Talk:Homosexuality/Archive2

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Editing

Why can't we edit the article? Isn't that what the whole idea is about? Or are the site admin worried about something?

1 Corinthians 6:9 at the end of the verse does NOT read "Nor homosexuals," the authors of this article replaced this phrase "Nor abusers of themselves with mankind." The term Homosexual was not existent when God spoke to Moses. We can not edit this article becuase of irrational fear and hatred.

Bigotry on the Homosexuality Page (moved from Conservative's walled-off, moated talk page

I truly think that the Homosexuality article page is the product of a bigoted and hateful mind, and likely to engender the same result in others who view it. I am sure that other editors would join in this opinion, but you'll probably blank your talk page first. I urge you to consider presenting homosexuality neutrally, and not as a homophobe. Keep in mind that your page will be read by children, some of which may for the first time be questioning their sexuality, and be urged to self-hatred and depression by your vituperative treatment of their personality. Please consider the ramifications of your actions. For some reading material, please consult the Human Rights Campaign.-AmesGyo! 18:02, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with this perspective. As somebody who had to go through the whole internal conflict, I can vouch for the mental stress it puts people under. On a related note, the research into mental disorders for homosexuals that is cited in the article, doesn't take into account the causes of the disorder. I suggest that it is related to social factors. --TrueGrit 18:02, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, TrueGrit. I think the lack of concern for the effects that this bigotry has on gay people is truly disturbing. Shouldn't we have more concern for our fellow man? Isn't it Christian to have such concern?-AmesGyo! 22:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
This article is heavily biased! I think a more neutral tone is in order hereJpadilla 22:31, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
What a totally biased and completely unscientific article. There is no comparison to heterosexual couples and no environmental factors taken into account. What a surprise: the article can no longer be edited. I think the Bigot agenda has a bit more of a say here than the 'gay agenda'

04:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't know if any of you noticed, but the title of this wiki is Conservapedia. Yes, this offends me too (I'm bisexual), but if you want a more neutral point of view, go to Wikipedia.

Then again, this kinda begs the question of "Why am I on here, anyway?"--Tomoko 20:06, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I think this article is pretty %&$#ed up. I don't really knew what a conservative is. It sounds like some monkey with a scorpian tail that can speak Japanease and knows how to fly. Anyway I just went to this article because it was on Daily Show and I wanted to see if some dumb "conservative" really wrote that down. I'm not a homosexual, but come on man. THIS IS AMERICA! Of course some people are going to be gay! I hope people don't read this article and believe that bull. If you honestly hate homosexuality so much that you write an article like this, you're probably just a homo yourself.



Nickbennett44---- "Great, I just wasted 5 minutes writing this"

Search for a genetic component

Cut from article:

Most mainstream science points towards homosexuality being a condition one has from birth,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Research has shown that adoptive brothers are more likely to both be homosexuals than the biological brothers, who share half their genes. This data prompted the journal Science to report "this . . . suggests that there is no genetic component, but rather an environmental component shared in families" [9][10][11]. On the other hand, there is a study purporting to support that homosexuality is partly genetic in cause. Dean Hamer, a gay researcher, conducted a study of thirty-two pairs of brothers who were not related and exclusively homosexual. As they were not related, they should not share the same genes. However, two-thirds of the pairs (22 pairs) shared the same type of genetic material, supporting the hypothesis that there is an existing gene that either influences homosexuality, or is caused by homosexuality.[12]

The first ref cited contradicts the first sentence:

  • Some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime. [2]

I'm not inclined to check any others, after the first one is exposed as contributor error/fraud. --Ed Poor 18:59, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Then change the sentence to "Most mainstream science discredits the view that homosexuality is only a choice", because A). It isn't a choice, and B). most mainstream science does indeed discredit this view. --Hojimachongtalk 19:03, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
I have studied the matter intently and disagree with your 'view' of the science. We need to distinguish between belief and fact here.
The pronouncements of a counseling, psychological, or psychiatric group do not count as mainstream science. A journal article or other refereed publication does.
You might want to review some of my work at Wikipedia on this. Shall I point you to the relevant articles?
It is a gay rights point of view that "homosexuality is not a choice" - more of a slogan, actually, because it's not immediately apparent what this means. I hardly think anyone is asserting (let alone examining) whether anyone "decides to become gay" - any more than someone decides to become morbidly fat, or cowardly or lazy. Imagine someone saying, "I think I'll become a bigot next week." (With apologies to Rodgers and Hammerstein - see "You've Got to Be Carefully Taught")
I believe the questions debated are (1) whether homosexuality is the result of choices made and/or experiences after being born; and also (2) whether by choosing to seek help a person can transition out of a "homosexual orientation".
Moreover, we need to be clear and precise about what 'view' mainstream science discredits. Hamer's research does not prove a genetic component; it does prove an 'environmental' component. So we might say that mainstream science discredits the view that homosexuality is only a matter of genetics. --Ed Poor 19:15, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
All I added was the first sentence, and the relevant citations. The citations need to be used, because right now they're on par with what else is included (in the section " Homosexuality and Reports of People Leaving Homosexuality", we have citations of six news articles out of 11 references. And all of the other citations in the article regarding scientific views are inappropriate to the standards you outlined above, Ed. Aren't they? The eight refs I provided have a definite place in this article, we need to find where. --Hojimachongtalk 19:24, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Defining an environmental component is important, Ed. Certain in utero influences are not genetic in nature but are equally beyond the conscious control of an individual. For better or worse, people are going to interpret "environmental" to the culture with which they were brought up and will exclude non-genetic "environmental" factors. Myk 19:28, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

There's no scientific evidence for the "born gay" hypothesis. I'm getting all my information from Coming Out Straight, a book for which Laura Schlesinger wrote the forward. Everything in I've checked has turned out to be correctly cited (no quote mining). --Ed Poor 18:10, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

So, Ed, it's your understanding that homosexual "choose" to be homosexual? Crackertalk 18:14, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
No, Rob, I hardly think anyone is asserting (let alone examining) whether anyone "decides to become gay" - any more than someone decides to become morbidly fat, or cowardly or lazy. --Ed Poor 18:16, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
That's a ridiculously offensive statement. Please withdraw it. Airdish 18:19, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, because being gay is just as bad as all of those things. Maybe to you. So how does "gayness" come about if you're not born gay? Is it any less immutable under your theory?-AmesGyo! 18:18, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe it's an evolutionary thing? Maybe people who're gay (a Kinsey 6, i.e. TOTALLY), have reached the evolutionary zenith and the biological urge to reproduce simply goes away but human beings are human beings and the sex drive doesn't go away completely but becomes subverted to seek out others who are also in such an evolutionary position?

I don't know what "mainstream science" beleives, but i know that the vast majority of counselers and psychologists beleive that a persons sexuality can be manipulated by sexual encounters at a young age, especially with adults. This is also how sexual addiction is formed.--Sersabian 18:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Isn't someone offering a patch that pregnant women can wear on their stomachs that releases a testosterone or hormone to avoid having a homosexual baby? I know that might sound odd but I read it recently. I'll see if I can dig up the source. Miles 18:34, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
I could make a joke about homosexuals being fundamentalist anti-evolutionists (if such description of a group exists), being the only group in society that are absolutely sure that they are not involved in the creation of genetic mutations through reproduction.. But I won't. Airdish 18:35, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Anyone for a game of Occam's Razor? We know that certain things are hard-wired in a minority of any given population, e.g. left-handedness. The reasons are unclear, but it happens. Which, then, is the simplest explanation: same-sex attraction arises through an as-yet unknown genetic mechanism similar in kind to that which produces left-handness? Or that same-sex attraction arises through some complex, and probably unknowable, interplay of psychological/social/cultural factors, that themselves currently defy any meaningful quantatative analysis? --Robledo 19:02, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

One of the research focuses is X chromosome methylation which is part of how the DNA turns parts on and off. --Mtur 19:10, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

In any event, being "gay" is an immutable quality. That's all that need be said for it, as that's all that need be established for equal protection under American to trigger (see e.g. Carolene Products, fn. 4).-AmesGyo! 19:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I think we have identified the three main non-Christian ideas:

  1. It's genetic like left-handedness, or
  2. It arises due to other factors
  3. It's immutable and should be protected

I can probably get these ideas into the article, if they are properly sourced. Like Dr. A says it's genetic, and Dr. B says it arises due to family dynamics.

But the country's split over gay rights, which remains an unwritten article here. If someone can do a well-balanced article . . . hint, hint. --Ed Poor 22:06, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think any of those ideas are non-Christian. They're against Christian fundamentalist teachings, yes. However, I know several gay Catholics, and many MANY Protestants who accept that homosexuality is immutable and not sinful. They justify it with some crazy idea called "tolerance." I don't know, I'd never heard of it before :-/-AmesGyo! 22:08, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

If someone STARTS a well balanced article C will take it over, lock it down tell how Saint Anita Bryant took a pie to the muss for the Lord and Decency and we'll be outside THAT page on that Talk doing the same old thing. Kinda fun actually. Crackertalk 22:36, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I ain't got no quarrel with them folks that love other folks with the same bits as they got!

And I suspect Jesus doesn’t mind either. Seems mostly a gentle, tolerant sort of fellow in that New Testament book thingy. Let's all try and be a little bit more like Jesus here... :P --Robledo 19:18, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Spelling/Grammar

Could somebody please fix the spelling error. The Canadian Medical Association Journal was incorrectly cited as the Candadian Medical Journal.

