Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 11
ali smack

why is homophobia commonplace?

421 posts in this topic

Your own personal opinion/what you have been taught/or come up with yourself. is not based in facts, (of course you are entitled to it), but here are the facts for your consideration.

In a review of published studies comparing homosexual and heterosexual samples on psychological tests, Gonsiorek (1982) found that, although some differences have been observed in test results between homosexuals and heterosexuals, both groups consistently score within the normal range. Gonsiorek concluded that "Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality" (Gonsiorek, 1982, p. 74; see also reviews by Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walston & McKee, 1978; Riess, 1980).

Confronted with overwhelming empirical evidence and changing cultural views of homosexuality, psychiatrists and psychologists radically altered their views, beginning in the 1970s.

In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

http://psychology.uc...tal_health.html

You are quoting from an Author arguing that homosexuality isnt a mental illness not from a peer reviewed paper. Even he is forced to concieve (though I notice it gets played down) that there are psychological differences.

'A strong case can be made that the male homosexual lifestyle itself, in its most extreme form, is mentally disturbed' (N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D). I gather extreme means completely 100% gay.

Now please dont try an argue that someone with a psychology docturate is biased, lying or wrong. That is unless of cours you can find that peer reviewed paper which I'm waiting for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You are quoting from an Author arguing that homosexuality isnt a mental illness not from a peer reviewed paper. Even he is forced to concieve (though I notice it gets played down) that there are psychological differences.

'A strong case can be made that the male homosexual lifestyle itself, in its most extreme form, is mentally disturbed' (N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D). I gather extreme means completely 100% gay.

Now please dont try an argue that someone with a psychology docturate is biased, lying or wrong. That is unless of cours you can find that peer reviewed paper which I'm waiting for.

I am simply asking you to consider the facts.

In the DSM Homosexuality was removed as any kind of disorder in 1973.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-IV_Codes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-5

(This is the new changes to be instituted in 2013.)

In 1870 William Wundt applied Scientific methodology to the study of behavior, this method was called "introspection"(looking within to find elements of behavior) which in turn led to Psychology being considered a science in 1879. Prior to this period Psychology was not considered a science.

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really buy that unless he was already infected by your bias. Laotians aren't like that at all, and there are plenty of very effeminate men visible in the streets unmolested -- in fact pretty much unnoticed.

Yeah, that's what I was laughing at, his blidness to what was in front of him. There was one very effeminate older Loatian man everyone called Uncle who was never married and made young men very uncomfortable by always walking up behind them and giving them shoulder massages.

Oh, um, my bias? Are you saying my bias because I don't buy into the gay dog myth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I am simply asking you to consider the facts.

In the DSM Homosexuality was removed as any kind of disorder in 1973.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/DSM-IV_Codes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-5

(This is the new changes to be instituted in 2013.)

In 1870 William Wundt applied Scientific methodology to the study of behavior, this method was called "introspection"(looking within to find elements of behavior) which in turn led to Psychology being considered a science in 1879. Prior to this period Psychology was not considered a science.

Yes and when you look at the decision to remove it from the list it wasnt based on the psychological discovery that it wasnt a mental illness. You actually find the decision was taken because human rights groups were demanding more rights for homosexuals. Even the vote to remove it was close too at 55% not that it matters.

I'm willing to accept that some people are not clear cut male or female at birth and some are turned gay by chemical exposure. For most of them though they have brain development issues caused by childhood trauma. Most notably the regions involving sexuality.

And yes 66% of homosexuals can be cured.

Edited by Mr Right Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think that homosexuality is a malfunction. The very basic instincts of a male and female of any species is to procreate is it not? If that instinct is obscured or altered in any way it is a malfunction. Wether hormonal or chemical in nature the urge to mate with the same sex is completely un natural in any species. I feel that there is an elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about in today's society and people are frightened to be labelled homophobic and smeared as right wing for ever daring mention the possibilities never mind researching them.

What I can never get my head around is that people say that it is simply a preference. I have never seen a preference come with so many common symptoms. I'd say that 95% of gay males I have ever met all present these symptoms, the feminine swivel of the hips whilst walking, the over elaborate hand gestures a floppy wrists, the softly spoken words with an emphasis on the sssssss, the attention grabbing mannerisms and overall just the feminization of a male.

I don't understand how simply preferring having sex with the same sex could make somebody display different physiological traits. Same goes for the female homosexuals, a huge majority tend to display male traits.

I'm not trying to say that homosexuals should be diagnosed and treated but it should be recognized that it is some form of physiological or biological disorder. I really don't think that it is psychological, I genuinely believe that they feel how they feel but the question is, what is causing it?

After all the human being isn't operating how nature intended it to.

Edited by captain pish
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that homosexuality is a malfunction. The very basic instincts of a male and female of any species is to procreate is it not? If that instinct is obscured or altered in any way it is a malfunction. Wether hormonal or chemical in nature the urge to mate with the same sex is completely un natural in any species. I feel that there is an elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about in today's society and people are frightened to be labelled homophobic and smeared as right wing for ever daring mention the possibilities never mind researching them.

What I can never get my head around is that people say that it is simply a preference. I have never seen a preference come with so many common symptoms. I'd say that 95% of gay males I have ever met all present these symptoms, the feminine swivel of the hips whilst walking, the over elaborate hand gestures a floppy wrists, the softly spoken words with an emphasis on the sssssss, the attention grabbing mannerisms and overall just the feminization of a male.

I don't understand how simply preferring having sex with the same sex could make somebody display different physiological traits. Same goes for the female homosexuals, a huge majority tend to display male traits.

I'm not trying to say that homosexuals should be diagnosed and treated but it should be recognized that it is some form of physiological or biological disorder. I really don't think that it is psychological, I genuinely believe that they feel how they feel but the question is, what is causing it?

After all the human being isn't operating how nature intended it to.

Well to the first part, what about hetrosexuals that decide not to have children? Is there something wrong with them by the same premise because they don't have the 'basic instinct' to breed? Second what about gay people that actually go out of their way to have children?

I always wonder, what is with people and their fixation with the actual sex. It's actually quite disturbing how obsessed people seem to be with being disgusted by what gay people do in the bedroom. You'd think that gay people were having sex on your kitchen table.

I know a lot of gay/lesbian and bisexual people and you know what? What you're saying is nonsense. Yes some people do that, but it's nowhere near 95% that do.

The strange thing about human being's is that there is no 'standard model'. Every human being is unique and different in pretty much everyway. By that logic you could say that every man that wasn't sterotypically male because they didn't posess physical strength, were unconcerned about sport etc had something 'wrong with them'. The same if a woman didn't like wearing dresses or makeup, hated the colour pink, liked sports etc. So since there isn't a 'standard' with which all human beings shuld follow, why are you so concerned that one group of people conforms to an imaginary standard?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yes and when you look at the decision to remove it from the list it wasnt based on the psychological discovery that it wasnt a mental illness. You actually find the decision was taken because human rights groups were demanding more rights for homosexuals. Even the vote to remove it was close too at 55% not that it matters.

I'm willing to accept that some people are not clear cut male or female at birth and some are turned gay by chemical exposure. For most of them though they have brain development issues caused by childhood trauma. Most notably the regions involving sexuality.

And yes 66% of homosexuals can be cured.

Oh no, those pesky human rights groups, they're at it again trying to make society a better place for people, oh the horror!

The thing you fail to recognise is this: things change. Simple fact. As we gain more knowledge about the world opinions and attitudes change. Take being left handed. That was regarded as being a disrder' for a long time until attitudes changed. The world moves forward and this is something that has The decision has been made things have changed, let it go.

Childhood trauma is your go to answer. Again, why won't you let that go?

The figure is most likely much less than that. But let''s for a moment, say that a cure is advertised for gay people that 'cures' 66%. Now it wouldn't be listed as a favorable cure because it had had a high rate of failure. But the big thing is what about the 44%? You'd make them go through a cure, and judging by the 'cures' that have been advertised it would involve some sort of torture or cause some form of psycological damage, for what? To suit you? And how do you think that 44% would be treated (and those that wouldn't want the 'cure')?

Edited by shadowhive
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean 'your God'?

You make it sound like I'm the minority when you are.

So now we're expected to believe that you are a devout churchgoer, are we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I can never get my head around is that people say that it is simply a preference. I have never seen a preference come with so many common symptoms. I'd say that 95% of gay males I have ever met all present these symptoms, the feminine swivel of the hips whilst walking, the over elaborate hand gestures a floppy wrists, the softly spoken words with an emphasis on the sssssss, the attention grabbing mannerisms and overall just the feminization of a male.

I don't understand how simply preferring having sex with the same sex could make somebody display different physiological traits. Same goes for the female homosexuals, a huge majority tend to display male traits.

That's pretty much a steroetype. While these overly effeminate gay men do exist and overly masculine lesbians, I can tell you from living in a very gay place for decades that most homosexuals do not display these traits. The gay couple that manage my apartment are not overly effeminate and were you to meet them one on one it would take a bit before you realized your were speaking to an openly gay man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean 'your God'?

