chess online
| ||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Swedish Pastor Sentenced to Month in Prison for Preaching Against HomosexualitySTOCKHOLM, July 5, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Ake Green, the pastor of a Swedish Pentecostal church in Kalmar, Sweden, has been sentenced to one month in prison by a Swedish court, for inciting hatred against homosexuals. Green was prosecuted in January for "hate speech against homosexuals" for a sermon he preached last summer citing Biblical references to homosexuality. During a sermon in 2003, Green described homosexuality as "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumour in the body of society". Sweden passed an equivalent to Canada's Bill C-250 last year -- a "hate crimes" law that forbids criticism of homosexuality. In a WorldNetDaily article, the author quotes from the church newspaper Kyrkans Tidning, in which the prosecutor in the case, Kjell Yngvesson, justifies the arrest of pastor Green: "One may have whatever religion one wishes, but this is an attack on all fronts against homosexuals. Collecting Bible cites on this topic as he (Pastor Green) does makes this hate speech." www.lifesite.net" target="_blank">-> www.lifesite.net |
|||||||
|
Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. In 2002, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by an east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative: **************************************** **************************************** Dear Dr. Laura: Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them: a.. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? a.. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? a.. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. a.. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians? a.. I have a neighbor who insists on working o n the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? a.. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? a.. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? a.. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die? a.. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? a.. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. Your devoted fan, Jim |
|||||||
|
mark |
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
jd |
|||||||
|
jeff |
|||||||
|
the Suffrajjettes where descrimination against blacks, women, gays, jews etc was embedded and accepted within society based on writings in ancient texts or preferences of ruling elites? Yes there are better ways to define morality. They are to base behaviours around the ethical principles of non malificence, benificence , justice and respect for individul diference and choices. |
|||||||
|
jd why does what middle eastern pastoralists from 2000 years ago have anything to do with what we do today? granted, there is no perfection, but isn't it a moral imperative to try to get better, and not rest on the hackneyed and tired old, 'wull, twas good 'nuff for my grandfather and it is good 'nuff fer me.' come on...society evolves...so do cultural mores and ideas... |
|||||||
|
mark the Suffrajjettes where descrimination against blacks, women, gays, jews etc was embedded and accepted within society based on writings in ancient texts or preferences of ruling elites?*** I am not sure why you'd think I'd rather be "back in the days". You have as much a right to your opinion as the racist. People use any number of texts or books or philosphers upon which to base their ideas - so do you. Many things can be quoted out of their proper context - hahahaha. According to post-modern thought, your morals, if there even are any, are not any more valid than that found in the Bible. ***Yes there are better ways to define morality. They are to base behaviours around the ethical principles of non malificence, benificence , justice and respect for individul diference and choices.*** Better? How are these better? Based on what? |
|||||||
|
religion, race, language, or sexuality as a criterion. i base it on who we are today, based on commonly accepted ideals of equality and justice.*** So? What makes your morality better than that found in the Bible? ***why does what middle eastern pastoralists from 2000 years ago have anything to do with what we do today?*** What doesn't the morality of the Bible have to do with today. ***come on...society evolves...so do cultural mores and ideas...*** Society evolves? I do not think so. Other than technology there is nothing new today that wasn't addressed a long time ago in the Bible. "Mores" do not change - morals are based in truth and therefore are black and white forever. Of course if we are talking a postmodern type of morals, then my moral system is just as good as yours, and therefore your disdain of my morals is completely unfounded. |
|||||||
|
