From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: APA and Homosexuality
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 23:21:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.055056.8747@msc.cornell.edu>, maynard@leah.msc.cornell.edu (Maynard J. Handley) writes:
>>>>Also, the Am. Psychiatric Assoc. permitted itself to be lobbied and
>>intimi-
>>>>>dated by homo. activists around 1970 and, without new science, changed
>>their
>>>>>public judgement about the psy. unhealthiness of homo.
>>>>
>>>>Of course the original judgement of the APA was hardly based on
>>"science"
>>>>to begin with, but rather on Christian social norms.  There's no reason
>>>>>to think that either of their public judgements are accurate.
>>>
>>>    You have committed the logical fallacy of irrelevant conclusion.
>>>    Please provide evidence that the original APA judgement that
>>homosexuality 
>>>is psy. illness is _based_ on Christianity. 
>>
>>Please provide evidence that the APA judgments were based on *anything*.
>
>>>    Can homo. be classified as sick _independent_ of religion? That's my
>>point.
>>>Or, rather, has it been done? 
>>
>>To my knowledge, homosexuality has not been classified as sick by any
>>science more advanced than phrenology.
>
>I'd be interested in hearing about the views of the APA on this and why
>they changed, and not on the flame war that certain individuals seem intent
>on propagating. Certainly I can say this: 
>
>Over winter I'm staying in a communal house (not my usual lodgings) and a
>few days ago was looking through the piles of books all over the place. I
>cam across an early 70s (1970? 1972?) copy of "Everything you want to know
>about sex (but were afraid to ask)." Flipping through this I was very
>surprised to see the way homosexuality was treated. We were given a brief
>description of "what homosexuals do", "how homosexuals cruise" then a
>discussion on how 
>"homosexuality can be cured" with the help of a psychiatrist.
>
>This looks to me like a fairly strong indication that at least some
>psychiatrists at the time thought of homosexuality as a disease. 
>Now maybe you think psychiatry is no more advanced than phrenology. If so,
>then say so and bow out of the discussion. The S/N ratio on ths group is
>way too high, but some of us would like to know the reasoning of the APA
>before and after and have little interest in whether such-and-such a poster
>is rabid homophobe or gay rights supporter.
>
>Maynard Handley

SG	I appreciate your respect for reason.

	"Inventing the Homosexual"-Marjorie Rosenberg, _Commentary_, Dec. 1987; 
excellent account; p.36. However, she doesn't give reasons why APA previously 
opposed homo. Her point is merely that the later APA acceptance of homo. was 
neither good nor bad science but "The psyciatric concept of homo.had been an 
integral part of a theoretical system elaborated throughout his century; it was 
overturned in a two-year period by committees of the APA responding to a 
general political climate and to specific political manipulation and 
intimidation."
	She mentions _Homosexuality and Amer. Society_ by Ronald Bayer and 
perhaps this has the APA reasoning against homosexuality. She is also writing a 
book on homo. which, perhaps, has been published. Check libraries via net.
	I think one must get very basic, perhaps even philosophical, to 
understand homo. Human nature is the key here. Humans are bio. hetero. I don't 
think anyone denies this. That is, whatever one's emotions, even the homosexual 
is a member of a species which is bio. hetero. Psy. health requires psy. 
contact with this fact rather than repression or suppression of it. As far as i 
understand the arguments of homosexual advocates, it's "Do it if it feels 
good." As far as i know all societies recognize the destruction resulting from 
using emotions as a guide. This argument from tradition and popularity proves 
nothing but we should study the past as a clue to the present and future. At 
the very least, past destructiveness w/emotion-guided behavior should make us 
wonder about people who don't put emotion into a context of their knowledge of 
reality. 
	There's a big difference bet/people who feel homosexual emotions and 
know that something is very wrong and, alternatively, those who create a 
politically-charged "lifestyle" from those emotions. I wanted to be a jet pilot 
as a child but Momma Nature (myopia) said no. (I hope someone who wears glasses 
and is a jet pilot doesn't write in) It is proper to feel pity for sick people 
but not for those who glorify and politicalize sickness. As far as i know, even 
anti-reason societies oppose, to varying degrees, homosexuality. We can guess 
whay would happen to homo.advocates in the allegedly pro-emotion cultures of 
the non-western world. They would be broiled and their privates fed to animals!
But homosexuals are individuals and have a right to  have their absurdity 
protected (not privileged) by the government. They are still sick, tho. And 
definitely not on religious grounds. On the grounds of reality as known by 
reason.
	Is Phil Donahue more feminine than Oprah?
	Also, assholes are not naturally stretchable like vaginas, leading to 
homo. use of poppers to psychologically and physiologically ease the act that 
dare not name itself...Ohhhh! (That last sentence feels bizarre) Poppers, as 
the Centers for Disease Control recognized in the mid-80s, used for a lengthy 
time by homosexuals, caused AIDS. So it's not homosexuality nor needles but the 
long-term drug lifestyle of malnutrition, sleeplessness, and chronic tension.
Perhaps the decadence of the Roman Empire and Weimar Germany are good warnings 
against emotion-driven behavior. Reason or religious tradition are the better 
alternatives. We were a rational culture but now are passing thru hedonism, 
perhaps on the way to religiuos tradition. I, for one hope we return to reason 
via Rand's philosophy of Objectivism.
________________________________________________________________________________
	"In that world, you'll be able to rise in the morning with the spirit
you had known in your childhood: that spirit of eagerness, adventure and cer-
tainty which comes from dealing with a rational universe."
                                                              AYN RAND
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Grossman <PMSC13SG@UMASS.EDU>
================================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine