Magic Johnson's son goes public with boyfriend

[servechilled81]

^ But we honestly haven't spoken of parenting STYLES. All we have discussed were inner emotions upon receiving the news that your son was gay. Nothing further Lobo.

Well, if we go into my field. There are three.

Authoritarian - Strong, rules only parenting

Authoritative - Sets rules, and can explain why they are there

Permisive - No rules, go with the flow.

Early Childhood Ed major?

 

[boris]

Maybe 'styles' isn't the right word. I've learned how some parent's happiness would be adversely affected by their child's happiness.

Again, you're implying that a child is automatically happy with believing himself to be a homosexual . It's because I care about my child, and care about his acceptance/success in this crazy world , that I'll bend over backwards to make sure that he is not just "sexually confused" . Instead of just brushing it off and simply labeling him as a homosexual.

You ever gonna provide substantial research to prove the point you tried to make a while back about homosexuality being a mental disorder? I mean, you provided a document from the 70s. Do you have more or were you just talking out of your rear end?

 

[DCAllAfrican]

Maybe 'styles' isn't the right word. I've learned that some parent's happiness would be adversely affected by their child's happiness.

Why are you assuming that because a child announced he is gay that is is happy?

What makes him more/less happy than an already established heterosexual boy?

 

[RIP sleazyy]

You ever gonna provide substantial research to prove the point you tried to make a while back about homosexuality being a mental disorder? I mean, you provided a document from the 70s. Do you have more or were you just talking out of your rear end?

I've provided sources . The only reason it is no longer in the DSM, should not be grounds to not label it as a mental disorder. And I've quoted the article which states so, as well.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html

Some psychologists and psychiatrists still hold negative personal attitudes toward homosexuality. However, empirical evidence and professional norms do not support the idea that homosexuality is a form of mental illness or is inherently linked to psychopathology.


BUT


The data from some studies suggest that, although most sexual minority individuals are well adjusted, nonheterosexuals may be at somewhat heightened risk for depression, anxiety, and related problems, compared to exclusive heterosexuals (Cochran & Mays, 2006).


don't take it as argumentative but I would also like if you posted or PM'd a link to a reputable source with evidence of homosexuality in humans being a mental illness. I'm wondering what points could be made for a behavior existing throughout nature being a form or sign of mental illness exclusively in humans. always good to read opposing viewpoints.

apologies if you've posted links in this thread already.

 

[boris]

You ever gonna provide substantial research to prove the point you tried to make a while back about homosexuality being a mental disorder? I mean, you provided a document from the 70s. Do you have more or were you just talking out of your rear end?

I've provided sources . The only reason it is no longer in the DSM, should not be grounds to not label it as a mental disorder. And I've quoted the article which states so, as well.

I don't think you understand. After you were criticized for posting an outdated article, you stated that there is research that proves  homosexuality can be a mental disorder. I am requesting this information from you. 

 

[lobotomybeats]

Why are you assuming that because a child announced he is gay that is is happy?

What makes him more/less happy than an already established heterosexual boy?

I'm not saying he is happier than a heterosexual man. Sexual orientation doesn't determine happiness. I'm saying if my son told me he is gay, I'm assuming that his love for men makes him happy. I mean love can be a huge part of happiness. I'd never imply that being gay makes you happier than being straight. That doesn't make sense at all.

 

[tr1ll]

What about a chemical imbalance?

 

[RIP sleazyy]

What about a chemical imbalance?

there is evidence to support the theory but not 100% concrete. it's still being debated, and much more research is needed.

you should read this though.

http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html

 

[offbad]

I probably didn't fully explain myself. I haven't done extensive research on homosexuality being a mental illness. I am not a psych major, I am actually FAR from it (Civil Engineering).

Now, from doing a bit of reading, I was able to understand that Homosexuality had been taken away from the DSM for all the wrong reasons. And read exactly why homosexuality was considered a mental disorder in the first place.

Which is why I stated that there is proof that homosexuality can indeed be a mental disorder, coming straight from the DSM. I used it as reference, because they had done their own extensive research and published that book.

