So gay!!!

[UB]

k guys imma get some more info on that thing and ill be back k?

 

[Hopper]

Any theory on the connection which does not rely on social stigma (you know, the type of thing that would be alleviated by affirmaiton, as opposed to tolerance)?

Sure:

1. The authors of a study done in The Netherlands were surprised to find so much mental illness in homosexual people in a country where tolerance of homosexuality is greater than in almost all other countries. In his cross-cultural comparison of mental health in the Netherlands, Denmark and the U.S., Ross could find no significant differences between countries - i.e. the greater social hostility in the United States did not result in a higher level of psychiatric problems. Ross, M.W. (1988): Homosexuality and mental health: a cross-cultural review. J. Homosex. 15(1/2), 131-152.

2. Saghir and Robins examined reasons for suicide attempts among homosexuals and found that if the reasons for the attempt were connected with homosexuality, about 2/3 were due to breakups of relationships --not outside pressures from society. Saghir, M.T.; Robins, E. (1973): Male and Female Homosexuality, A Comprehensive Investigation. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore Maryland. 335 pages. Since homosexuals have greater numbers of partners and breakups, compared with heterosexuals, and since long term gay male relationships are rarely monagamous, that could certainly help explain why suicide attempts are proportionally greater for homosexuals.

3. A case can be made that the male homosexual lifestyle itself, in its most extreme form, is mentally disturbed. Gabriel Rotello, author of "Sexual Ecology. AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men" is an openly gay advocate. He has noted that "the outlaw aspect of gay sexual culture, its transgressiveness, is seen by many men as one of its greatest attributes." Same-sex eroticism becomes for many, therefore, the central value of existence, and nothing else--not even life and health itself--is allowed to interfere with pursuit of this lifestyle.

Homosexual promiscuity fuels the AIDS crisis in the West, but even that tragedy it is not allowed to interfere with sexual freedom. And, according to Rotello, the idea of taking responsibility to avoid infecting others with the HIV virus is completely foreign to many groups trying to counter AIDS. The promiscuous person--either heterosexual or homosexual --may in fact be more likely to be antisocial.

Bluntly, then, core gay behavior is both potentially fatal to others, and often suicidal. It could be considered "mentally disturbed" to risk losing one's life for sexual liberation, doncha think?

Note: Some of the language and thought expressed above is attribuable to Neil Whitehead, PhD, author of "My Genes Made Me Do It! - Homosexuality and the Scientific Evidence." https://www.mygenes.co.nz/

 

[One Brow]

Sure:

1. The authors of a study done in The Netherlands were surprised to find so much mental illness in homosexual people in a country where tolerance of homosexuality is greater than in almost all other countries. In his cross-cultural comparison of mental health in the Netherlands, Denmark and the U.S., Ross could find no significant differences between countries - i.e. the greater social hostility in the United States did not result in a higher level of psychiatric problems. Ross, M.W. (1988): Homosexuality and mental health: a cross-cultural review. J. Homosex. 15(1/2), 131-152.

So, he explained the preliminary results of a study from 1999 in a 1988 article? Especially since same-sex unions were first recognized in 1989 in Denmark, this is very impressive.

2. Saghir and Robins examined reasons for suicide attempts among homosexuals and found that if the reasons for the attempt were connected with homosexuality, about 2/3 were due to breakups of relationships --not outside pressures from society.

So, you support "all-or-nothing" conclusions, as long as they support the argument you favor?

Since homosexuals have greater numbers of partners and breakups, compared with heterosexuals, and since long term gay male relationships are rarely monagamous, that could certainly help explain why suicide attempts are proportionally greater for homosexuals.

Greater numbers of breakups would mean fewer long-term relationships, and less emotional commitment as well. This reasoning requires the break-up of short-term relationships to have the same emotional consequences as the break-up of long-term relationships, or it doesn't hold.

3. A case can be made that the male homosexual lifestyle itself, in its most extreme form, is mentally disturbed.

You could make similar cases for the most extreme forms of heterosexual lifestyles. In fact, you could say that about any sort of extreme lifstyle. The word "homosexual" is superfluous, except to cast an aspersion.