01:33, 12 March 2007 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs | block) protected "Homosexuality" (too many attacks by vandals [edit=sysop:move=sysop])

  • Maybe you can fix it yourself. Shall we ask Andy to unprotect the article?
  • If we do, who's volunteering to help keep it free of vandalism? --Ed Poor 18:13, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Assuming that Andy actually went through with it, here's a quick extrapolation of what would most likely happen:
  1. Article gets unlocked.
  2. People edit it to make it a bit more neutral.
  3. Conservative makes a huge revert (also de-correcting the typo) and locks the article again.
  4. People complain; somebody might unlock it, based on the great potential of the previous edits.
  5. The Shadow Council has yet another case while the article is put into stasis for an indefinite time.
Now that I think of it, that sounds like fun. Let's do it. ;)
On a more serious note, the problem is not that the article is locked or that it has a typo. It's the practice of article ownership via locking by some sysops that in turn leads to extreme PoV-pushing. This is a more global problem, so I can't just point at a diff or even an article and say "Fix this". It's the big picture, the attitude behind the action that is troubling people.
Kicking off another Theory of Evolution cycle as described above might be highly entertaining, but it's an exercise in futility as long as this mindset is being encouraged: Even if this article get somehow "fixed" (quot. marks since this depends on the goal of the site - which still hasn't been made clear, if I'm not mistaken), another article would become the new Homosexuality/Evolution.
So what should we do to "fix" this? What can we do? Well... nothing, really. I spent a lot of time writing things that aren't new, and most of the things I'd normally suggest have already been tried. When people pointed out these things to Andy, they were either quasi-ignored, or even turned down with comments like "Theory of Evolution is the third-most viewed page on the site! This shows that the article is a great resource for people who come to this site to learn!"
The only way (that I see) out of this cycle would be to establish some sort of policy that prevents article owning like that, but enforcing these rules would be "tricky" (read: "practically impossible") in this case. In short: We'd need an attitude change, whether induced by a change of heart or by enforced rules.
On the other hand, I'm hardly a wiki-pro, so I might be missing an even picture. This is just my view of things, but maybe somebody can use it as a starting point to aim for that bigger picture. *shrugs* --Sid 3050 18:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Typo fixed. Conservative 22:33, 4 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Biblical view from the Jewish POV

I don't expect to change anybody's views on this subject, and I am not Jewish and speak no Hebrew. However, I read this from a Jewish person and think it ought to be shared and considered since it refers to some of the substance of this article:

The usually cited passage of Leviticus is "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." However, that's not what the Hebrew says, that's what translators, with the baggage of their own position and that of their age, have said that it says. I don't know how to make this do Hebrew, so here's a transliteration of the relevant passage v-et azchar lo' tishkav mishk'vey 'ishshah toeyvah hee, which literally reads "and with a man you shall not lie in beds of a woman", a quite different proposition.

We can argue about what that means (sanctity of the marriage bed, perhaps?), but what is telling is that it has a qualifier - you shall not lie with beasts does not. Pretty unequivocal. The presence of that qualifier indicates that it's not lying with man which is the focus, it's where when or how that matters. That's borne out by this "abomination" being the only one not repeated in Deuteronomy, where, indeed, there is a sin of giving the money from male prostitution to the Temple, not, you will note the prostitution itself.

As for Sodom in Genesis, we know that the city was at war and so strangers (the angels) were sure to be treated with great suspicion, so there is no clear sense that when the Sodomites demanded to "know" the strangers that it was Biblical knowing. Equally, it was not simply Sodom and Gomorrah that bought it that day, seven cities were destroyed throughout the land of the Canaanintes who were wicked for their worship of Molech (which practices involved temple prostitutes among other things). Bear in mind, also, that the angels had been sent to destroy Sodom for its wickedness and were to find a good man, Sodom was not destroyed because the people wished to "know" the angels.

In short, from the text there is no reason whatever to think that the OT condemns homosexuality - merely that it frowns on certain homosexual practices, chiefly involving married men or the sanctity of the Temple. Britinme 12:58 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Excellent points, and ones that should be more widely known. The problem is that the majority of this site is written from a conservative Christian POV, and not a Jewish one. I mean, another thing to note is that Jesus himself never talks about gay people, masturb*tion, alcohol (he turned water into wine at a wedding!), abortion, or any of the other things that a lot of conservatives and fundementalists say Jesus said were wrong, but do people ever talk about that? No. Or the fact that the only two commandments you had to follow were "love God with all your mind, heart, soul, strength" and "love your neighbor as yourself". Okay, I've gone round in circles a bit. Sorry about that. My point is, there's not a likely chance that your excellent information (complete with a credible source) won't be put in the article just because of the ignorance that seems to abound in said article.--Tomoko 20:48, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Homophobia

I would like to suggest the inclusion of a relevant study. In fact, I think the users of CP should take a look at this one, because it would explain a lot of their pent-up aggression. It was a study by researchers at the University of Georgia, and published by the American Psychological Association in 1996. Essentially it shows that there is a correlation between homophobia and repressed homosexuality. So, to the people who despise homosexuality, I'd like to point out that there is a possibility that you are acting out anger based on your repressed homosexual feelings. I suggest that you take some time for introspection, and perhaps a visit to your nearest GLBTQ centre for counselling. In any case, we should either add this to the article, or create a page on homophobia.

"The results of this study indicate that individuals who score in the homophobic range and admit negative affect toward homosexuality demonstrate significant sexual arousal to male homosexual erotic stimuli." (Adams, Wright, and Lohr 1996:443)

Repressed Homosexuality

--TrueGrit 11:56, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

So wait, let me see. If someone is attracted to homosexuality, they're attracted to homosexuality. But if they're repelled by homosexuality, it means they're secretly attracted to homosexuality. Sounds to me like gay-if-you-do and gay-if-you-don't. Is there any possible attitude toward homosexuality—lack of any strong feelings whatsoever, maybe—that would lead to the interpretation that someone is basically straight? Dpbsmith 13:28, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
I think you answered your own question there. There are those who are openly attracted, those who are openly repelled by it... and a vast majority (I'd assume) of straight people in the middle who simply believe that it's not the end of the world if some guys like guys and some girls like girls. --Sid 3050 13:47, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
No, what he means is that if your gay, your gay, if your not gay you would be comfortable with your sexuality so you wouldn't have a hurtful agenda against other orientations, but if you are Homosexual and in denial some may have the tendancy to lash out at what they hate about themselves. Malcontent 17:23 11 April 2007
The distribution of human sexual orientation is a bimodal "J" curve according to a 1992 study at the National Institutes of Health conducted by Dean Hamer and Angela Pattatucci. What that means is that if you draw a chart with homosexual orientation on the left and heterosexual orientation on the right, and plot every person in your sample, the dots pile up to form a J shape with very few in the middle identifying as switch-hitters, which is presumably what your latent homosexuals would be. So go check your premises. Teresita 14:10, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
It's that black-and-white attitude that causes so many problems in this world. Perhaps if the world opened their eyes and started thinking in terms of degree instead of either/or, then we'd all be better off. Besides, people aren't "attracted" to homosexuality. The article essentially says that overly-aggressive alpha males, who despise everything that is gay, potentially have repressed homosexual feelings. It doesn't mean that they're all gay, it means that some of them are the way they are as a defence mechanism. The control group was a group of males who were largely indifferent to the issue. Dpbsmith, you seem intelligent, so take a look at the article and see what it's saying. It doesn't say that all homophobes are closet gays, it just says there is a correlation. It explains the anger. On another note, it's possible that the negative attitudes toward homosexuality that cause the mental disorders, and not homosexuality itself. I'm suggesting that there are social causes that is, and not strictly psychological causes for the correlation between homosexuality and mental defect, as mentioned in the CP homosexuality article. Regards, --TrueGrit 14:14, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
TrueGrit, I think that you are misrepresenting that study. It claims to show a correlation between homosexual arousal and the answers to 25 IHP questions. Some of those questions were more about homosexual feelings than homophobia. The results aren't really that surprising or significant. I would not include the study. RSchlafly 17:56, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
I can't speak to the content of the questions, but I can say that this is a published study in a peer-reviewed journal. I'm only citing what they said. TrueGrit 20:25, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

attraction or activity

The article begins "Homosexuality is a sexual attraction or activity...". The next two sections "Biblical Prohibition on Homosexuality" and "Homosexuality and Reports of People Leaving Homosexuality" should be expanded to clarify whether they are talking purely about activity or about attraction/orientation as well.

It would also be helpful if the "Homosexuality and Human Behavior" section actually had comparisons to heterosexual people, instead of just some random statistics about homosexuals with no comparison of whether those statistics are higher or lower than any comparable groups such as people in long-lasting heterosexual non-marriage relationships and older (active) heterosexuals who have never married, and the same again with married couples. I separate married from unmarried as I believe there is an element of commitment to monogamy in marriage that is not present in the other groups. The Washington Post reference completely ignores the idea that people can be in heterosexual relationships other than marriage. "About 40 percent of homosexual couples had been together in a household for at least five years, compared to roughly 60 percent of married heterosexual couples who had been together at least that long...", "66 percent of the male homosexual couples and 68 percent of lesbian couples owned their home, compared with 81 percent of heterosexual married couples."

I'd have a go, but the article is locked. --Scott 22:36, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Saying "Homosexuality is a sexual attraction or activity between members of the same sex. It is condemned by the Bible" is historically meaningless. Same-sex sexual activity may well be condemned by the Bible, but there was no concept at that time of homosexuality as a general orientation, only of same-sex sexual acts. The concept of homosexuality as a general orientation is a fairly modern one.--Britinme 23:42, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

How about "Homosexuality is a sexual attraction between members of the same sex. Homosexual activity is condemned by the Bible"? --Scott 03:50, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

That makes more sense and I'd make the change but can't unlock the article.--Britinme 08:56, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

It is not true to say that homosexuality is of necessity homosexual activity rather than homosexual orientation. What evidence can you cite that all homosexuals are sexually active? It is possible for both heterosexuals and homosexuals to be celibate.--Britinme 18:24, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

This is very sad stuff indeed

This article is an embarrassment to the site. Hell, even if it was intended as satire, Uncyclopedia would have taken it down (they have guidelines about How to Be Funny and Not Just Stupid).

Aside from the revolting and ultimately pathetic bigoted tone of the whole thing, it doesn't even resemble an encyclopedia article -- an entire section on diseases, with each disease having its own sub-head? Come on! The pamphleteers from Westboro Baptist Church could do better --AppalledBystander 07:19, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm with you, AppalledBystander. Bigotry makes the baby Jesus cry.-AmesGyo! 20:50, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
As a homosexual, I am not the least bit surprised. I am however, glad to learn that I am a promiscuous disease-bag. I don't know what I would have done if Conservative hadn't pointed that out; I could have inadvertently destabilized the very fabric of society. --TrueGrit 00:28, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

HAHA! I'm glad you can laugh at this article, because its bigotry truly is horrifying.-AmesGyo! 00:31, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

"The pamphleteers from Westboro Baptist Church could do better"

That's just pathetic. hahahaha. And homosexuality hasn't been considered a disease by the American Psychiatric Association since 1976.