jd slavery used to be the norm - now it is considered barbarous subjugation of women used to be the norm - now it is considered ridiculous child labor used to be the norm - now it is criminal and generally decried as a horrific practice war for territorial acquisition used to be the norm - now it is against international law an 80 hour work week used to be the norm - now it is 40 persecution of those different used to be the norm - now it is not (oh...except for those homos...we can still beat them up!) how can you say that society does not evolve? |
|||||||
|
jeff |
|||||||
|
jd are you seriously saying that slavery, subugation of women, child labor, 80-100 hr work weeks, and aggressive (rather than defensive) war are good things??? whoa....please tell me that is not what you mean. |
|||||||
|
bible for doctors who view mental health through the "lens of disease/disorder) used to clasify homosexuality as a disorder. Manay years were spent engaging in activiites such as applying elctrodes to gay folks genitals to "cure them of their terrible affliction". With the passage of time and scientific enquiry, SCIENCE has demonstratd that sexual preference is pretty much "hard wired" and also a variant of sexual behaviour common throughout many species. Homosexulity was removed from the DSM when JD, your scientific peers reached he realisation that it is NOT a disorder but a normal trait in human behavior. As a doctor, presumably you are encouraged to view the world empirically rather than through the lens of superstition and blind faith. How do you reconcile your errr "biblical" beliefs with your medical practice? |
|||||||
|
How about we argue through the lens of science and empiricism Find here a link underpinning te emerging evidence that homosexuality is a biologically driven behavior rather than a function of "bad behavior": serendip.brynmawr.edu" target="_blank">-> serendip.brynmawr.edu If we subscribe to the science........ On what basis would it be fair or reasonable to vilify folks who are so biologically equipped? |
|||||||
|
jeff aggressive (rather than defensive) war are good things???*** No I'm not saying that. I merely asked how you can argue these things are good. Without any sort of objective leg to stand on, how can you possibly make the argument the above are "bad"? |
|||||||
|
mark Why would it rock my boat? ***The old "diagnostic and statistical manual" (DSM)(the bible for doctors who view mental health through the "lens of disease/disorder) used to clasify homosexuality as a disorder.*** I am aware of this. ***Manay years were spent engaging in activiites such as applying elctrodes to gay folks genitals to "cure them of their terrible affliction".*** The same had been done for drug addicts. electrodes don't help an alcoholic either. psychiatry is genreally impotent to cure anything. ***With the passage of time and scientific enquiry, SCIENCE has demonstratd that sexual preference is pretty much "hard wired" and also a variant of sexual behaviour common throughout many species.*** "Science" has not demonstrated "hard-wiring" any more than it has demonstrated a "gey gene" ***Homosexulity was removed from the DSM when JD, your scientific peers reached he realisation that it is NOT a disorder but a normal trait in human behavior.*** The disorder was removed for political reasons. It is not a normal trait in human behavior. ***As a doctor, presumably you are encouraged to view the world empirically rather than through the lens of superstition and blind faith.*** empiricism, while having it's time and place, is impotent to answer any of the big and importent questions. ***How do you reconcile your errr "biblical" beliefs with your medical practice?*** There is no conflict |
|||||||
|
normal variant of sexual expression that is hard wired? |
|||||||
|
mark emerging evidence that homosexuality is a biologically driven behavior rather than a function of "bad behavior"*** My alcoholism and drug addiction is a biologically driven behavior. I make choices every day to do what's right in the face my particular disease. |
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
a biological predisposition for homosexuality but you believe that the behaviours are intrinsically "evil' and hence should be resisted. Am i close? |
|||||||
|