Homosexual promiscuity fuels the AIDS crisis in the West, but even that tragedy it is not allowed to interfere with sexual freedom. And, according to Rotello, the idea of taking responsibility to avoid infecting others with the HIV virus is completely foreign to many groups trying to counter AIDS. The promiscuous person--either heterosexual or homosexual --may in fact be more likely to be antisocial.

I find that to be an interesting position. It appeals to my natural instincts, without actually saying anything meaningful or based in fact.

Bluntly, then, core gay behavior is both potentially fatal to others, and often suicidal.

You mean, as opposed to "core" straight behavior, or "core" lesbian behvior? You have a definition for "core"?

It could be considered "mentally disturbed" to risk losing one's life for sexual liberation, doncha think?

You mean, as opposed to political liberation or economic liberation? I suppose any of those "could be" considered a sign of mental disturbance.

 

[Hopper]

So, you support "all-or-nothing" conclusions, as long as they support the argument you favor?

I'm merely reporting findings of what appear to be legitimate scientific research articles, eh, Eric? Even they indicate a 2/3 (not ALL) relationship between romantic break-ups and suicide.

You asked me if there were "any theory on the connection which does not rely on social stigma (you know, the type of thing that would be alleviated by affirmaiton, as opposed to tolerance)?" My response is, yes, there do appear to be theories, other than "societal discrimination," which have been advanced by professionals to explain the phenomenon. Apparently you don't like my answer. Sorry, eh?

What is YOUR position on that question? Let me guess, eh? Is it that ALL significant differences can be strictly attributed SOLELY to societal discrimination against homosexuals, mebbe?

 

[TheItinerantSon]

Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? Henry E. Adams, Lester W. Wright, Jr., and Bethany A. Lohr. University of Georgia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 92, 49-54. Bernstein, G. S. (1994)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBYQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.psychologytoday.com%2Ffiles%2Fu47%2FHenry_et_al.pdf&ei=7lpkTJecHIOClAfT4fn-CQ&usg=AFQjCNHmFLG8n9XqGXtSmXz9OS7MATLMug&sig2=bukLZ_N2NffWyiE0YKApdw

 

[billyshelby]

I'm merely reporting findings of what appear to be legitimate scientific research articles, eh, Eric? Even they indicate a 2/3 (not ALL) relationship between romantic break-ups and suicide.

You asked me if there were "any theory on the connection which does not rely on social stigma (you know, the type of thing that would be alleviated by affirmaiton, as opposed to tolerance)?" My response is, yes, there do appear to be theories, other than "societal discrimination," which have been advanced by professionals to explain the phenomenon. Apparently you don't like my answer. Sorry, eh?

What is YOUR position on that question? Let me guess, eh? Is it that ALL significant differences can be strictly attributed ONLY to societal discrimination against homosexuals, mebbe?

Your 'legitimate' scientific study was written in 1973. Just speaking to that study, I would guess a breakup would be more traumatic for a homosexual at that time. Nearly all homosexuals were underground back then. To actually find someone to fall in love with must have been incredibly joyous, and to then lose it would likely have been highly despairing.

In any case, why are you pointing to one study as if it is conclusive of anything? It's conclusive of whatever that study tested, at that point in time, and it is now 35 years old.

 

[Hopper]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBYQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.psychologytoday.com%2Ffiles%2Fu47%2FHenry_et_al.pdf&ei=7lpkTJecHIOClAfT4fn-CQ&usg=AFQjCNHmFLG8n9XqGXtSmXz9OS7MATLMug&sig2=bukLZ_N2NffWyiE0YKApdw

As the authors of this study make clear, a distinction needs to be made between "homophobia' and "homonegativism," a distinction that aint never made round these here parts, it seems. According to that article:

"Hudson and Ricketts ( 1980) have indicated that the meaning of the term homophobia has been diluted because of its expansion in the literature to include any negative attitude, belief, or action toward homosexuality...To clarify this problem, Hudson and Ricketts defined homonegativism as a multidimensional construct that includes judgment regarding the morality of homosexuality, decisions concerning personal or social relationships, and any response concerning beliefs, preferences, legality, social desirability, or similar cognitive responses...This clarification is consistent with Weinberg's (1972) definition of homophobia, as well as Haaga's (1992) suggestion that the term be restricted to clearly phobic reactions." Whatever else this article may purport to address, it does not pretend to direct itself toward "homonegativism," as opposed to "homophobia."