Which just PROVES they've been taken over by the Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy fnord! --Gulik3 07:58, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Panel Submission

This article has been submitted to the Panel. You can view my reasons for this action here, but the main one is, I do not want to engage in another week-long talk page debate. Instead, both sides can benefit from a "neutral" perspective-AmesGyo! 10:49, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

What ... ?

The head of the article reads, "Homosexuality is condemned by the Bible as explained below." Huh? That's it? Homosexuality is just some thing condemned by the Bible? Did homosexuality not exist before Leviticus was written? Does homosexuality not exist among nations that are not bound to the Mosaic Law?

I'm sure we can do better than this. Remember your grade school writing classes? Introductory paragraphs, topic sentences, the 5 Ws (as applicable), those kinds of things? The article should define homosexuality, mention its prevalence, and make a brief statement on why it's notable -- before launching into homosexuality in ancient world legal codes.

On the other hand, maybe we can just turn every Conservapedia article into a simple thumbs-up/thumbs-down review on what the Bible thinks of things. That would be easier than writing a trustworthy encyclopedia.--All Fish Welcome 04:27, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Unnatural sex and homosexuality

The following material helps shows that the Apostle Paul was correct when he said that homosexuality is unnatural. In short, humans were not made to engage in various types of homosexual sex. Also, I think the material may be able to save lives as seen by the credible sources (CDC, International Journal of STD and AIDS, etc. ).

According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) from 1994 to 1997 the proportion of homosexuals stating they had an*l sex increased from 57.6 percent to 61.2 percent. [3] Some studies report that an*l sex may be an important risk factor for the relay of many diseases. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

I think the "An*l Sex & Disease" part of the article may violate commandment 3, especially since we can't have anus or sex-related articles. Just a thought. --Hojimachongtalk 23:41, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't think having an article about "sex" is unencyclopedic or necessarily vile. I cite the following article on "sex" from the Encyclopedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109533/sex Conservative 23:45, 20 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
Do you think you could put together a short mash-up article at sex? I know Andy wants a very conservative view of the topic, and of all people, you definitely wouldn't include innuendo or vile content. --Hojimachongtalk 23:48, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Also, I do think the "an*l sex and disease" info may save lives as can be seen by the sources I gave (CDC, etc.). I don't have much interest in writing a "sex" article. Conservative 23:54, 20 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Would this rule allow the contraception information back, since it is calculated to save lives, and is not "vile" per se?-AmesGyo! 00:00, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

The only biblical reference to a contraceptive act is negative one. :) Conservative 00:03, 21 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

...and?-AmesGyo! 00:03, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Here is that act of contraception in the Bible: Genesis 38:8-10 Conservative 00:04, 21 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

That quote is specious - Onan seems to have been punished for disobeying the Lord, not specifically "wasting his seed." Presumably, another act that involved disobeying the Lord - like saying "no" to him - would have garnered the same punishment. So the quote is specious. And the remaining ones just say, "Kids are good," which may be granted without requiring that one be having children all the time. So the entire Biblical argument from that page is specious! But aside from that, your argument doesn't seem to answer my question.-AmesGyo! 00:06, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Protests against the Bible's point of view

Gay rights activists and their ilk habitually challenge the Bible's injunctions against homosexuality, using a spectacular array of verbal shenanigans.

I only have time for one before dinner: the notion that homosexual "attraction" is the moral equivalent of normal romance. Well, it's not. It's a sick combination of lust and loneliness. You can see it in their faces, as they stroll down a street in Manhattan or Provincetown (Cape Cod)|Provincetown.

They are desperate to receive the kind of parental love their opposite sex parent never gave them but paradoxically seek it in a same-sex peer. God set things up so that children should be raised by two parents (a man and a woman), because we need both kinds of love (paternal and maternal) to grow and develop. The worst thing about being an orphan is that no one cares for you. Why all the modern fondness for novels or fairy tales in which the orphan finally finds true love?

We are "Looking For Love In All the Wrong Places", as song goes:

You need understanding
You need a home
All those people so alone
You're looking for love
In all the wrong places [9]

People who are desperate for love will do anything to get it: lie, cheat, steal, even kill. --Ed Poor 20:29, 22 April 2007 (EDT)


Really. You know, that's very strange, given that I have two loving, caring parents, who have raised not only me but two other well-adjusted children. They're each straight, I'm bisexual. I'm not an orphan, I'm not uncared-for, and I don't seem to be 'desperate'.--M 07:49, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
Ed, your insult to the parents of gay children is noted. For the record, I know quite a few homosexuals, including male/male, female/female couples who have lived happily together for many years, and they seem no more "desperate for love" than any other set of human beings. And I've not noted that any of them, lesbians or gaymen, have any less loving parents than heterosexuals do. --PF Fox 14
10, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

M - you're making the grave error of not being a stereotype.--Britinme 14:05, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Definition

Why is homosexuality defined as "sexual activity," while both heterosexuality and bisexuality are explained as sexual orientations (sexual attraction)? This seems a bit off. Ylmw21 23:28, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, good point. It is partly my fault. I'd like to fix it, but I'm not sure yet about the controversies that have preceded me. RSchlafly 00:25, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
The dictionaries I checked when you made that change all seem to have orientation/attraction as the first definition. Some include activity (without really defining it) as a secondary definition. I guess a question to help identify what "it" is could be "is it possible to be celibate and homosexual?" If it is (or to be homosexual before the first activity), then homosexuality is obviously more than just sex. Noting that one of the references in the article says that only around 60% have ever had an*l sex. It's unclear whether that study was only looking at males at that point. --Scott 06:22, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

I know two male homosexuals and half a dozen female homosexuals well enough to have an opinion on this question. One of the men is a retired RC priest, and was conscious of his orientation from very early in his life. The other man was active but is now celibate. He was also aware of his orientation before he had any sexual encounters. The women have mainly tried to be heterosexual - two even marrying and having children - before recognizing their sexual orientation. These women were all in long-term partnerships as three couples, one in the UK and two in the US. There are obvious physical reasons why it is easier for a woman to function heterosexually despite a homosexual orientation, but I do know from discussions that there are men who are able to function sexually with women and have tried to overcome their innate orientation because of social pressures but have failed. So to me it is fairly clear that it is primarily a matter of orientation. It is also invidious to make 'anal intercourse' the standard of homosexual activity, when studies seem to indicate that it is not that unusual as a heterosexual activity, that many homosexual men do not engage in it, and that obviously no homosexual women do.--Britinme 11:05, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

I inserted a comment that some people regard homosexuality as an orientation, and some text distinguishing males from females. I haven't followed all the controversy here, so let me know what you think. RSchlafly 14:45, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I think it's awful. I'd like to supply a dissenting opinion for this "article." Would you include my dissent, were I to write it? -AmesGyo! 15:00, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Are you saying my edits are awful? If so, why? RSchlafly 15:05, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I am. They're biased, one-sided, and clearly written to serve only your agenda. Will you let me bring some degree of balance?-AmesGyo! 15:11, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

It is not up to me. Supposedly there is some sort of Panel that likes the page the way it is. I don't know why. But if you have factual errors, please let me know and I'll try to correct them. RSchlafly 15:34, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

