Homosexuality
-
WeiHan:
I'm sure they have made a lot of study into psychology/psychiatry.They are the professional psychiatrists and psychologists. All the main top psychiatrists and psychologists are in the associations. They are indeed the true representation of the accurate knowledge that we can know about the field. James Dobson is really the odd one out. Even the psychiatrist association of China which is independent of the APA has the same view that homosexuality is normal and is not a disease.
So are you thinking that they are politically motivated? Far from it, it is in fact really religious group s such as FOTF that is.
What makes you so sure they are not biased in any way whatsoever by their own inclinations. J.Dobson holds those views based on his religious beliefs and he stands out to make his point - I respect him for that, he does not hide where he comes from. I always remember this repeated phrase I read somewhere: God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
Homosexuality is something that has existed for a long long time - we know in history that even kings (both in western world and chinese world) have kept male lovers. But that doesn't mean it's natural. Nature to me is male + female = offspring; male + male? female + female? Not for many more years and you need a lab to do that...not nature.
My personal take on this is that it's perverse and anti-nature - the American whatever association can brand me an idiot, a relic, but they are not me. Other pp can have different views, I am not them. -
hquek:
I am not sure what you meant by inclination. Even if many gays are very talented, they can't possibly monopolised a professional academic field like the APA. Moreover, like I have said, even the Chinese psychiatric association has came to similar conclusion. The chinese government that ha sa strong political grip can't possibly allowed political influence from America.I'm sure they have made a lot of study into psychology/psychiatry.
What makes you so sure they are not biased in any way whatsoever by their own inclinations. J.Dobson holds those views based on his religious beliefs and he stands out to make his point - I respect him for that, he does not hide where he comes from. I always remember this repeated phrase I read somewhere: God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
Homosexuality is something that has existed for a long long time - we know in history that even kings (both in western world and chinese world) have kept male lovers. But that doesn't mean it's natural. Nature to me is male + female = offspring; male + male? female + female? Not for many more years and you need a lab to do that...not nature.
My personal take on this is that it's perverse and anti-nature - the American whatever association can brand me an idiot, a relic, but they are not me. Other pp can have different views, I am not them.
As for your idea about nature. I am glad that you recognise that it is just your own idea. We never know what something is for in the grand scheme of nature. Maybe homosexuality does serve a certain function in nature? -
I think it is not true that special needs children are not accepted in class.
In our school they are in our midst and special attention are given to them and no one has ever made any complaints. In fact they are treated well. I don’t think special needs children are known as unnatural too. -
WeiHan:
Maybe homosexuality does serve a certain function in nature?
For example?? :? -
WeiHan:
By inclination, I mean, are they gay or not? Ask a gay man - anyone. Can you tell me a gay person who does not support gay views?
I am not sure what you meant by inclination. Even if many gays are very talented, they can't possibly monopolised a professional academic field like the APA. Moreover, like I have said, even the Chinese psychiatric association has came to similar conclusion. The chinese government that ha sa strong political grip can't possibly allowed political influence from America. ?
I see that you hold very strong views on this matter. You only know J.Dobson and brand him as \"controversial right wing chirstian figure. Most of his political idea and views regarding homosxuality is based on his religious conviction and nothing based on objective evidences\". I personally have read his books and agree with his teachings as something based on the Bible, and even commonsense.
Pray, may I ask, what do you mean by objective evidences on something as subjective as one's preferences?? Ask 100,000 men their preference and confirm that whatever their leanings are is in conformance to nature??
You hold these associations in such esteem, but what I want to say is, who knows what goes on behind the scenes. Who is funding these? Who are the main players in these associations? If these are not clear, I do NOT believe what they say is the truth.WeiHan:
I call a spade a spade and do not feel myself to speak for anyone else.As for your idea about nature. I am glad that you recognise that it is just your own idea.
-
ks2me:
You can google evolutionary function of homosexuality and you find tonnes of hypothesis. The point is that nature or anti-nature may not necessarily be defined by reproduction or non-reproduction. It is just a narrow defination that if you are able to look from a broader view, you see new pictures. Maybe homosexuality is a natural biological way to counter over population? Maybe homosexuals are not meant to be held down by responsibility to raise off spring but their effort are meant for other purposes (for example, creativity to push boundaries of civilization, I find alot of famous creative figures gay). I help you with a few examples.WeiHan:
Maybe homosexuality does serve a certain function in nature?
For example?? :?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100204144551.htm
http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof65.htm -
insider:
Understand where you are coming from. It's hard to have to cope if one has a child with special needs. But for a parent with normal kids, it can be a bit tough to understand why a child who (for instance) bites people are left unsupervised with the entire group. Much as I want to understand the child, I also want to make sure my child is protected from harm.
I hope society is really moving towards accepting this special group of children. As far as my experiences are concerned in the preschool industry, these children (not those violent types but with milder symptoms which can be integrated into mainstream) are not welcomed by some parents and probably due to parental 'guidance', shunned by their 'normal' children too...
May there be love and peace in the world...
I think some knowledge has to be shared so other parents may understand that this is not something the other child can help.
My child was bitten on the face in N1 - there was bleeding and an ugly mark for weeks. Apparently the biter does this at home too. I was angry and upset. But when the other parent apologise, I accepted - yet I told my son not to go too close to that kid, in case got repeat incident.
If the other parent was not the least sorry, I think I would have reacted differently also.
Another incident. A kid wanted to be friends with my son. My son didn't share the same sentiments. End up that other kid pinched him, and pushed him. I told my son to try to accept the other kid as friend but he didn't want.This went on for many months until he couldn't take it anymore. To the extent where he didn't want to go for lessons cos of this kid. Didn't know what to do, had to ask the teacher to keep them separated as much as possible so my son won't get whacked.