You make it sound like I'm the minority when you are.

I mean he's your god, not mine.

Even if your god showed up tomorrow and proved beyond a doubt that he was real, if he acted and thought like you say he does, I would acknowledge him but I still would not worship him. Because any being that thinks like you could not be a loving god, and is not worth worshiping.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yes and when you look at the decision to remove it from the list it wasnt based on the psychological discovery that it wasnt a mental illness. You actually find the decision was taken because human rights groups were demanding more rights for homosexuals. Even the vote to remove it was close too at 55% not that it matters.

I'm willing to accept that some people are not clear cut male or female at birth and some are turned gay by chemical exposure. For most of them though they have brain development issues caused by childhood trauma. Most notably the regions involving sexuality.

And yes 66% of homosexuals can be cured.

Please consider the facts:

http://www.dsm5.org/...es/Default.aspx

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is the standard classification of mental disorders used by mental health professionals in the United States and contains a listing of diagnostic criteria for every psychiatric disorder recognized by the U.S. healthcare system. The current edition, DSM-IV-TR, is used by professionals in a wide array of contexts, including psychiatrists and other physicians, psychologists, social workers, nurses, occupational and rehabilitation therapists, and counselors, as well as by clinicians and researchers of many different orientations (e.g., biological, psychodynamic, cognitive, behavioral, interpersonal, family/systems). It is used in both clinical settings (inpatient, outpatient, partial hospital, consultation-liaison, clinic, private practice, and primary care) as well as with community populations. In addition to supplying detailed descriptions of diagnostic criteria, DSM is also a necessary tool for collecting and communicating accurate public health statistics about the diagnosis of psychiatric disorders.

I certainly find your opinion interesting(but it tells me only about you and what you think.) It doesn't reflect the medical communities data on homosexuality.

Homosexuality is simply not a mental disorder any more(as of 1973). You can think it is if you choose too, but you must be sure to add that this is your opinion based on your own ignorance (the not being current on information kind.) For me, I do not think it is fair to our gay members to post as if your perspective is sound science. IMO, I am sure you meant no harm, and you do have a right to your perspective, and this is just a suggestion-- perhaps in the future it could be given with integrity and compassion for all others. Thank you very much for listening.

Edited by Sherapy
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, what lifestyle? There's no such thing as a gay lifestyle, anymore than there is a straight lifestyle.

I think we have to combat such belief systems that claim that it's incompatible and not just shrug and go 'ok then'. If a belief system said that advocated women or people of a certain skin colour were incompatible with the faith's teachings woould you be ok with that or would you want that belief to be challenged?

To be honest, I'm sick of people who use their religion as a shield to hide behind so they can treat others negatively.

To be honest, I'm sick of PC people who are brainwashed by anti-Christian propaganda. I will vigorously challenge them, and I couldn't care less what anybody thinks about that. I won't play the tired game where you try and fail to equate this issue to gender and race. The bottom line is that you think that people should change their cherished beliefs to suit what may *feel* good to you. You wrongly assume that they care if people lamely and weakly refer to them as "bigots". Well, your chants of "homophobia" are farts in the wind, and your pressure tactics don't work. We see through the campaign, and we take note of the blatant attempt at social engineering that it is. That's the real world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's because homophobics are afraid they might be gay themselves. Like that one church group that protest everything and blames everything on gay people, they're the gayest people around probably.

Cite the research that proves this. This forum is big on demands for backing and proving claims, so I ask you to do the same. BTW, the Westboro cult is horrible, and it's a definite outlier. You can't fairly link those sick freaks to normal people who don't agree with gay sex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ones that think its wrong' largely do so because of religious indoctrination, which is hardly heathy and is largely due to fear.

I doubt that the thugs, who murdered Matthew Shepherd, were Bible students. I doubt that they even believed in God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean he's your god, not mine.

Even if your god showed up tomorrow and proved beyond a doubt that he was real, if he acted and thought like you say he does, I would acknowledge him but I still would not worship him. Because any being that thinks like you could not be a loving god, and is not worth worshiping.

So, you'll accept only a God who agrees with *your* "divine wisdom". Got it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So, you'll accept only a God who agrees with *your* "divine wisdom". Got it.

No, I said I would worship only a loving god.

Edited by Odin11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I said I would worship only a loving god.