You seem to have no problem inserting new text, and there is no Panel judgment on this article. If I ask you to insert new material that I write, will you?-AmesGyo! 15:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Homsexuality has not been eliminated as a mental illness by the APA; it was downgraded to "sexual orientation disturbance" (Mayes, R. & Horwitz, AV. (2005) DSM-III and the revolution in the classification of mental illness,J Hist Behav Sci 41(3):249-67) and defined in the DSM IV as "gender identity disorder". RobS 15:08, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
That's not really what the DSM says, RobS. Gender identity disorder is about wanting to be the opposite sex and discomfort with traditional gender roles, not being attracted to the same sex, and involves discomfort with sexual activity. From the DSM-IV entry: "The sexual activity of these individuals with same-sex partners is generally constrained by the preference that their partners neither see nor touch their genitals." Murray 15:17, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
What does this mean,
This cross-gender identification must not merely be a desire for any perceived cultural advantages of being the other sex. there must also be evidence of persistent discomfort about one’s assigned sex or a sense of inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex. RobS 15:20, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
According to DSM-IV, it means a "marked preoccupation with traditional feminine activities" for boys. Examples given include cross-dressing and playing with Barbie dolls, and wishing to be a girl. For girls, examples include a preference for contact sports and not wanting to grow breasts or menstruate. For adults, they're preoccupied with the wish to live as a member of the opposite sex. Many people with the disorder cross-dress and try to publicly pass themselves as members of the other gender. Also, the discomfort has to be accompanied by clinically significant impairment that interferes with ordinary activities - jobs, relationships, etc. Murray 15:25, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Specifically, in this medical text, who and what does cross-gender identification apply to? RobS 15:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure I know what you mean. It applies to whoever has those feelings. If you're asking about whether people with the diagnosis are gay, which seems possible from the context above, it says that of boys who are diagnosed in childhood (says no figures available for girls), ~75% are gay or bisexual as adults, the remainder are heterosexual. For those with an adult onset, they are "more likely to be sexually attracted to women" compared to those with earlier onset. Murray 15:56, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Reading the cite posted at cross-gender identification says it all. [10] Basically, if an individual is uncomoratble with their sexual orientiation, and here refering specifically to gays, they are diagnosed with gender identity disorder. The difference of opinion in the psychiatric profession (and by extension, other theraputic professions) is over treatment. Gay gene theorists try to convince the patients to accept their condition, cause they are inherently "normal" and you can't fight nature. Reparation therapists try to convince the patient his gender identity crisis originated in childhood, perhaps a lack of bonding with the same sex parent, and an over-identification with the opposite sex. They attempt to "restore" the gender identity to the gender the patient was born with. A middle group of therapists do not subscribe to gay gene theory, but like the gay gene theorists, try to persuade the patient homosexuality is normal and natural, and the patients problems are all in his imagination. And the official position of the APA is, if the homosexual is comfortable being gay, he has no psychiatric disorder, although Reparation therapists generally dissent from this concensus. RobS 16:18, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
I have read it, it's an online version of the DSM entry. There are a couple of key points that I disagree with in your post above. First, it's not necessarily true that people are diagnosed if they're uncomfortable with their sexual orientation. Some are, but they're being misdiagnosed if they don't meet the criteria - the criteria are about much more than sexuality. I'm not questioning that it happens, but the implication that it always happens. I agree that there's a difference of professional opinion regarding treatment - what I disagree with is what I see as the implication that it's a relatively even split. It's not. NARTH and those who see this as they do are decidedly in the minority. Murray 16:26, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
If they meet the criteria, they are presumably being diagnosed, at least among gay gene theorists and those who reject Reparation therapy. This diagnosis cannot apply to any other condition, other than homosexuality. The whole key is whether or not the patient has a "persistent discomfort". IOW, if he's comfortable being gay, the APA concensus does not recognize a disorder. The APA however, is not totalitiarian, and allows for dissent from the concensus. Reparation therapists still practice under the same license and qualifications. So the disagreement, among professionals, is over treatment. This is not unique. It occurs in every speciallty, and often over any diagnosis. RobS 16:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Maybe we're talking at cross-purposes here. Agreed that if they meet the criteria they are likely being diagnosed. My point is simply that this is not another name for homosexuality. Most gay people never met criteria, and some who did are heterosexual. Murray 17:06, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
One more point that's worth noting (not saying that you imply otherwise) is that to the extent GID refers to gay people, the focus has shifted. When homosexuality was listed as a disorder, it didn't matter how the person felt about his/her orientation. GIDC is only diagnosed if it induces clinically significant distress. Murray 17:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
All true. Only homosexuals get diagnosed with GID, because homosexuality is nolonger a diagnosis. Like homosexuality when it was a disorder, it didn't matter if the person acted upon their homosexual desires or not. Both latent and active homosexuality were considered to be disorders. The only difference between this diagnosis and the one prior to 1973 is, whether the patient has "persistent discomfort" with his disorder. And of course prior to 1973, homosexual acts were illegal, so many who recieved the diagnosis were refered by Courts and correctional faciltities, i.e. their diagnosis was involuntary. This diagnosis requires a voluntary committment to seek treatment on the part of the afflicted party. The very act of seeking treatment is a symptom of "persistent discomfort", which was absent in the diagnosis prior to 1973.
Once diagnosed now, gay gene theorists use a lack of scientific data to persuade the patient he is normal. Others who reject Reparation therapy have no valid science to stand on, other than convincing a diagnosed patient his affliction is imaginary. This essentially is where the theraputic community is at today. RobS 17:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
RobS, I have a feeling that you may be confusing the concepts of "Sexual Orientation" and "Gender Identity". A person's sexual orientation and their gender identity are separate elements of the human psyche. Sexual Orientation deals strictly with the gender that a person is sexually attracted to. Gender Identity deals strictly with the gender that a person considers onself to be. Gender idendity disorder, while a very real mental illnes, does not deal with sexual orientation whatsoever. For example: let's say that "Jim" is a biologically male heterosexual. He is a man who is attracted to women. BUT, he considers himself, mentally, to be female. Let's assume that Jim goes through SRS and becomes a woman, Jenny. Jenny's sexual orientation has not changed: Jenny is still attracted to women, just like when Jenny was Jim. This kind of scenario DOES occur with some regularity. Orientation and identity are not always correlated.--Porthos 18:08, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

"An*l Sex and Disease"

I am requesting the removal of the An*l Sex and Disease portion of this article, as it certainly breaks commandment 3; it talks about an*l sex, which is certainly not family-friendly. --Hojimachongtalk 20:26, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

You make a good point, but why not delete the whole article for the same reason? RSchlafly 20:50, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Because this article is too important to Andy for explaining this terrible abomination; apprently, the commandments can be "selectively broken". --Hojimachongtalk 20:55, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Section removed as requested. --Ed Poor 21:05, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, Ed! --Hojimachongtalk 21:18, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Homosexuality vs creationism stuff

"Furthermore, creationists assert that human homosexuality is not genetic in origin." So if it's not genetic then it's gods will? It seems like this section is just another attempt to undermine any evolution talk. I'd suggest to remove it as it's really unnecessary. Jrssr5 14:05, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree. The link isn't even any good. RSchlafly 14:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Promiscuity and Disease

Could we not include references that are ten to twenty years old? Czolgolz 09:23, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

What's so great about recent references? --Ed Poor 09:36, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
Well, a lot has changed in twenty years. Stable, monogamous homosexual relationships are more widely accepted, and more supported by family/friends/society. Homosexuals are less likely to be rejected outright by family and friends, even if the family and friends disapprove of homosexuality. Gay individuals and couples may be more welcome at extended family gatherings, in some churches, in more job sites, and so on. People with more stable, family-centered lives are less likely to be promiscuous. Thus it is fair to assume that studies that are twenty years old may not be accurate today. --Hsmom 18:53, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
That isn't correct. The idea that the unhappiness of homosexuals is chiefly due to social disapproval of homosexuality is absurd. It's just the opposite. It's a sin because it makes people unhappy. (God only forbids bad stuff, not good stuff. :-) --Ed Poor 22:23, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Ed Poor, I think you read more into my point than I intended. When asked why studies that are twenty years old might not be applicable to today, I was simply saying that one factor bound to make anyone more unhappy (being shunned by family, friends, employers, etc.) has, to some extent, for some gay people, been lessened over the past twenty years. How much effect that has I don't know - thus the need for current studies and the skepticism of the older study results being still accurate today.--Hsmom 09:45, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
That's a terribly sweeping statement Ed. The homosexuals I know who are in long-term stable relationships aren't at all unhappy. --Britinme 22:42, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm with Britinme, that's a pretty bad statement and I can point to many people I know who are happy in their situation. Jrssr5 07:58, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
Is either of you a social scientist? If not, then perhaps you can point to some studies. --Ed Poor 22:00, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
Google happiness and homosexuality. There are too many studies to list. Oh, and the article on the physical carnal activity that both heterosexuals and homosexuals engage in(which I can't name or the spam filters will block me) is still there, even though Ed said he'd remove it. --Spongefile

Boxquotes

Why are box quotes only used on the one quote? I'd suggest making all the quotes the same (preferably w/o the box as it looks tacky) Jrssr5 07:58, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Can someone fix this or reply? Jrssr5 12:34, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Leviticus 11:7

Since early March we've heard this argument on a number of pages, a sampling,

  • eating shelled creature from the water is an Abomination unto God on par with homosexuality, as told in the Book of Leviticus.[11]
  • ever eaten a pork chop or any shellfish? (Leviticus 11:7) [12]
    Category:Abominations lists four entries, Homosexuality, Occult, Pig, and Shellfish.

As these series of posters have clearly articulated now, God placed homosexuality on a par with eating shellfish. Hence, by this reasoning, God likewise places bestiality on a par with homosexuality & eating shellfish, since we are at liberty to ignore God's Law as expressed in Leviticus 18 & 20.

Absent a response from any of these sockpuppets & others who continue this line of argument and reasoning, I propose their edits be reverted, and the users blocked on sight. RobS 14:44, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I think that would be inappropriate. Dpbsmith 15:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm missing the point of this post. Could you clarify what you're objecting to? Is it that they're using bible quotes to poke holes in the argument, that they repeatedly ask the same question w/o getting an answer, or something else? While I don't agree that any of those things are evil, I do find it curious that people can find homosexuality so vile and anti-Christian because it's in the bible, but then choose to ignore other passages. And I'm being serious in my questions, I don't understand the logic, maybe you or someone else can explain. Jrssr5 15:10, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
Without getting into a discussion of discernment, it is patently obvious the reasoning is God's law was made to be broken. Here is the logic of a now self-retired editor whose comment incidentally was deleted as an uncivil personal attack:
  • "That old chestnut! [redacted], ever eaten a pork chop or any shellfish? (Leviticus 11:7) Ever shaved? (Leviticus 19:27) Ever had a female teacher? (I Timothy 2:12) Ever given or received a loan with interest? (Deuteronomy 23:19) Ever worn clothes with more than one fiber? (Leviticus 19:19) If you care any less about any of these rules than you do about the supposed rule against homosexuality, then by your own volition, you are supremely arrogant in thinking you can pick and chooses amongst God's laws, good luck with that whole getting in to Heaven thing, you'll need it.}} [redacted]
The first example dated 14 March by the blocked User:Christ states clearly the line of argument and reasoning. A citation was requested at Talk:Shellfish and later provided. This demonstrates a group of users with a pro-homosexual agenda who have been trolling this site for two months. Unless we hear some arguments fairly quickly, as to why discernment needs to be exercised regarding sex with animals, but need not be exercised regarding homosexuality or eating shellfish, I am proposing other Sysops need not waste anymore time granting good faith to anyone who pursues this logic or reasoning to support a homosexual activist agenda against God's word. RobS 15:30, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
I addressed that briefly in my above comment. How come you can chose to follow certain passages in the bible (homosexuality = bad) but not others (shellfish = bad good). I would imagine it's either an all or nothing type deal for many bible literalists, not a pick-and-choose type arrangement. Jrssr5 15:34, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
Both Christians [13] and Jews [14][15] are commanded to exercise discernment. RobS 17:20, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
The analogy with animals is a bad one, as it would be if it were with children. Neither can give informed consent and thus any sexual activity with them is a form of rape. I have yet to read a good argument that explains why discernment about sexual activity is somehow different to discernment about the other abominations in Leviticus, or indeed where Jesus distinguished homosexuality from other elements of this 'law'.--Britinme 21:26, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
A shellfish can't give consent to be eaten, either. This argument, that the Word of God can be ignored because (a) God didn't mean it, and (b) everybody does it, is so ludicrous, it could be used to justify murder, as well. RobS 21:46, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
Please point out where it says in the Bible that man requires consent from animals or plants to eat them. And while you're at it, please point out where it says you can distinguish between the forbidden activities of eating shellfish and pork and the forbidden activity of having sex with somebody of the same gender, and why 'discernment' should be differently applied to these activities. Oh, and I think you'll find 'murder' is far more widely condemned in the Bible than homosexuality, including by Jesus, and yet Christians have not found it problematic to commit murder under certain well-defined circumstances. --Britinme 21:55, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
Genesis 1:28-29 says God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it! Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every creature that moves on the ground.” Then God said, “I now give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the entire earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.”
So I guess we don't have to ask the fish before we fillet it, or the cow before we butcher it. But you probably feel grateful, all the same. I know *I* do. :-) --Ed Poor 21:59, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

(<--)Britinme, Please review the initial basis of this line of argument.

  • eating shelled creature from the water is an Abomination unto God on par with homosexuality, as told in the Book of Leviticus RobS 22:02, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
I have reviewed it Rob, and it still makes no sense to me. In those same chapters it tells us that it is an abomination to lie with a woman when she has her period, and that a woman having her period must keep herself apart for seven days. It doesn't single out homosexual acts from among a large number of other acts. Jesus said nothing about homosexual acts, but he said a great deal about love. The homosexual people I know who are in long-term stable partnerships - some of whom are in civil unions and would be married if the law permitted it - love each other in every bit as meaningful a way as my husband and I love each other. To me, the important factors in a partnership or a marriage are about love and relationship. --Britinme 23:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
No matter how many times you mention your personal opinion or your own few acquaintances, it will have no effect on whether your views should go into the article. We are interested in religious and scientific viewpoints on homosexuality, not personal opinion or speculation. --Ed Poor 23:11, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
But what you've been presenting here all along is your personal religious opinion, not to mention your own personal experiences with what you think you've seen in the 'looks' of homosexuals on the street. What's the difference between your personal religious viewpoint, and Britinme's personal religious viewpoint, as well as the experiences that have influenced her? What gives you greater religious authority, or ability to analyze your own experiences, than anyone else on this page? This may be why this particular Conservapedia entry simply comes off as unprofessional, uneducated, biased propaganda. --Spongefile
I don't recall asking that my personal viewpoints should go into the article. I am well aware that this encyclopedia does not represent my views on the subject. I am merely taking part in a discussion on a talk page, where as far as I know thought is free. Rob asked me to consider the argument, and I have considered it. I have put forward an argument about the words of Leviticus regarding homosexual acts in the context of other acts proscribed by Leviticus. You of course are perfectly at liberty to ignore anything I say.--Britinme 23:21, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
Britinme, ok equating homosexuality to shellfish eating as both being abominations, why stop there?
  • Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. [16]
What's condemned in stronger language, abomination or confusion?
Atheists have a stronger argument than these editors. They simply reject God's commandments outright. These editors are claiming they lack the powers of discernment to understand what God is saying. And while I do not doubt some actually believe same sex relationships, in God's eyes, are no different than eating pork or wearing a garment with two different threads, others are simply mocking these commands. Either way, its both trolling. RobS 23:25, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
I think there are many people who would regard homosexual relationships as indifferently as the eating of shellfish. What upsets a lot of people is the quoting of 'Leviticus' to justify discrimination against homosexuals when the people doing that are exercising their own powers of discrimination in favour of a shrimp supper and polycotton shirts, and probably don't worry too much about having sex during menstruation. There are solid genetic reasons against incest (a long list of varieties of that in Leviticus). There are issues of informed consent in the case of animals. Leviticus doesn't even mention sex with children though I doubt the age of consent had been formulated at that time, but the informed consent issue is central there. There were hygiene reasons for many of the food commands that don't exist now. I don't see that homosexuality can be sensibly singled out of that lot in the context of a relationship that would be a marriage if the law permitted it. It's a poor argument. --Britinme 23:37, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
This is turning into a debate. Should we move the thread to Debate topics? --Ed Poor 23:43, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
So the argument is hypocrisy is bad, therefore we can justify perverting God's Word to say something it doesn't (or ignore what it does say). As to incest, God does not have to justify himself to man. Informed consent of animals? Yes, they cannot give informed consent to have sex with people, and neither do they give informed consent to be sacrificed. As to pedophilia, I think there are various commands that can be interpreted that way (woman who has reached the flower of her age, etc.) The point of all of this still is, Jews and Christians alike are commanded to exercise discernment. While some Jews may reject Paul's assertion the Law was given as our schoolmarm, they then fall back under the Law.
The first case on Appeal before Moses was regarding undertakers who had to remove the deceased and then remain outside the camp during Passover by reason of their uncleanness, and the whole congregation was commanded to keep the Passover. No one ever said the Law was perfect, and yes, God did put in provisions for man to interpret the Law. And the interpretation is called exercising judgment, knowing good and evil. The argument that God himself didn't understand the burdens he was placing on man by requiring him to fulfill all the Law, or God didn't really mean any of it, or God was just being arbitrary in some instances, won't wash. So the only fall back argument is one cannot discern between the eating of a plate of shrimp and having a homosexual relationship. It all depends what "is" is, it's all relative, shades of grey, there is no right and wrong and who are we to decide? Well, none of this is Godly, and all of it is no different than the atheist view, so let's cut out the charade. It's just mocking. RobS 00:04, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
I intended no mockery and I'm sorry if you saw it that way. I do not believe that the Bible should be taken literally. The Bible has been quoted in the past to claim that kings rule by divine right, that the earth is the center of the universe and that the sun rotates around it, that social institutions such as slavery, segregation and apartheid are legitimate and moral, and that women must be kept in second class positions. The Bible is no longer used to justify the oppression of slaves or people of other races, or women, and I believe in the future will also lose the debate over homosexuality. --Britinme 00:23, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
No not you, sorry, I was referring to various trolls unable to discuss or defend this position we are discussing. Let's discuss slavery momentarily. It has existed since ancient times, and for a reason. Only in recent times have prisons been built to hold various offenders, nonetheless, the human race has always suffered from chronic petty repeat offenders and prodigals unable or unwilling to provide for themselves. Slavery, as an institution, largely originated this way. Rather than lock up chronic shoplifters, alcoholics, prostitutes, debtors, and people who just couldn't provide dinner for themselves, these people either sold themselves to pay their debts, or were sold by the townsfolk to the highest bidder to who ever had the patience to deal with such a one. The common misnotion, that slavery was instituted by a bunch of mean oppressors to victimize helpless innocents really is quite mistaken. It very much originally was what we today would call a "social program" designed to fix "social problems". RobS 00:33, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
I know this debate went on a long time after I left, but I still have questions. Rob, you said "It all depends what "is" is, it's all relative, shades of grey, there is no right and wrong and who are we to decide?" If you can't decide, who does because isn't interpreting the bible up to humans? And as Britinme pointed out, there are many previous things that were deemed evil but now are acceptable, so why can't homosexuality become one? Jrssr5 16:34, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
The Nazi's deemed murder acceptable; "who are we to judge" them, then? RobS 20:07, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
You're going to equate homosexuality to murder??? Murder is explicitly forbidden in the 10 commandments, homosexuality is vaguely referred to in Leviticus ... seems light years apart to me. Jrssr5 08:30, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
I agree with Jrssr5 here. Two people of the same gender who love each other does not equate in any way to murder. Promiscuity is damaging to people whether they are homosexual or heterosexual, so let's leave that issue aside because it muddies the waters. I am talking about people of the same gender who wish to establish a loving life partnership of a kind that would be marriage if the law allowed it. Sexuality and sexual identity is one of the most intimate concepts a person has of him or herself. When did you 'decide' to be heterosexual? Did you in fact ever see it as a choice, or did you find the concept of sex with somebody of your own gender unattractive, even repellent? A person who is truly homosexual is likely to feel like that about sex with somebody of the opposite gender. Why should somebody like that be condemned to lifelong celibacy if they are not called to be celibate? Why should we selectively hang on to parts of Leviticus when we discern that other bits of it - those that have been used to justify social and cultural stances that are now deemed unacceptable or (as with shellfish and wearing mixed fibers) unimportant - can be viewed differently? --Britinme 10:37, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Jrssr5, bestiality is also vaguely referred to in Leviticus. So then eating shrimp & having gay sex does require discernment.
Another issue totally ignored, is premarital sex; gay sex violates two commandments, and activists who seek to "break down barriers", and "liberate people" from "traditions and the established order", by disposing of prohibitions against premarital sex, pave the way for the hapless victim who has crossed the line of God's commandments into making a second decision; once they've decided God did not mean what he said regarding sex outside marriage, then it becomes a choice of which gender to have outside of wedlock sex with. Of course, without this barrier being removed, we probably never would have heard of John Gacy, Wayne Henley, or Jeffrey Dahmer. RobS 15:14, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Are you now saying that premarital sex leads to serial killers? Please tell me I misinterpreted your comment. And you keep straying from the point of how one discerns how one thing is worse than another. Jrssr5 15:22, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
If marriage is not allowed, is it realistic to expect two consenting adults to remain celibate? They're begging to get married and you denounce them for having premarital sex, like 88% of other Americans? [17]. Bestiality, as we've already established, is a different and irrelevant issue because, like children, animals cannot consent to sex and therefore intercourse with them is morally akin to rape. And the link to serial killers (as we also established) is absurd, since murder is nowhere placed in the Bible in the same breath as eating shellfish.--Britinme 21:58, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

This should be one of our Debate topics. --Ed Poor 15:25, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't know how to do that Ed - can you explain or start it, please? Thanks.--Britinme 22:00, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Merge?

I see cpwebmaster merged this with bisexuality ... if that's going to happen, please unlock the article so it can be expanded upon and some of the content cleaned up. Thanks. Jrssr5 16:36, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Fat chance. If you want to become a sysop and be allowed to edit protected articles, go ahead and apply. There's a reason articles like this are restricted (see Conservapedia:Article protection - which I might have to write, just to explain the reason to you ;-) --Ed Poor 16:44, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

What?

