontations, there developed a dialogue between the APA and these activists and within the APA as homosexual members came forward (although, as the NPR piece points out usually in some sort of disguise) to discuss why, actually, homosexuality should be considered a disorder.
First in comittee and then, in 1974, by the whole APA membership, the determination was made that there didn't exist sufficient evidence to say that gay people should actually be considered intrinsically sick. Due in large part to the agitation and forcing of the issue, the APA membership moved towards a characterization of psychopathology that now seems inevitible. Rather than basing their judgements of what was sick and what was healthy on the predictionsof theories, they analyzed people's functioning and drafted condtions by which it could be considered impaired.
The rest of the 70s was characterized by a re-evaluation of the field of psychotherapy under this different standard of pathology. This can be seen clearly reflected in the change from the DSM-II to the DSM-III in 1980.
---
The actual history and progression of this is much messier and more prone to politcs than I'm making out. Check out the NPR piece or some of the other reasoures. There's great stories involved here and the decisions and divisions that sprang out of this are still active today, some in places you wouldn't expect.
Also, it's important to note that, while it would be silly to say that there isn't an air of endorsement of homosexuality to this decision (which is borne out by later APA actions), the APA doesn't consider the DSM as a standard for judging what's right and what's wrong. Removing it as a classification doesn't mean that they were saying that it was right, just that it didn't fit the qualifications for being considered a mental illness. There's actually at least one interesting interview with an APA member who agreed with this decision but still considered homosexuality wrong. I'll see if I can find a on-line version of it.
posted
I ran across this thread post stalking Pix. In answer to CT's question:
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now I know I've done a 180 on the naturalness of homosexuality in my time here at hatrack, just in case anyone remembered what I used to say. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*pipes back up
One last question: mothertree, were the discussions on Hatrack influential in this change, or was it mostly other sources? It's unusual to change your mind so much, I think, and I was just curious.
No, discussions on hatrack were just pushing me more toward seeing homosexuality as un-natural. But I was reading the reference to Paul in an church Pamphlet called "True to the Faith". I'd link, but I'm feeling kind of lazy right now. I know a lot of people- in the LDS church especially, like to dismiss Paul on certain things. But I've come to disagree with that tendency generally, and there is the fact that it was the passage the church used to back up it's pamphlet for youth. The LDS church, by the way, doesn't subscribe to any stance on homosexuality being natural or not, a disease or not (or the result of abuse or not, OSC notwithstanding). They just say it isn't well understood at this time.
P.S. Taking into account Bob S' fine post, I'd like to add that a church should be a hospital for sinners. But it means such a hospital is a place full of disease, such that it is sometimes not a safe place for everyone to find respite.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:P.S. Taking into account Bob S' fine post, I'd like to add that a church should be a hospital for sinners. But it means such a hospital is a place full of disease, such that it is sometimes not a safe place for everyone to find respite.
I'm not sure I quite understand what you're getting at here.
I like the description of a church as a hospital for sinners, I guess what I wonder about is whether you're saying that some of the sinners just don't realize it so they make things "dangerous" for others? Is that really what you meant?
To me, that would imply a built in tolerance for some sins, while deploring others...Or even not acknowledging some sins while deploring others.
I see that in some denominations' stances on homosexuality in particular, but I see most of the Christian churches "struggling" with this issue. I can honor that struggle while wishing it was over. I can't see any Christian denomination feeling it is on firm footing if they are actively denying membership to homosexuals.
But then, like I said, I'm not everyone's idea of a Christian either.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'd like to add that a church should be a hospital for sinners. But it means such a hospital is a place full of disease, such that it is sometimes not a safe place for everyone to find respite.
Ouch. That hurts. We are all sinners. And some sins, like gossip, can be contagious. But to say that having sinners in church makes the church unsafe? Where, exactly, do you think you can go to escape the presence of sinners?
Tzaddikim are far and few between. Good luck in finding a congregation consisting of them exclusively.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