mark a biological predisposition for homosexuality but you believe that the behaviours are intrinsically "evil' and hence should be resisted. Am i close?*** I think this may be a *POSSIBILITY* in a small subset of homosexuals. My position is that homosexuality is a psychopathological phenomenon in the great majority of homosexuals. ================================== Some quick information on the change with regard to homosexuality in the DMSIII in 1973: "Before examining the contention that all competent psychiatrists and psychologists agree that homosexuality is normal and healthy, we need to look at the APA's 1973 decision for a moment. For 23 years homosexuality had been listed as a mental disorder by the APA. Why was it decided, at that particular point in time, that it was not pathological? I do not have the space to go into a detailed analysis of the history leading up to the APA's decision.15 Nonetheless, it is a misconception to think that this came about only after dispassionate and scholarly discussion, and only after listening equally to all sides of the issue. Also, it is important to note that the APA's vote was anything but unanimous. In the three years leading up to the 1973 APA meeting, the previous national meetings had been repeatedly disrupted by gay activists. At the 1970 meeting in San Francisco certain sessions were broken up with shouts and jeers, prohibiting any rational discussion or debate. At the APA's 1971 meeting in Washington, threats and intimidation accomplished what discussion could not. Ronald Bayer, in a work sympathetic toward homosexuality and the gay rights movement, recounts: "Using forged credentials, gay activists gained access to the exhibit area and, coming across a display marketing aversive conditioning [i.e., punishing an organism whenever it makes a particular response] techniques for the treatment of homosexuals, demanded its removal. Threats were made against the exhibitor, who was told that unless his booth was dismantled, it would be torn down. After frantic behind- the-scenes consultations, and in an effort to avoid violence, the convention leadership agreed to have the booth removed."16 These tactics continued in the same manner at the APA's 1972 national meeting. It was against this backdrop that the association's trustees finally made its controversial 1973 decision. When a referendum on this was sent out to all 25,000 APA members, only a quarter of them returned their ballots. The final tally was 58 percent favoring the removal of homosexuality from their list of disorders. Four years later, Dr. Charles Socarides — who was at the meetings and was an expert in the area of homosexuality, having treated homosexuals for more than twenty years — described the political atmosphere leading up to the 1973 vote. He writes that during this time, "militant homosexual groups continued to attack any psychiatrist or psychoanalyst who dared to present his findings as to the psychopathology [i.e., the study of mental disorders from all aspects] of homosexuality before national or local meetings of psychiatrists or in public forums."17 Elsewhere Socarides stated that the decision of the APA trustees was "the medical hoax of the century."18 Was this the end of the debate? Did the vast majority of "competent" psychiatrists agree with the APA's decision? In 1977 ten thousand members of the APA were polled at random, asking them their opinion on this. In an article entitled "Sick Again?" Time magazine summarized the results of the poll: "Of those answering, 69% said they believed 'homosexuality is usually a pathological adaptation, as opposed to a normal variation,' 18% disagreed and 13% were uncertain. Similarly, sizable majorities said that homosexuals are generally less happy than heterosexuals (73%) and less capable of mature, loving relationships (60%). A total of 70% said that homosexuals' problems have more to do with their own inner conflicts than with stigmatization by society at large."19 " ================================ Seems pretty clear that the decision to change the DMS was anyting *BUT* "empiric" - if that is still an important point here. cites can be found at the bottom of this link: www.equip.org" target="_blank">-> www.equip.org |
|||||||
|
jd |
|||||||
|
jeff large scale sense. This discussion has been about how I reconcile my personal, Biblical beleifs with the garbage fed to us by the mianstream media. I think one of the common misconsceptions about myself here is that because I hold a certain personal position about the truth of the world around me this means I support some sort of draconian measure to do something horrible. Why is that? For example, when we were discussing feminism, because I take a position that a woman's a proper place is in the home, why do people now assume that I do not think women should be allowed to work, got to college, or vote? It's strange. Personally, it smakcs of social conditioning. 3-11%? Jeff do you know where those statistics come from? I see them bantered around, but are they accurate? Find their source and let me know. I will wait patiently. Alcoholism has been a common practice for all of human history - doesn't make it a normal human variant - alcoholism is a mental disorder. What might be helpful here is to discuss what, "Homosexuality is a mental disorder" means to you. What are the implications that make such an idea so horrible? |
|||||||
|