The section headed " Homosexuality and Creationism and the Theory of Evolution" appears to make absolutely no sense.

Would someone like to either explain it or delete it? --Horace 01:53, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

It's just another attempt at a cheap shot at evolution. It really has nothing to do with the topic, but has been twisted to fit the YEC view. Jrssr5 12:36, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

The American Psychiatric Association finds "Reparative Therapy" is both ineffective and potentially harmful.

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html Just in case anyone thinks this would be germane to the section about this "therapy" procedure. Figure its an impartial enough statement really. If I really wanted to embarass this offensive idea I'd point you the glory of Youtube.--Rex Mundane 12:59, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

We've been over this. This may be trolling. The links you provide are not to the American Psychiatric Association. User:AmesG inserted material under precisely the same pretext. RobS 13:12, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
In fact, User:AmesG inserted these exact same links refering to the American Psychological as the Association American Psychiatric Association. RobS 13:16, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
In fact, the link is to a page the American Psychological Assocation's website that contains supporting material from several other associations, including the American Psychiatric Association. Search the page for the word "risks" to find the passage in question: "The American Psychiatric Association in its position statement on Psychiatric Treatment and Sexual Orientation states: The potential risks of "reparative therapy" are great..." Dpbsmith 16:42, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
Ah, I do beg your pardon, the American Psychological Association then. I apologize for my mistake. I didn't see this in the discussion pages, my mistake again if its already been talked about. What was the conclusion then? That the American Psychological Association's findings are invalid? Incorrect? Inconsequential?--Rex Mundane 13:20, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm not gonna redebate it. "down the rabbit hole", where did I hear that expression recently.... RobS 13:22, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm not asking you to re-debate it, friend, I'm asking, if you've already "been over this" issue, then what came of it? Why are the APA's findings not germane to the section on "reparative therapy"? Do they as a group lack the legitimacy of the three doctors quoted in that section? Such as it is the section hardly even discusses the idea of therapy at all, as all the points therein seem more at home in the "mental health" section. I would just like to 'here' the explanation is all. If the discussion's already been had, can you point me to it?--Rex Mundane 13:32, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
Here [18], et. seqq. Other pages. too. RobS 13:41, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
Ah, thank you. I hadn't thought to check for talk pages to nonexistant articles. I still think the section on this page needs work though, since the contents do not discuss therapy at all it seems.--Rex Mundane 13:56, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
I think that the link should go back in. Even if you think that Reparative Therapy is effective and helpful, it is still useful to know that the mainstream shrinks disapprove of it. RSchlafly 15:49, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
Agree... and I note that the material on reparative therapy on that page is not just the American Psychological Association's position, but is a summary of similar positions—each cited and quoted—taken by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers.
If the page were not protected, the wording I'd use is:
"Several major health and mental health professional associations have taken institutional positions that reparative therapy is ineffective and that it may pose risks to the patient."[19]
That link should include the pound-2, http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html#2 , so that it links directly to the relevant section of the APA's article.
It could be punched up by saying "six organizations" and naming them. It could be toned down by omitting "and that it may pose risks to the patient." It could be toned down more by placing the entire sentence in a footnote, rather than in the article. But it is dishonest simply to mention reparative therapy and not to hint at any controversy about it. Dpbsmith 19:25, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
I'd like to see what User:Conservative says; the merits of Reparative therapy is a dispute within the Psychiatric profession, and should be limited to that. Please read the various discussion we've had on several other pages regarding this point, as I am not going to rehash it here, now. Is User:RexMundane still among us, or has he been booted yet with the others? His user page says blocked indefinitely but the block log shows only one block on March 15. RobS 20:52, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
Obviously the page is not going to be changed substantially. But I agree with Dpbsmith that to not mention the controversy is dishonest, particularly as, as noted above, the 2 major professional organizations that are relevant to psychotherapy have taken the position that it's a bad thing. Murray 20:56, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
Before commenting further, please reread all the discussions we've had on this point. Only the dispute within the American Psychiatric Association can be cited. Does anyone have any proposed language for inclusion characterizing and citing the dispute within the American Psychiatric Association on this issue? RobS 21:00, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
That's kind of silly, but fine. Dbpsmith suggested some language above. It seems acceptable (not that I'm happy with it of course but I realize the language isn't going to change to the point I think it should) to simply have a sentence stating that APA has stated the therapy is ineffective and potentially harmful, with a link to their statement (Dpbsmith also gives the link above). Murray 21:05, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
That is not the link; it is a link to American Psychological Association, not American Psychiatric Association. Yes, here comes the hard part. Now somebody has to do the real work and get a cite other than American Psychological Association. RobS 21:27, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Here you go http://www.psych.org/pnews/99-01-15/therapy.html Murray 21:33, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Close. That is a press release. I doesn't give us the language of their position statement. RobS 21:53, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Sigh. http://www.psych.org/psych_pract/copptherapyaddendum83100.cfm Murray 22:00, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

<--Very good. Very interesting read. Although it says, It "augments rather than replaces the 1998 statement", we can probably craft something from this cite, unless someone wants to dig out the official 1998 statement as well. RobS 23:05, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Actually I believe that the 1998 position statement appears at the bottom of the page, underneath the references. Murray 11:04, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
Good. Everything we need appears to be right there. RobS 14:55, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm pleased that consensus has been reached. Dpbsmith 15:03, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
You want to propose some language? We really only need a sentence or two, but for all those who have followed this debate now for the past month, discussing which sentence or two should be extremely enlightening. RobS 16:38, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Proposed new language

(Added after Ed's remark below) Dpbsmith 06:00, 21 May 2007 (EDT) The essence of what needs to be in the article is what Rschlafly phrased as "the mainstream shrinks disapprove of it." Using the mainstream shrinks' own wording, I'd suggest:

The American Psychiatric Association takes a formal institutional position opposing reparative therapy, stating in 1998 that "there is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of reparative therapy as a treatment to change ones sexual orientation" and recommending in 2000 that "ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals' sexual orientation"[13]

The footnote adds the detail that other associations of mental health professionals take similar positions, which you disagree with, but in my reading of earlier discussions I didn't see any indication of consensus that the other organizations are irrelevant. What I saw was consensus to focus on the American Psychiatric Association. My impression is that it is mostly clinical psychologists and social workers that do talk therapy these days, and that psychiatrists are mostly involved in therapies requiring prescription drugs, so I'd think the opposition of the other organizations is relevant enough to warrant a link in a footnote. Dpbsmith 05:42, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

When a person or organization issues a "finding", this can be political, i.e., an opinion based on interest. The difference between politics and science is that the latter ought to be based on facts. This has never been easy to accomplish (see Politicization of science). --Ed Poor 05:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
Well, I was trying to capture the essence of RSchlafly's wording, i.e. "the mainstream shrinks disapprove of it."
while using the mainstream shrinks' own wording and including a reference from which readers can judge whether the text is a fair summary, and the extent to which their disapproval is based on science and the degree to which it is based on ideology.
I personally would have no real problem with "The mainstream shrinks disapprove of it," if supported by the same references!
You could weaken the statement by adding that their opposition seems to be largely rooted in their position that homosexuality is not a mental illness, I suppose. Dpbsmith 06:02, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Does this encyclopedia have a good working definition of "mental illness"? If not, any attempt to determine whether a determination to engage in a sinful practice is a sign of mental illness is doomed to failure.

Sorry to butt in on this interesting discussion, but it strikes me that if determination to engage in a sinful practice is a sign of mental illness, then all criminals are by definition mentally ill.--Britinme 10:23, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I was younger than most boys when I realized that many arguments fail to be resolved because we can't agree on the definition of terms. Maybe that's why I was drawn to math and physics. Everything is defined so clearly, and you can PROVE that your answer is correct.

Digressing a bit further - is mental illness something wrong with the brain itself, i.e., the physical organ of the body said to be the seat of thought, emotion and will? Or is there such thing as a human soul, an aspect of consciousness which transcends death? The love song from "Titanic" was immensely popular because it weaved together two themes: love and eternal life ("My Heart Will Go On").

If there is an eternal soul, a supernatural essence or as Saint Paul put it "a spiritual body" then the methodological naturalism of modern science comes to a limit. (It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. I Corinthians 15:44)

This (no pun intended) opens up the door to the possibility that homosexuality is indeed an illness, if sin can be said to be unhealthy. However, medical science does not have an ideal of human health which encompasses one's spiritual life. Indeed, it is crippled by its materialistic perspective, which is why there is so much interest in holistic medicine which includes a spiritual perspective.

Now, it may seem like I'm going all over the map on this, and that I should simply "stick to the subject". But my point is that a narrow analysis of homosexuality is predicated on materialistic assumptions which have no basis in fact - they certainly haven't been proven, in any case. Decisions to classify something as an ailment or "disorder" are entirely subjective, and subjective assessments are notoriously prone to be influenced by politics. It was not so long ago (less than 150 years) that Ignaz Semmelweis was persecuted for postulating an "invisible substance" which caused human death. Other doctors would not even try to replicate his findings, as his idea was so blatantly "unscientific". --Ed Poor 06:25, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Do you think there's a need to capture that succinctly somehow within the statement
The American Psychiatric Association takes a formal institutional position opposing reparative therapy, stating in 1998 that "there is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of reparative therapy as a treatment to change ones sexual orientation" and recommending in 2000 that "ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals' sexual orientation"?
I would have thought that it's implicit in any statement of the form "in year X association Y took formal institutional position Z."
One way to weaken it would be to remove the first phrase and confine it to
The American Psychiatric Association takes a formal institutional position opposing reparative therapy, and recommended in 2000 that "ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals' sexual orientation."
Is that better?
Similarly, one could probably find a statement that in the year 1700-thus-and-such, so-and-so medical society endorsed the efficacy of bleeding. Dpbsmith 06:57, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Either way is fine. The point is to avoid endorsing the "finding". Not every legal opinion is a fact. And not every scientific pronouncement is a fact. That's why in law their are superior and supreme courts which settle issues. But in science, there are no courts.