So when I said I had "proof" , I meant it. Wether you believe the DSM removed homosexuality as a mental disorder to be plausible , is simply an opinion. You have your opinion, and I have mine.


Again, I am not an Expert in the studies of Homosexuality.

• civil engineering

• has opinion on biological processes

pick one.

 

[sir charles]

^ But we honestly haven't spoken of parenting STYLES. All we have discussed were inner emotions upon receiving the news that your son was gay. Nothing further Lobo.

Well, if we go into my field. There are three.

Authoritarian - Strong, rules only parenting
Authoritative - Sets rules, and can explain why they are there
Permisive - No rules, go with the flow.

Early Childhood Ed major?

Psychology, not a major yet though. Will be going to the National Psych convention in May to hear from the best

Developmental psychology does study those three parenting styles however, and the effects they have on the individual throughout their entire life.

 

[lobotomybeats]

Again, I am not an Expert in the studies of Homosexuality.

What? I think you're being humble here.

 

[sir charles]

Now, from doing a bit of reading, I was able to understand that Homosexuality had been taken away from the DSM for all the wrong reasons. And read exactly why homosexuality was considered a mental disorder in the first place.

Which is why I stated that there is proof that homosexuality can indeed be a mental disorder, coming straight from the DSM. I used it as reference, because they had done their own extensive research and published that book.

So when I said I had "proof" , I meant it. Wether you believe the DSM removed homosexuality as a mental disorder to be plausible , is simply an opinion. You have your opinion, and I have mine.


Again, I am not an Expert in the studies of Homosexuality.

It was removed from the DSM due to research.

Hooker- 1975

Hooker administered three projective tests (the Rorschach, Thematic Apperception Test [TAT], and Make-A-Picture-Story [MAPS] Test) to 30 homosexual males and 30 heterosexual males recruited through community organizations. The two groups were matched for age, IQ, and education. None of the men were in therapy at the time of the study.

Unaware of each subject's sexual orientation, two independent Rorschach experts evaluated the men's overall adjustment using a 5-point scale. They classified two-thirds of the heterosexuals and two-thirds of the homosexuals in the three highest categories of adjustment. When asked to identify which Rorschach protocols were obtained from homosexuals, the experts could not distinguish respondents' sexual orientation at a level better than chance.

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.

It was later removed from the DSM II, at the same time bay's were acting against it. Due to politics, it was layer added into the DSM-III, Until evidence had shown it was not true and it was permanently removed in 1983.

 

[boris]

I probably didn't fully explain myself. I haven't done extensive research on homosexuality being a mental illness. I am not a psych major, I am actually FAR from it (Civil Engineering).

Now, from doing a bit of reading, I was able to understand that Homosexuality had been taken away from the DSM for all the wrong reasons. And read exactly why homosexuality was considered a mental disorder in the first place.

Which is why I stated that there is proof that homosexuality can indeed be a mental disorder, coming straight from the DSM. I used it as reference, because they had done their own extensive research and published that book.

So when I said I had "proof" , I meant it. Wether you believe the DSM removed homosexuality as a mental disorder to be plausible , is simply an opinion. You have your opinion, and I have mine.


Again, I am not an Expert in the studies of Homosexuality.

Oh, okay. You could have just said you were talking out of your rear end. 

 

[offbad]

• civil engineering

• has opinion on biological processes

pick one.

I can have an opinion on anything I want. This is the "General" section after all. Wether you want to pay me any mind , is totally up to you.

implying your opinions are worth having. 

 

[sir charles]

Here is the history of the researchers, and their reasons on why homosexuality is a disease, and those like Hooker who say it is not.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html



Here is a short 8 page paper on why the DSM had homosexuality as a disease, why it was removed, and why it was brought back and later removed. Political, and logical factors both into play. It's a good read.

http://catholicsocialscientists.org/CSSR/Archival/2001/Nicolosi_71-78.pdf



Read up, WhatCanISay

 

[deuce king]

You still didn't answer the question.  Would YOU (Sir Charles) be happy if your son dressed in women's clothing??  A YES or NO reply will suffice.