from there. It's somethig that despite emerging myself in the psych domain, that i still struggle wth. I'd struggle to think of homosexuality OR alcoholism as disorders. Homosexuality I'd percieve as a normal albeit small subset of the spctrum of human sexual preference (probably driven by hormonal mileu of the mother during pregnancy) and "alcoholism" as a (abeit with secondary negative consequences) coping style. To preemt you may argue that if there is a biological predisposition from homosexuality that it's no diferent from say type II diabetes where ther may also be a biological predisposition. I'd argue that whilt with diabetes tere is identifiable harm, that with homosexuality te only harm arises from stigma/social sanctions. |
|||||||
|
<<What might be helpful here is to discuss what, "Homosexuality is a mental disorder" means to you. What are the implications that make such an idea so horrible? >> What makes it so horrible is the asumption embedded that homosexuality is "wrong" and requires "treatment". Every homosexual person who I've met suffers no negative consequences from their orientation other that those derived from social stigmaization and coping with parental felings of loss regarding expecations of grandchildrn etc. Labelling in and of itself can create benifits and harms. Labelling homosexuality as a mental disorder sems on balance to be incongruent with the lived experiences of those 'afflicted' and to have negative social consequences for these individuals. Over to you JD......how is such labelling helpful? |
|||||||
|
mark dis?or?der? [dis-awr-der] –noun 1. lack of order or regular arrangement; confusion: Your room is in utter disorder. 2. an irregularity: a disorder in legal proceedings. 3. breach of order; disorderly conduct; public disturbance. 4. a disturbance in physical or mental health or functions; malady or dysfunction: a mild stomach disorder. –verb (used with object) 5. to destroy the order or regular arrangement of; disarrange. 6. to derange the physical or mental health or functions of. I think we can agree on the definition of disorder, and I do not think we will disagree on an assumed common definition of "mental". Therefore disorder according to 4 is a disturbance, a deviation from the normal, healthy, and baseline. Alcohlism fits this bill perfectly - it is an unnatural obsession of the mind on alcohol and an "allergy" of the body in eponse ot alcohol where the alcoholic once exposed to alcohol consumes always gets drunk because once he starts drinking he cannot of his own violition stop. This is the layman's explanation of the alcoholic phenomenon. There is a psychological basis for the disease which is largely fear based, and since not the topic here, I will not go in depth. The biological basis for the disease lies where all addictions (including sexual) are found in the brain and that is the dopamine reward pathways of the nucleus accumbans. Homosexuality is merely the response to psychological trauma in early childhood - sometimes later - and for males with high sexual drives, generally turns into a sexual addiction through the sam epathways in the brain that affect the alcoholic or drug addict. Negative consequences, other than the psychological, are seen through the increased levels of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, and damage to the rectal area which was not designed for anal sex. A biological basis - or at least a biological predisposition - for a disorder does not make the disorder any less of a disorder, and needing treatment. Homosexuality was treated as a disease prior to the DMS III change in 1973, and in spite of this change, there are still more than a few psychotherapists who treat homosexuality with success. You can only change when you recognize the problem and choose to do something about it. Change is not easy but possible. The promotion of the normalcy homosexuality by the media at the behest of those in places of power in this world is done with real goals to turn the population away from traditional family based units and into more and more increased sexual depravity. The whole goal is to get most folks into homosexuality, where they can satisfy base sexual needs, but without all the uncessary "babies" in a world that supposedly has too many people. (BTW how do you post links to pages within the text? I can only seem to post a link at the bottom with out disrupting the post) |
|||||||
|