Science is a process which takes time. Years at least, and often decades. The idea that the "latest study" is the one we should listen to is sheer journalistic laziness - or more likely a willful choice to ignore the need for Replication of results. It's not science, until lots of other scientists go through the same data and get the same results. Until then, it's a worthy speculation.

We really need an article on Scientific methodology.

To make it worse, Psychology isn't a hard science. What goes on in the mind is (1) subject to distortion and deception by people reporting their mental state and (2) subject to the controversy over whether the brain is "all there is". --Ed Poor 07:49, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I like The American Psychiatric Association takes a formal institutional position opposing reparative therapy, stating in 1998 that "there is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of reparative therapy as a treatment to change ones sexual orientation" and recommending in 2000 that "ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals' sexual orientation". It doesn't endorse this view, it simply states that it's what the APA says, and it gives their basic reasoning and their recommendation. Students using this article as a starting point for an assignment are made aware of the controversy in a factual way; they can then decide whether to research it further based on the requirements of their assignment.--Hsmom 08:46, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
Too true Ed, I don't think even sane people know what goes on inside their own heads, so how someone can get inside another person's head, which can only done through a process of self-knowing (phsycobabble) by the psychologist, but if they can't know completely what goes on inside their own head then it only results in total confusion. BrianCo 08:47, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
I agree with citing the APA position, but Hsmom's proposal implies that its position is grounded in scientific considerations. It is not. The APA does not reject therapies just because of a lack of scientific evidence for efficacy. I suggest this:
The APA says that it opposes reparative therapy because (1) it is influenced by those opposed to the gay rights agenda; (2) there is no proof that the therapy works, and just anecdotal reports of cures and psychological harm; and (3) it stigmatizes homosexuality. The APA favors more research on the benefits and risks of reparative therapy. [[20]] RSchlafly 13:01, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
Just to clarify - In my comments above I was actually repeating Dpbsmith's proposal - he had come up with two (see above) and I was explaining which of the two I preferred. BTW, RSchlafly, I think the language in your proposal is a little confusing - it's hard to see whether it means that the APA themselves are saying that they are influenced by those opposed etc., or if the article is saying the APA is influenced by those opposed, etc. Do you see what I mean? It can be read either way. Putting aside concerns about content for the moment, can you tweak your language to make it clearer who is saying what? --Hsmom 14:38, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

<--Dpbsmith & RSchlafly seem to understand the issue, and I think we three can get on the same page. As the statement says,

In the current social climate, claiming homosexuality is a mental disorder stems from efforts to discredit the growing social acceptance of homosexuality as a normal variant of human sexuality. Consequently, the issue of changing sexual orientation has become highly politicized.

What this essentially means in layman's terms is, the APA got tired of society & the legal system dumping all thier problems on the them, and the APA does not have the answe, or solution, to all of society's mental and moral problems. They washed their hands of the issue. Clearly this position statement says the APA's position is societal & politically motivated, and based upon, in their words "a lack of scientific evidence". The statement does not say Reparative Therapy has been scientifically proven to be ineffective, it only cites non-scientific, anecdotal evidence.

Thus, whatever we agree on, it should be prefaced with "the issue of changing sexual orientation has become highly politicized" therefore the APA takes a formal institutional position opposing reparative therapy, stating in 1998 that "there is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of reparative therapy as a treatment to change ones sexual orientation" because (1) it is influenced by those opposed to the gay rights agenda; (2) there is no definitive proof that it works, only offsetting anecdotal reports of cures or psychological harm; and (3) it stigmatizes homosexuality. The APA favors more research on the benefits and risks of reparative therapy. (or something to that effect). RobS 14:59, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I followed the link at the bottom of the Dr. Nicolosi argues... paragraph. I think this excerpt is pretty telling re. the kind of logic you're up against, Dpbsmith & Hsmom:

Part of the gay agenda is to promote the idea that there is scientific evidence that proves sexual orientation is genetically predetermined. Why would this be important? If your genes determine homosexuality, then your sexual orientation is determined when you are born. This removes personal accountability but, more importantly, makes God’s Word a mockery. After all, how could homosexuality be a sin if you are born that way? If God said that having freckles were a sin, how could you repent and change your skin type? You couldn’t. As history has shown, true science proves God’s Word. Clearly the “science” that promotes the lies of the Adversary is “junk science.”

You couldn't make this stuff up. Good luck... --Robledo 15:26, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Regardless of his reasoning, he is correct that scientific evidence does not prove that sexual orientation is genetically predetermined. RSchlafly 15:57, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Indeed. The wider point, of course, is that if a genetic mechanism were to be described, then she (Karen) would reject it automatically as "junk science" contrary to "God's Word." That's disturbing. --Robledo 16:16, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Hypothetical, i.e. lack of scientific conclusion. RobS 16:21, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

And? It's a necessary consequence of her reasoning, and one that disturbs me. --Robledo 16:38, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm OK with RSchlafly's proposed wording above, which I'm going to repeat just for clarity.

The APA says that it opposes reparative therapy because (1) it is influenced by those opposed to the gay rights agenda; (2) there is no proof that the therapy works, and just anecdotal reports of cures and psychological harm; and (3) it stigmatizes homosexuality. The APA favors more research on the benefits and risks of reparative therapy. [[21]]
I think it would be better to spell American Psychiatric Association in full. A little tweaking might be in order to clarify who or what is being "influenced by those opposed to the gay right agenda," and, well... I hope this will be considered as a "friendly amendment:"
The American Psychiatric Association says that it opposes reparative therapy because (1) those advocating it are influenced by opposition to the gay rights agenda; (2) there is no proof that the therapy works; reports of cures are anedotal; and there are also anecdotal reports of psychological harm; and (3) it stigmatizes homosexuality. The APA favors more research on the benefits and risks of reparative therapy. [[22]]
I'm perfectly aware of shifts in emphasis between his wording and my previous proposal, but they don't bother me.
The points that are important to me are that a) the statement clearly capture the idea that "the mainstream shrinks disapprove of it;" b) there be a reference allowing readers to find out for themselves exactly who disapproves of it and why; c) it sketch out some very brief but reasonably fair summary of the APA's objections. I think his statement does all these. Dpbsmith 16:40, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
This is much clearer, grammatically speaking. Dpbsmith, thank you for addressing my grammar/understandability concerns in your update to RSchlafly's proposed wording. One very minor quibble - should the semicolons after works and anecdotal be commas? I'm not sure on this, but I found the semicolons jarring. (Plus I changed a minor spelling error on "anecdotal" and included the full title of the cite.) See my version below.--Hsmom 16:55, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) says that it opposes reparative therapy because (1) those advocating it are influenced by opposition to the gay rights agenda; (2) there is no proof that the therapy works, reports of cures are anecdotal, and there are also anecdotal reports of psychological harm; and (3) it stigmatizes homosexuality. The APA favors more research on the benefits and risks of reparative therapy. [14]
What's missing from this is, the APA does not disapprove based upon scientific grounds; the position statement clearly says (a) societal, (b) political, and (c) ethical -- "first do no harm". I'm am worried we give the impression there is some medical or scientific basis for APA's official statement. RobS 17:15, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
To state that there is no scientific basis for APA's position would be as false as stating that the basis is purely scientific. Murray 17:24, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
The position clearly delineates a lack of scientific data. RobS 17:25, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
Exactly. While the APA is not the foremost authority on psychotherapy (as someone noted above, the vast majority of psychiatrists don't engage in it), there is an emphasis on empirically supported therapies. In other words, something gets endorsed when there is evidence that it works. There is none in this case. Again, that is not to say that the entirety of APA's position is based on lack of evidence, but that's part of it. Murray 17:33, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
What Roger says here, The APA favors more research on the benefits and risks of reparative therapy, I don't see it in APAs text, perhaps somebody can point it out. Here's a simple revision,
  • Citing the issue has become highly politicized, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) says that it opposes reparative therapy because (1) those advocating it are influenced by opposition to the gay rights agenda; (2) there is no proof that the therapy works, reports of cures are anecdotal, and there are also anecdotal reports of psychological harm; and (3) it stigmatizes homosexuality. The APA favors more research on the benefits and risks of reparative therapy RobS 17:44, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I like this bit right at the end:

The American Psychiatric Association has already taken clear stands against discrimination, prejudice and unethical treatment on a variety of issues including discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Therefore, the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as reparative or conversion therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation.

Emphasis mine. --Robledo 17:54, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Indeed. Good luck getting anyone to care about that here. Murray 18:03, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
This is the ethical quandary the APA places practioners of Reparative Therapy in; A patient seeks help voluntarily on their own freewill (prior to 1973 many were refered by Courts & the Correctional system). A practitioner of RT, based upon a life of learning, is not allowed to diagnosis his problem, so he either must (1) deliberately misdiagnosis and find something else to fit described in the DSM IV; (2) face the ethical quandry of using an unrecommended treatment; or (3) face the ethical quandary of denying help to a patient asking for help. RobS 18:09, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I think what they're saying is that RT is anti-gay quackery. By extension, the few seeking such treatment would be best served by referral to someone who can help them become comfortable with their sexuality. --Robledo 18:26, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Not exactly, Rob. Anyone who practices it is responsible for his own ethical problems. Presumably the issue you're referring to is someone who's distressed about his sexual orientation. There is a DSM diagnosis appropriate to that, as we've discussed before, sexual disorder NOS. And there are numerous ways to treat it that would not raise any ethical concerns. Murray 18:27, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, but this is not the issue at all. In 1973, when the APA dropped the classification, the APA was overburdened with non-voluntary referrals from prisons and the judicial system. Psychiatrists were basically treating whole penal institutions--they could not keep up with the work load, coupled with the same phenomena we have now--they do not understand anything about homosexuality. Since 1973, homosexuality is no longer a jailable offense, as it was into the 1980s. So today, many homosexuals voluntarily seek psychiatric treatment for what they themselves believe is a condition in need of therapy, only to be turned away and told they are untreatable. A minority of dissenters in the profession, however, are willing to treat these patients who asked to be treated. This, in outline, is the controversy within the profession. RobS 20:51, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
You raised the issue, I was responding to your post. Practitioners of RT are responsible for their own ethical quandary, the APA is not. There are plenty of other options for treatment. Without the presentation of any evidence I'm not sure that I buy the claim that many gay people are being told they are untreatable - if true, that is a potential ethical issue, depending on how it is phrased (ie, I won't treat you vs. I won't provide a treatment that will make you straight). Are you also saying that homosexuality was de-listed in order to reduce psychiatrists' workload? Also, I don't understand who you're referring to with "they do not understand anything about homosexuality." Murray 01:03, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Re RobS's comment, "What Roger says here, The APA favors more research on the benefits and risks of reparative therapy, I don't see it in APAs text, perhaps somebody can point it out."