 

[One Brow]

I'm merely reporting findings of what appear to be legitimate scientific research articles, eh, Eric?

You mean, merely reporting findings thawt support one particular point of view.

Even they indicate a 2/3 (not ALL) relationship between romantic break-ups and suicide.

Because, suicides could possibly have multi-factoral causes? How exactly do you say social stigma was or was not a factor in any given suicide?

You asked me if there were "any theory on the connection which does not rely on social stigma (you know, the type of thing that would be alleviated by affirmaiton, as opposed to tolerance)?" My response is, yes, there do appear to be theories, other than "societal discrimination," which have been advanced by professionals to explain the phenomenon. Apparently you don't like my answer. Sorry, eh?

No need to be sorry. The theories you presented were of the approximate nature and quality I would expect you to present.

What is YOUR position on that question? Let me guess, eh? Is it that ALL significant differences can be strictly attributed SOLELY to societal discrimination against homosexuals, mebbe?

Actually, no. If there is one thing I've seen in my own family, it's that suicidal feelings can be inherited/inborn. So, maybe there is a biological connection.

 

[One Brow]

As the authors of this study make clear, a distinction needs to be made between "homophobia' and "homonegativism," a distinction that aint never made round these here parts, it seems.

As a suffix, "-phobia" can mean fear or aversion. Anglophobes are not necessarily afraid of of the English, more often they just don't like them. Homophobes do not need to have a phobic reaction to be so classified. It sounds like Hudson and Ricketts were trying to enact some form of political correctness here. Of course, you have exptablished yourself as a big proponent of politcal correctness, so it's natural you would endorse it this time.

 

[Hopper]

This appears to be just another display of fallacious "all-or-nothing" reasoning, if that's what you mean. The argument is not designed to persuade "irrational" people, but rather presumably rational people, such as judges.

Except, as you noted, there is no scientific consensus on the genetic causes of homosexuality, so it's an argument you can't bring before a judge.

An essential corrollary to the "genetically caused" argument has always been that sexual idenity is not a "matter of choice" and is "unalterable," eh, Eric? Not only was this argument "brought" before the judge in this case (Perry v. SCHWARZENEGGER), he essentially found, as a "matter of fact," that it was true:

[Factual finding #46.] "Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation."

I guess this is the equivalent of sayin that either:

1. Research done by credible and respected professionals such as Robert Spitzer (video above) is "incredible" to this judge, or perhaps that

2. The supposed "best available defense" which was presented did not even call the judge's attention to such studies.

For the sake of convenient reference, here is a repost of the Spitzer video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLSLX9Lh08I

 

[One Brow]

An essential corrollary to the "genetically caused" argument has always been that sexual idenity is not a "matter of choice" and is "unalterable," eh, Eric?

The fallacy of the consequent, apparently.

Not only was this argument "brought" before the judge in this case (Perry v. SCHWARZENEGGER), he essentially, found as a "matter of fact," that it was true:

[Factual finding #46.] "Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation."

I guess this is the equilavent of sayin that either:

1. Research done by credible and respected professionals such as Robert Spitzer (video above) is "incredible" to this judge, or perhaps that

2. The supposed "best available defense" which was presented did not even call the judge's attention to such studies.

The proper interpretaton of Sptizer's study is that, even after years of therapy, people can't alter their orientation more than incrementally. If you interpret the scale as, say, 0-34 = hetero, 35-65 = bisexual, and 66-100 = homosexual, then you can go from being homosexual to being bisexual with homosexual preferences, or from bisexual with homosexual preferences to bisexual with hetreo sexual preference, or from bisexual with heterosexual preference to fully heterosexual, as the absolute best case seen in the study (20 point maximal change). So, Spitzer's study does not refute the finding that "No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation."

 

[Hopper]

The proper interpretaton of Sptizer's study is that... [it] does not refute the finding that "No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation."

According to you and the homosexual judge who ruled on this case, mebbe, eh, Eric? Below is a very frank, and much fuller, explication, by Spitzer himself, of his methodology, his reasons for believing his evidence was "credible" and the nature of his findings. It does NOT agree with your summary, I'm afraid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBhW2q11qu8