common definition of "mental". Therefore disorder according to 4 is a disturbance, a deviation from the normal, healthy, and baseline.> Well perhaps.... but this definition does not encompass normal variants. Is for instance ginger hair a disorder? There is heaps of room for contamination around assumptions of what is or is not normal variation versus pathology << Alcohlism fits this bill perfectly - it is an unnatural obsession of the mind on alcohol and an "allergy" of the body in eponse ot alcohol where the alcoholic once exposed to alcohol consumes always gets drunk because once he starts drinking he cannot of his own violition stop. This is the layman's explanation of the alcoholic phenomenon.>> That's one world view. Another is that alcohol or other drugs are used to cope with psychological pain, traumatic memories etc. Alcohol dependence is often most successfully managed by finding other coping styles to replace the "zoning out" that alcohol enables. <<There is a psychological basis for the disease which is largely fear based, and since not the topic here, I will not go in depth. >> There are many psychologicl explanations, many of which don't emphasise the language of "disease". I'd be happy to hear more of your explanation though. <The biological basis for the disease lies where all addictions (including sexual) are found in the brain and that is the dopamine reward pathways of the nucleus accumbans.> I'm happy to concur with you here as a PARTIAL explanation for dependency/reward behaviors. <<Homosexuality is merely the response to psychological trauma in early childhood - sometimes later - and for males with high sexual drives, generally turns into a sexual addiction through the sam epathways in the brain that affect the alcoholic or drug addict.>> I'd be happy to review any citations that you have around this isue JD. it does not in any ay concur with my reading of the phenomena. My reading leads me to a belief that maternal hormonal and or imune factors are more likely to be implicated in an array of gender expression/identification baed phenomena. I've seen no compelling evidence of trauma playing a role. <<Negative consequences, other than the psychological, are seen through the increased levels of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, and damage to the rectal area which was not designed for anal sex.>> I guess i have to accept that you have a point here given recent experience with HIV though there may be epidemilogical factors and features of penile tissue that you are not giving due attention to. <<A biological basis - or at least a biological predisposition - for a disorder does not make the disorder any less of a disorder, and needing treatment.>> Agreed...however we havent really tied down to my satisfaction why you'd class HS as a disorder. see above. << Homosexuality was treated as a disease prior to the DMS III change in 1973, and in spite of this change, there are still more than a few psychotherapists who treat homosexuality with success. You can only change when you recognize the problem and choose to do something about it. Change is not easy but possible. >> Psychotherapists aren't imune to influence of ideology as seen in the "recovered memory" phenomena. If two folks "treater and patient" percieve something as a problem then no doubt some will be "cured". I'd challenge you though....what about the manywho don't percieve themselves to be "disordered" or in need of treatment? What evidence is there to say they are wrong? <<The promotion of the normalcy homosexuality by the media at the behest of those in places of power in this world is done with real goals to turn the population away from traditional family based units and into more and more increased sexual depravity. The whole goal is to get most folks into homosexuality, where they can satisfy base sexual needs, but without all the uncessary "babies" in a world that supposedly has too many people.>> hahaha that utterance seems beyond silly from where i sit. What evidence do you have for this wild and preposterous proposition? <<(BTW how do you post links to pages within the text? I can only seem to post a link at the bottom with out disrupting the post) >> ah the link posting problem.. I'm no expert and am not always successful. The trick seems to be to remember to put a space after the link...... |
|||||||
|
mark disorder? There is heaps of room for contamination around assumptions of what is or is not normal variation versus pathology*** Of course this definition does not encompass "normal variants" because a normal variant is not a disorder. Red hair is not a disorder. Pathology is demonstrated by adverse to the organism events. ***That's one world view. Another is that alcohol or other drugs are used to cope with psychological pain, traumatic memories etc. Alcohol dependence is often most successfully managed by finding other coping styles to replace the "zoning out" that alcohol enables.*** Of course alcohol is used to cope with psychological pain. As I have pointed out earlier, alcoholism is primary a fear based disorder. Groups like AA do exactly what you have suggested by showing people a different way to live their lives sober - their old paradigm existed as a necessity - alcoholism felt natural because it was psychologically natural. However, alcohol use is reinforced along mesolimbic dopamime reward pathways - causing the seeking of alcohol to move on the most subconscious levels akin to looking for food when hungry or water when thirsty. ***There are many psychologicl explanations, many of which don't emphasise the language of "disease". I'd be happy to hear more of your explanation though.*** Alcoholism is an altered physiology. The same as a COPD is altered physiology or cancer is altered physiology or heart attack is altered physiology. It's all disease with a physiological basis and signs and symptoms corresponding to said alteration in physiology. I'm a physician - disease is what I live with and deal with every day - I what a disease is and is not. ***I'd be happy to review any citations that you have around this isue JD. it does not in any ay concur with my reading of the phenomena. My reading leads me to a belief that maternal hormonal and or imune factors are more likely to be implicated in an array of gender expression/identification baed phenomena. I've seen no compelling evidence of trauma playing a role.*** www.narth.com" target="_blank">-> www.narth.com www.narth.com" target="_blank">-> www.narth.com www.cwfa.org" target="_blank">-> www.cwfa.org First link is a start on the psychological issues. The next two links look at some of the attempts from science to point out a purely biological factor. ***there may be epidemilogical factors and features of penile tissue that you are not giving due attention to*** Such as? ***Psychotherapists aren't imune to influence of ideology as seen in the "recovered memory" phenomena. If two folks "treater and patient" percieve something as a problem then no doubt some will be "cured". I'd challenge you though....what about the many who don't percieve themselves to be "disordered" or in need of treatment? What evidence is there to say they are wrong?*** You've heard the joke about how many psychotherapists it takes to change a lightbulb? One, but the lightbulb has to WANT to change. This is the way it is is with any psychological disorder. The brain has a very difficult time recognizing when it is hurt. For instance when you hurt your knee the brain knows - AHA! there is the pain, there is the problem. However, when the brain is hurt, it still looks to externals for the source of the pain in the same way as the knee. If the knee hurts the brain says the knee must be fixed - and decides on ibuprofen and heat. In like manner the brain sees it's pain as you, me, society and the brain attempts to change you, me or society. It doesn't realize that problem lies within. It does not realize that it is powerless to change you, me or society in anyway that will help. What evidence do I have that they are wrong? It's clearly shown through abnormal behavior. You can show the alcoholic he's alcoholic by teh way he drinks. You can show the homosexual through the sexual behavior. The evidence to the alcoholic is often not personally convincing and neither is the evidence often convincing to the homosexual either. ***hahaha that utterance seems beyond silly from where i sit. What evidence do you have for this wild and preposterous proposition?*** Contempt prior to investigation? The globalist NWO agenda is quite straight forward if you know where to look. Here's a start: www.savethemales.ca" target="_blank">-> www.savethemales.ca Look around the whole site (if you dare) ***ah the link posting problem.. I'm no expert and am not always successful. The trick seems to be to remember to put a space after the link......*** Thank you seems to have done the trick. |
|||||||
|
disorder? There is heaps of room for contamination around assumptions of what is or is not normal variation versus pathology*** <<Of course this definition does not encompass "normal variants" because a normal variant is not a disorder. Red hair is not a disorder. Pathology is demonstrated by adverse to the organism events.>> Arent we becoming circular here? What makes homosexuality a disorder? What are the "adverse to organism events"? ***That's one world view. Another is that alcohol or other drugs are used to cope with psychological pain, traumatic memories etc. Alcohol dependence is often most successfully managed by finding other coping styles to replace the "zoning out" that alcohol enables.*** <<Of course alcohol is used to cope with psychological pain. As I have pointed out earlier, alcoholism is primary a fear based disorder. Groups like AA do exactly what you have suggested by showing people a different way to live their lives sober - their old paradigm existed as a necessity - alcoholism felt natural because it was psychologically natural. However, alcohol use is reinforced along mesolimbic dopamime reward pathways - causing the seeking of alcohol to move on the most subconscious levels akin to looking for food when hungry or water when thirsty.