APA and Homosexuality.?

Question

It is widely known that in 1974 the full membership of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) followed the 1973 recommendation of its board by voting to remove homosexuality as a pathological psychiatric condition as such (or "in itself") from the DSM, which is the official reference book for diagnosing mental disorders in America (and through much of the world).

Answer 1

wow...didn't know all that...good info...i agree..it is a type of mental disorder...kinda like over eaters, thieves, drunkards, and so on....people who say it has been around for a long time and say its normal...so has murder is that normal...and if it is so normal...why does is go against natural law...they can't reproduce themselves...how does it exist if it is not a mental condition? so i guess we made the wrong decision...

Answer 2

The field of Psychology/Psychiatry has become a joke. We've come up with so many excuses and disorders which allow an escape for people from their issues and problems. The DSM V will have many changes and adaptations. The world of mental health will keep adjusting to appease everyone.. Psychology/Psychiatry will never be a real hard science. It will always remain a social science. What they decide one year may change the next.. The DSM IV went thru two revisions. By approximately 2010, when the DSM V is predicted to be available, so much contradictory reasearch will have been done. Sadly it's the best we can do to explain peoples pathology. But more oddly enough, people seek treatment by professionals in a field where there is no answer.. The truth lies within. The medical field will soon fall to the same ails. Hopefully not before my practice is over and I'm dead.

Answer 3

It depends entirely on how the science of psychiatry defines a "disease". The problem is, they don't have a clear ideological framework to build upon, because current mainstream psychology has an incomplete and essentially unscientific view of the mind. Science should shepherd us through all the personal bias and superstition, but psychology has failed to do this for homosexuality.



No, I'm not a scientologist. I do, however, vehemently support the growing Evolutionary Psychology movement -- which is essentially an attempt to bring more science and biology back into psychology.



About HOMOSEXUALITY, it is very difficult to imagine that an aversion to the opposite sex would lead to lots of children. Yes, homosexuals sire and bear children -- but not nearly as often as heterosexuals do. So, from a purely evolutionary point of view, homosexuality is a kind of ailment.



But fortunately, pure Darwinian calculation does not have to determine what we call a disease. If it DID, getting a vasectomy would be considered sheer dementia. And, men who choose to use condoms would be locked up and medicated.



Homosexuality has very little to do with the "mind". It is a physical difference of the brain that appears to be mostly genetic in cause. I know that the "mind" is simply the functioning of the brain, but mainstream psychology has not yet accepted this: They are clinging to outmoded Cartesian ideas.



We observe homosexual behavior in other primate species. What is so hard to understand and accept that this is just a peculiar BIOLOGICAL phenomenon? It is not a "mental disease" for the same reason that having red hair or cleft palate is a mental disorder.



Yes, it has a great deal to do with the mind and being a homosexual appears to be a distinct mental burden in our society (and in most human societies in general). However, there are many coldly logical and scientific reasons to remove it from the DSM that have nothing to do with the anti-religious or pro-gay biases among academics.



Short answer: YES, it was right for them to remove this from the DSM.

Answer 4

I'll reiterate what I've said before:



There are an abundance of tests, and studies that have proved that aside from differing sexual desires (same-sex vs. opposite sex) there is nothing in personality or psychological profile that differentiates a homosexual from a heterosexual. I've cited the studies for you over and over again, and you clearly have no idea how science works. You complain about sample sizes, and yet, pay no attention to the fact that the very studies that you say defend the definition of homosexuality as a mental disorder were all performed on prisoners and people in inpatient wards.



It's easy to prove that homosexuals are insane were you're only studying people in inpatient psychiatric care, isn't it?



You are not well-read or well studied on this issue. You are spouting the things you have read in one book. When you have read the evidence from both sides and evaluated it, then you might actually be able to discuss the issue fairly. Please use evidence and science. I have read the one article you posted in your previous thread about this, and it referenced ZERO science. It simply made a political argument. While I admit politics played a role in the decision, it was the easily overturned science of the side who attempt to defend the "disorder" side that continues to keep their views on the far fringes of science. They have NO scientific evidence and you still fail to supply any.



Here are the nations you would like to side with, apparently:

Iran, Egypt, Uganda, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Cameroon. India is one of the few democracies that still have laws again homosexuality on the books.



The rest of the modern world, even China (hardly known for its human rights record) has eliminated laws against homosexuality and has removed homosexuality from its list of psychiatric disorders.



What makes you such an expert that you can supercede the opinions of the world psychiatric community? What makes you the authority on what designates a mental illness?



And what's your obsession with the issue?

Answer 5

It appears to be an innate preference. Homosexuality appears to be untreatable.



It does not disable the individual from ANY other normal activity, nor does it make a person criminal or pathological.



Dictatorial societies (Spain under the Inquisition) have made fierce attempts to wipe out homosexuality and have failed.



Overall, essentially, the think the APA did the right thing -- I suspect the psychiatrists voting there were tired of pretending to treat something they couldn't change that didn't disable their patients nor create any pathology or mental illness in them.

Answer 6

Not sure of the question, but let me suggest an answer. Psychiatric fields are dominated by left wing political influences that are no resoundingly pro homosexual. However many still consider it pathological because no genetic (racial) determination has been found. And I think it will be hard to find one since genetically the homosexual can not reproduce.

Answer 7

Amazing how widespread the news of the results of the surveys you mention were; I'm sure everyone heard about it on the front page news. Why are you so concerned about this? Are you worried that you may have a mental illness? Worry not; intolerance and prejudice are not recognized as mental illnesses by the APA. Although I'm sure that psychiatry would have a fun time figuring out why you focus so many of your questions on homosexuality.



Mental illness? Preference? Go on. No, really, go on... I needed a good laugh.

Answer 8

Any behavior which is outside the accepted 'norm' for a particular culture at a given point in time is considered mental illness.

In ancient Greece,or maybe modern-day Japan it might be considered an aberration if a person refused to bathe nude with their fellows. The APA is a lot about control, eh?

Answer 9

Of course, I don't think homosexuality is a disease or disorder - it's a preference. And homosexuality has existed for ages, the Greeks and Romans engaged in it for centuries and it's existed in just about every civilization and was generally heralded as something normal. It's only after civilizations began to take upon notions of shame and strict religion that homosexuality begun to be shunned and stigmatized.

Answer 10

Those surveys you have read are totally unreliable. Individual psychologists/psychiatrists may indeed think that way. However, it is widely known in the medical community that homosexuality is a genetic trait and not at all a mental illness.

Answer 11

That's complex! I do know about reseach cited to say that homosexuality is physiological. What it says is that a portion of the population is born with their brain formed (via genetic input from parents) in the womb at the point of formation of sex as to create a certain chemical balance that causes excessive attraction to the same sex as oppposed to the opposite. And that a certain portion of the gay population choses to be gay in spite of not having such a chemical balance (presumably based on environmental factors).



That all makes perfect sense to me. The problem is that's EXACTLY the same circumstances that explain physiological deformations of the brain that produce chemical imbalances leading to defined mental illnesses, and for many of thsoe we've been able to develop drugs that counteract the natural chemical problems. I don't supose we'll develop pills to make gay people straight, and I understand how the logic can be offensive - I don't mean it that way, just trying to work thru the facts.



Now, JUST SPEAKING FOR MYSELF & IN NO WAY PUSHING THESE VIEWS ON OTHERS.... As a christian I think the behavior itself is a sin, but I know that God tells me not to judge others, that none of us are w/o sin or better than our fellow man. Their behavior is between them and God, not me. In making sense of it, I know catholics believe we're all born with a cross to bare. Be that alcoholism, drug addiction, obesity, homosexual tendencies, etc. I don't know if that's exactly right, but I think we're all born with both talents & faults, & that conquering your faults is as important as maximizing your talents in being a good person or successful in the world. Everybody else is welcome to their own opinion. That just happens to be mine, and my appology to anyone who may feel offended by it.

Answer 12

not sure what the question is, but here's mine: why can the apa never just say "dunno"?