A loving God can have rules for humanity. Good parents know what's best for their children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sounded strident in some of my posts. I was a bit too combative and confrontational. I was bothered by unfair labels. I was bothered by faulty comparisons. I never thought that the gay community was monolithic. It's made up of individuals with all that it brings with it. I have two gay cousins. They're creative and talented individuals who probably represent most of their peers. They, as well as other gay Americans, should have the right to handle their legal, health, private, etc. affairs as they see fit. The State should stay out of it in that gay couples should have the freedom to handle their own affairs as they wish. They're entitled to considerations and protections afforded to citizens by our government. That said, my annoyance was with the disingenuous use of "homophobia".

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a nice PC slogan, but it doesn't address my point. Some people reject the lifestyle because it's not compatible with their belief system, and that doesn't make them bigots (in the real world). That's not spin; that's just truth. It could be that attacking and insulting these religious individuals is its own form of bigotry.

And I have not attacked or insulted anyone. I have attacked bigoted ideas nothing else. To say that fighting intolerance is its own form of bigotry, is asinine, and is nothing but deflection.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a young child my instincts automatically told me those people arent normal. Thats without anybody trying to indocturnate me to a particular way of thinking. I say my disapproval of homosexuality was inherited.

Exactly, you didn't see them as "normal" because gay people are strongly urged to hide who they are. So of course, seeing less openly gay people made it "weird" when you finally did.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is God, it seems to me He made gays as much as he made straights, and so we must assume He had His reasons.

On the other hand, if there is no God, then nature did the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How a straight man deals with the presence of gay men in their environment is something straight men have to figure out. At my age it isn't a problem, and when I was younger going to school in the States, gays were all very much in the closet and I didn't know they existed.

I suppose a good looking straight man occasionally gets propositioned, or maybe just little hints. That sort of thing would disturb me. It would make me worry that maybe there was something that gave them the idea I was gay, and I guess I would act strongly enough to eliminate any doubt.

I don't think that is the reality. The reality is more likely the gay man is attracted and therefore "projects" his desires. I did that a lot with women, convincing myself they were interested in me when it was just my imagination. The problem with people caught up in this kind of projection fantasy is that they often don't take "no" as an answer, but persist, somehow persuading themselves that the "no" is just game playing, and the situation becomes a nuisance calling for some rudeness. I have to imagine though that this happens very rarely: normally people have more sense.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That said, my annoyance was with the disingenuous use of "homophobia".

"Disingenuous" is not the word I would choose, but I think I know what you mean. A phobia implies a completely irrational, excessive fear, yet the way "homophobia" is used it implies a prejudiced hate of homosexuals.

Well I studied English for years and know that the English language is often like that -- it has meanings of words that are only loosely related to their roots.

The other problem with the word is that when the word is applied to us, and we don't feel we are prejudiced, then we resent it. As an Asian I sometimes feel Americans, both white and black, are prejudiced. Maybe the problem is me and my being overly sensitive, so I have trained myself to ignore things I think might be slights. Besides, whether or not the perception is true doesn't matter: if they have a problem it's their problem, not mine.

I can see a gay person having the same reaction to someone who expresses, say, opposition to gay marriage. They must be prejudiced against gays, when in fact there is no particular prejudice -- just a disagreement on this one specific issue. Personally I see marriage as a religious ceremony that the state should get its nose out of completely, except to deal with contractual issues in divorce and the protection of children. However, I can see a discomfort at calls for such a radical change in the culture. I would hope most gays would too and therefore be more tolerant of people having to go through a process of getting comfortable with it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose a good looking straight man occasionally gets propositioned, or maybe just little hints. That sort of thing would disturb me. It would make me worry that maybe there was something that gave them the idea I was gay, and I guess I would act strongly enough to eliminate any doubt.

What you said after this paragraph is true. The guy is probably just attracted to him and hope that he is gay since he likes him. There is nothing to "worry about". Besides you can't really know if a guy is gay just by looking at them. Sometimes, people will think a guy is gay just because he is feminine when that may not be true at all.

"Masculinity" and "femininity" are just social rules. If an average American guy go to South Korea for example, he may think every guy is gay there. lol People are just who they are. You can't know if a person is gay unless they are displaying attraction to someone of the same gender.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you tell a lie over and over eventually it will appear true.

Like everything it has it good and bad points the issue lies where the focus is.

But if you make the issue stick out like dog's nuts it's bound that some group somewhere will have an issue with it, inevitably another group will fall prey to slander and once a small majority kicks up a stink and twists the issue at their own will for their own devices more and more will follow. How do you think Kings and Queens were created and religions the only difference is that they promoted them as "good".

Everyone has their unique indifference that slides them to a catergory, most people just continue onwards and flip the indifference hatred the bird... isn't that life "One massive collated toddler making the puzzle pieces fit"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 11

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.