Is this call intolerance? If so, too bad. I need to make sure my son is free from a scary environment. In both cases, I was very very scared that my son would think of school as being a scary place. Lucky that is not so. But I still don't want to play play. -
WeiHan:
But James Dobson hmself is a controversial right wing chirstian figure. Most of his political idea and views regarding homosxuality is based on his religious conviction and nothing based on objective evidences. His views are not supported by the mainstream mental health community, including the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dobson
An individual’s stand on homosexuality is not only based on his or her religious belief. Yes, Christians are known to be more vocal in their stance in this aspect but it does not mean they are alone in their views. On the contrary, majority of our population do not support homosexuality because it is not “normal” and is against nature and it is not solely because their religion tell them so. . So please…let’s not bring in religion into this debate.
My big family, relatives, in laws and close friends are a real rojak lot – consisting of Buddhists/Taoists/Catholics/Christians/FreeThinkers/Muslim etc and guess what.. they all have similar stand as many others here including me – that we do not agree to homosexuality as a chosen lifestyle and as parents, we choose to guide our family to the right direction and to a path that is normal. We will also teach them to respect a person (including a homosexual) as an individual just like respecting a person with different religion.
I personally have friends and colleagues who are homosexuals and do I discriminate them? Of course not – in fact some of them are very nice to be around with & I enjoyed having their company. But if they start promoting their lifestyle to my family and kids, that is where I feel the line is crossed. -
hquek:
Like what I have said, both APAs (psychiatric and psychology) consist of members who are professional psychiatrists or psychologists, not everybody can join the society. One need to get a professional degree from a recognised university in order to qualify. They both have huge membership numbered 38 000 and 152 000 respectively. Therefore, it is quite wierd and simplistic an idea to think that all psychiatrists and psychologists are gay just because they standby their professional view.
By inclination, I mean, are they gay or not? Ask a gay man - anyone. Can you tell me a gay person who does not support gay views?.
I can tell you many gay men that do not support gay views. An easy examples are those in ex-gay ministries. Some of them are even homophobic in their views.hquek:
I view right wing christianity as harmful and unhealthy. I not only know J Dobson, I know Jerry Fawell, Pat Robertson, Moses Tay etc...I see that you hold very strong views on this matter. You only know J.Dobson and brand him as \"controversial right wing chirstian figure. Most of his political idea and views regarding homosxuality is based on his religious conviction and nothing based on objective evidences\". I personally have read his books and agree with his teachings as something based on the Bible, and even commonsense.
hquek:
You have not read what I have written. People have found that homosexuals have brain structure that is different. These are evidences that point to biological basis for sexual orientation. BTW, why can't subjective matters have an objective biological basis. And for evidence that corrective therapy works, then show genuine case but none after many decades.Pray, may I ask, what do you mean by objective evidences on something as subjective as one's preferences?? Ask 100,000 men their preference and confirm that whatever their leanings are is in conformance to nature??
hquek:
You can't use conspiracy theory to refute. I tend to believe the asociations because me as a professional of my specific field has an association that I belong to and I understand how these organisation works. Every fields in science, medicine, sociology etc... has an association with members from all over the world and it represents state-of-the art knowledge of the field. It is not possible for you to find better knowledge in that particular field outside these bodies because almost all (most) specialists of that field would have been members and they organised conferences.You hold these associations in such esteem, but what I want to say is, who knows what goes on behind the scenes. Who is funding these? Who are the main players in these associations? If these are not clear, I do NOT believe what they say is the truth.
As for funding, every psychologists or psychiatrists will have their own funding. Talking about funding, wouldn't the right wing christian organisations have more money and can buy all the psychiatrists and psychologists to change their view? It is conscience, not money.
Who are the main players? You can easily find in their website. It is not like an obscure organisation that people like Dobson tried to portray it.
The way how peer reviewed academic publications work is that you outlined your study and then the methodology. Once the methodology is set, you have to be consistent. Then comes the evidences to support your hypothesis. This study or paper will be send to independents reviewers familiar with the field for reviewing process. Depending on which journal you are publicating your studies, there may be 3 or 4 reviewers. They have the right to reject the papers if they find inconsistencies or so-called loopholes in the studies. Usually, it doesn't matter if the studies is conclusive, as long as the methodology is consistent in your studies and there is an OBJECTIVE presentation in your results and it is original, it can be considered for publication. After publication, anybody can read the paper and challenge the result by repeating the studies using the SAME methodology. If it yields differing results, the results can then be published also to challenge the original result. Or maybe, someone have a new idea and they decide to investigate the topic with differing methodologies. As times goes by, our knowledge starts to accumulate and the body of knowledge and evidences started to grow because there will bound to be people who challenge published results. The credibility of the result increases as time goes by. -
WeiHan:
I think this is getting off-tangent in argument.
You can google evolutionary function of homosexuality and you find tonnes of hypothesis. The point is that nature or anti-nature may not necessarily be defined by reproduction or non-reproduction. It is just a narrow defination that if you are able to look from a broader view, you see new pictures. Maybe homosexuality is a natural biological way to counter over population? Maybe homosexuals are not meant to be held down by responsibility to raise off spring but their effort are meant for other purposes (for example, creativity to push boundaries of civilization, I find alot of famous creative figures gay). I help you with a few examples.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100204144551.htm
http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof65.htm
Countering overpopulation? :rotflmao: it's lame unfortunately.
Creativity can be found everywhere in people be they autistic, dyslexic, asperger, ADHD, handicap, normal, even dysfunctional and certainly in gays.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login
Online Users
Recent Topics
Statistics