I can't speak for RSchlafly, but I'm assuming it's an inference from the statement (italics mine) "In the last four decades, 'reparative' therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure. Until there is such research available, APA recommends that ethical practitioners refrain..." I.e. the APA implies that it would potentially be open to a change in policy if research showed that there were circumstances under which reparative therapy was safe and effective. IDpbsmith 06:16, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

I just copied from the APA statement cited at the end of the sentence. It says: APA encourages and supports research in the NIMH and the academic research community to further determines "reparative" therapy's risks versus its benefits. [23] I am not expressing my opinion here -- just trying to get the substance of the APA position. I included that sentence because the APA seems to be acknowledging that the therapy hasn't been proven wrong, and it is possible that some similar therapy might be recommended in the future. RSchlafly 11:55, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
Oh, sorry. I guess I really should read the whole APA page (I thought I had!) I agree with your interpretation. Dpbsmith 11:58, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
Murray, "other options for treatment", as you say, implies a diagnosis for an illness, of which homosexuality is not a recognized illness. So we can assume here the treating physician must pursue Option (1) and face the ethical quandary of deliberately misdiagnosing the "illness" the patient seeks treatment for and find something else to fit a recognized psychiatric condition in the DSM IV. And we disagree regarding the ethical quandary; when a patient voluntarily requests treatment for homosexuality, the physicians response then is to tell the patient to die & rot in hell, because the APA refuses to recognize his condition and/or the treatment. If the Doctor refuses to compromise his ethics, refusing treatment can place him in an ethical quandary.
Dpbsmith & Roger, looks good.
I am beginning an Essay: Evolution of Psychiatric Medicine, which I hope sheds some light on the background issues at play, and may be useful elsewhere in other articles. RobS 12:13, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
"Deliberately misdiagnosing the illness"? As I have said repeatedly, there is a diagnosis specifically for people who are unhappy with their sexual orientation. Why you continue to label this a misdiagnosis is beyond me, as is your insistence that RT is the only treatment. If I brought my child in for treatment and asked for rebirthing therapy, I would be refused that specific treatment by nearly any therapist. Is that person being unethical too? I do appreciate the hyperbole though ("die and rot in hell"). Murray 14:25, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
Is this a reference to Gender identity disorder? RobS 16:42, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
Starting to wonder if you're being deliberately obtuse. No, it's not. See post above, beginning with "Not exactly..." Murray 22:25, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
Sorry for being obtuse. Perhaps you can give the folks viewing at home some idea what NOS is. RobS 22:33, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Sorry if I misinterpreted your intent. NOS = not otherwise specified. Most diagnostic categories include NOS diagnoses (eg, mood disorder NOS) that are used when someone doesn't meet diagnostic criteria for anything else but are experiencing significant distress. Often examples are given of patients that might receive such a diagnosis. For sexual disorder NOS, one of the examples given is a patient who has "persistent and marked distress" about his/her sexual orientation. So that would be the appropriate diagnosis. Murray 13:25, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Let's digress momentarilly; let's assume homosexuality is genetically based, i.e. organic. Wouldn't it be possible then for the Pharmacuetical industry to produce an over the counter remedy that would counter homosexual urges, to be used by voluntary patients without having a diagnosis of a mental condition? RobS 13:31, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
Maybe, maybe not. There are plenty of organic problems, genetic and otherwise, that can't be cured with meds. It would depend on the mechanism. And that's assuming that homosexuality only ever arises through one purely biological mechanism, which is extraordinarily unlikely. Murray 21:11, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Most?

From the article: Most Christians and Jews believe that the Biblical prohibition applies equally to women. I think a statement containing "most", which makes a statistical claim, needs some kind of reference. I'm not commenting pro or con on the content here, just that we need to use language carefully if we are to be scholarly. If a reference can't be found, perhaps this statement can be rephrased.--Hsmom 09:02, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

I very much doubt the statement. There are many examples of Christians and Jews expressing very strong disapproval of male homosexuality, but not having such extreme reactions to females. If the article is going to rely on the Bible, then it should stick to what the Bible actually says. I favor deleting the sentence. RSchlafly 13:10, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Target for ref markup

  1. http://healthyminds.org/glbissues.cfm
  2. http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new/pf_online?f_n=browse&doc=policyfiles/HnE/H-160.991.HTM
  3. http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html#choice
  4. http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;113/6/1827
  5. http://www.hrc.org/Content/ContentGroups/Publications1/change.pdf
  6. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_exod.htm
  7. http://www.bluegrassfairness.org/pages/TP-religion.asp
  8. http://www.bluegrassfairness.org/pages/TP-religiousfreedom.asp
  9. (Science, Vol. 262, page 2063, December 24, 1993)
  10. http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp
  11. [http://www.freetobeme.com/r_biol.htm
  12. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f97/projects97/Newman.html A report done by a student at Bryn Mawr College, but is nonetheless verifyable.
  13. Commission on Psychotherapy by Psychiatrists COPP Position Statement on Therapies Focused on Attempts to Change Sexual Orientation (Reparative or Conversion Therapies, Commission on Psychotherapy by Psychiatrists, American Psychiatric Association, 2000. "Ethical practitioners..." Page includes the APA Position Statement on Psychiatric Treatment and Sexual Orientation December 11, 1998 position" which was endorsed and augmented by the 2000 statement. Similar positions are taken by other associations of mental health professionals.
  14. American Psychiatric Association - COPP Position Statement on Therapies Focused on Attempts to Change Sexual Orientation (Reparative or Conversion Therapies), May 2000[1]

Narrow Minded Scum

Whoever wrote this is a complete and utter moron who I class lower than pond scum. A truely worthless and pathetic addition to the internet, well done on wasting space online and joining all the other low life scum sucking morons out there!

Thank you for your intelligent and constructive contribution to the debate. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 09:18, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Wow, just wow.

I'm really glad that religious nuts are falling by the wayside in our society. Hating someone because some book of fairy tales and an invisible sky man told you to do so? Someone's head needs to be examined.

Where have I seen this sort of religious hate before? Oh yeah, Iraq. It's a scary thought that people might turn to this site for credible information on this issue, because all they'd get is the equivalent of some psycho on the street with a sign saying "the end is near!"

It's okay, they'll just delete this anyway. That's how pathetic it gets.

Thank you for your intelligent and constructive contribution to the debate. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 14:32, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

This article is not conservative - its biggoted and religious

Conservatism != religious

conservatism = disposition in politics to preserve what is established - do you see religion in there anywhere?

Having the very first section of the site using biblical references to justify an argument totally invalidates any attempt at having a rational discussion. I'd be open to a fair and honest debate about homosexuality. But you can't cite the bible and call it a fair and honest debate. First off, who said the bible was the accepted fact? What about all the other religions?

if you want to cite studies and research to support your claims, great! do that! But by using the bible, you are only showing that you have no real solid support and have to fall to a topic which is basically impossible to debate. Because if you believe the bible is the word of god, then whats the point of having any discussion? And if i don't subscribe to your particular religion, it completely invalidates your argument.

And if you are going to use the bible, you can't pick and choose which sections you want to follow. So if you really want to follow the bible, i suppose that means you are advocating the death of all homosexuals since the 2nd line quoted from the bible says "they shall surely be put to death". So are you advocating the execution of all homosexuals? And are you advocating the execution of everyone else the bible says should be put to death?

You give a bad name to all conservatives with this type of article. You use conservatism as an excuse to promote hate and bigotry. And you basically shoot yourself in the foot. Because the only people who aren't going to be disgusted by this type of thing are people who already believe in it. So you've effectively helped inform zero people of anything new. Since anyone not of this view is just going to close the page and probably not bother to even come back to this site. You are practically shoving them over to wikipedia.

Order of Bible Books

I believe that the quote from Romans should be listed before the quote from Corinthians, as the former comes before the latter in the Bible. I cannot edit it myself, as I am a new user. --Philemon 20:53, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Homosexuality is an immoral sexual lifestyle between members of the same sex. It is more than simply a sexual act, it is going beyond the boundaries that God has setup for marriage; one man and one woman.

You have to be kidding me. GayMan 21:53, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Relocated comment

I wish this was a joke. That way, one could have laughed it of. I was on the page about homosexuality, and it is just filled with hatred and aversion. People, being conservative and/ or christian is something one should respect, and the points of view you have, is also to be respected. But is it so hard to give a little bit respect back to the rest of the world, in this case to homosexuals? I have seen people kill themselves, because they weren't respected, the way they respected anyone else. And even if you could care less about homosexuals, think about the family and friends of those people! They have feelings to, you know. I could even appreciate a conservative and/ or christian point of view, it makes me understand that there are more opinions to respect. But that page is nothing short of a deathsentence (people could kill themselves, after reading that page. Otherwise, many people could see that page as a fiat to engage to gaybashing, or worse!), or at least a page that makes it possible to spread unequality and hatred into the world. And that can't be the meaning of Conservapedia, can it? One must never forget: we are all children of God. --Robster 15:12, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

You seem to object to the Biblical quotes, but then invoke God at the same time. Are you saying the Bible is wrong, or that it doesn't speak for God?--Aschlafly 18:57, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
Well, which version of the Bible? I think that's important to note first. There's a Jewish man up above who gives a much more accurate translation of the original text which you seem to have ignored, since it doesn't meet your pre-existing biases. At this point, we're not talking about what God has invoked, are we? We're talking about what you want God to have said. --ReaganLives 18:58, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Leading Gay Rights Activist Comes Out of Homosexuality, Tells His Story

Interesting article [24] File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 15:40, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Personal tools