>> As are sports, socialising enjoying music etc..... I don't understand whre you come from with "fear based disorder". You haven't yet described what you mean. What makes a coping style a disorder? ***There are many psychologicl explanations, many of which don't emphasise the language of "disease". I'd be happy to hear more of your explanation though.*** <<Alcoholism is an altered physiology. The same as a COPD is altered physiology or cancer is altered physiology or heart attack is altered physiology. It's all disease with a physiological basis and signs and symptoms corresponding to said alteration in physiology. I'm a physician - disease is what I live with and deal with every day - I what a disease is and is not.>> What physiology is altered in alcoholism. What defines the boundary physiologically? COPD and heart attack can be measured with xrays, pulmonary function tests, ecgs and enzyme levels. What measure defines alcoholism? With respect medical training teaches a lot about anatomy and physiology...it also inculcates folk into an ideology which may blind folk to other viable world views. Drs may yend to see everything through the lens of disease/disorder. A sociologist may seem the same phemomena totally diferently. Mental health and the issue under discussion (homosexuality) are good exemplars of this potential for unhelpful bias. ***I'd be happy to review any citations that you have around this isue JD. it does not in any ay concur with my reading of the phenomena. My reading leads me to a belief that maternal hormonal and or imune factors are more likely to be implicated in an array of gender expression/identification baed phenomena. I've seen no compelling evidence of trauma playing a role.*** << -> www.narth.com -> www.narth.com -> www.cwfa.org First link is a start on the psychological issues. The next two links look at some of the attempts from science to point out a purely biological factor.>> Thanks, 'll review thse with interest and aftr all, if they are on the internet they must be true. ***there may be epidemilogical factors and featu res of penile tissue that you are not giving due attention to*** <<Such as?>> I don't have the info to hand but there is some evidence that HIV is particulary well absorbed through the skin around the foreskin...hence some protective function of circumsision. It' hypothesised that this makes males gnerally more prone to HIV infection than females. ***Psychotherapists aren't imune to influence of ideology as seen in the "recovered memory" phenomena. If two folks "treater and patient" percieve something as a problem then no doubt some will be "cured". I'd challenge you though....what about the many who don't percieve themselves to be "disordered" or in need of treatment? What evidence is there to say they are wrong?*** <<You've heard the joke about how many psychotherapists it takes to change a lightbulb? One, but the lightbulb has to WANT to change. This is the way it is is with any psychological disorder. The brain has a very difficult time recognizing when it is hurt.>> Not my experince with survivors of sexual abuse/ suicidality..... folks are well aware that they are traumatised. Gay folk in general only experience angst driven by social vilification. For instance when you hurt your knee the brain knows - AHA! there is the pain, there is the problem. However, when the brain is hurt, it still looks to externals for the source of the pain in the same way as the knee. If the knee hurts the brain says the knee must be fixed - and decides on ibuprofen and heat. In like manner the brain sees it's pain as you, me, society and the brain attempts to change you, me or society. It doesn't realize that problem lies within. It does not realize that it is powerless to change you, me or society in anyway that will help. What evidence do I have that they are wrong? It's clearly shown through abnormal behavior. You can show the alcoholic he's alcoholic by teh way he drinks. You can show the homosexual through the sexual behavior. The evidence to the alcoholic is often not personally convincing and neither is the evidence often convincing to the homosexual either.>> So it takes a professionl to lt a homosexual know that something needs to be cured? What a presumtuous world view. ***hahaha that utterance seems beyond silly from where i sit. What evidence do you have for this wild and preposterous proposition?*** Contempt prior to investigation? The globalist NWO agenda is quite straight forward if you know where to look. Here's a start: -> www.savethemales.ca Look around the whole site (if you dare)>> I've looked...... I'm afraid that all i have extracted is the belief that any ideologue can put up a shingle on the internet. World conspiracies are two a penny. What attracts you to this one? ***ah the link posting problem.. I'm no expert and am not always successful. The trick seems to be to remember to put a space after the link......*** Thank you seems to have done the trick. >> My pleasure |
|||||||
| ||||||||
Log in 