It's not merely about dropping out of school though.  It's about your son being HAPPY.  If your son is happy with dropping out of school, and you said earlier that your son being happy is what makes YOU happy, why wouldn't you (Sir Charles) be happy that your son is happy by dropping out of school??  Isn't it all about being happy??

I thought my answer of being annoyed with people who seek attention would provide an answer for you. If it didn't, then I will tell you now. No, I would not be happy if my son dressed in women's clothing. Because people who act in ways that beg for attention annoys me, period. Son or not. 

There are certain things that you have to fix, and certain things that you shouldn't get upset about. It's not all about being happy.

If my son decides to drop out of school he is going to end up homeless, that is a huge set back in his life, and mine since he will probably be in my home until I die. Begging for attention by dressing like a woman would not make me happy because it would annoy the crap out of me. Now if my son told me he was gay, and happy with his life I would be happy with his choice. End of story.

You are over simplifying what I am telling you, you are arguing just to argue. 

Cut it out.

Thank you for your replies.  Based upon what you just said, it appears you think men who dress in women's clothing are doing it for attention purposes to a certain extent, that and it annoys you. 

 

[sir charles]

DK, I don't have a gripe with you man. Honestly, I don't care if your learned anything from what I said or not. In the end, you did not pull anything from what I had said, you chose to simplify it. And we did not change our views at all, so leave it at that.

 

[sir charles]

_dbl

 

[sir charles]

It was removed from the DSM due to research.


Hooker- 1975


It was later removed from the DSM II, at the same time bay's were acting against it. Due to politics, it was layer added into the DSM-III, Until evidence had shown it was not true and it was permanently removed in 1983.

 Homosexuality, as you describe it was never in the DSM-II. It had already been revised and labeled as " Sexual orientation disturbance".  "Sexual orientation disturbance" is exactly what I've been trying to get across to you guys. It's describing the mental distresses caused by homosexuality. Hence, the reason why I still call it Homosexuality.

C'mon son. I can't take anything else you post seriously.

Did you read the articles I left for you?

 

[lobotomybeats]

 Homosexuality, as you describe it was never in the DSM-II. It had already been revised and labeled as " Sexual orientation disturbance".  "Sexual orientation disturbance" is exactly what I've been trying to get across to you guys. It's describing the mental distresses caused by homosexuality. Hence, the reason why I still call it Homosexuality.

C'mon son. I can't take anything else you post seriously.

You understand that you are arguing against what the APA decided on, right? You're contradicting a manual for ****'s sake. If facts don't sway you nothing will.

 

[RIP sleazyy]

It was removed from the DSM due to research.


Hooker- 1975


It was later removed from the DSM II, at the same time bay's were acting against it. Due to politics, it was layer added into the DSM-III, Until evidence had shown it was not true and it was permanently removed in 1983.

 Homosexuality, as you describe it was never in the DSM-II. It had already been revised and labeled as " Sexual orientation disturbance".  "Sexual orientation disturbance" is exactly what I've been trying to get across to you guys. It's describing the mental distresses caused by homosexuality. Hence, the reason why I still call it Homosexuality.

C'mon son. I can't take anything else you post seriously.

homosexuality was considered a "sexual deviation" and was in the DSM-II. it was revised and reprinted. in 1974 "homosexuality" was removed and replaced with "sexual orientation disturbance". which was then replaced by "ego-dystonic sexual orientation".. which was later removed also.

which mental distresses are you talking about? whatever they are, are they not caused by other things as well?


"Subsequently, a new diagnosis, ego-dystonic homosexuality, was created for the DSM's third edition in 1980. Ego dystonic homosexuality was indicated by: (1) a persistent lack of heterosexual arousal, which the patient experienced as interfering with initiation or maintenance of wanted heterosexual relationships, and (2) persistent distress from a sustained pattern of unwanted homosexual arousal.

This new diagnostic category, however, was criticized by mental health professionals on numerous grounds. It was viewed by many as a political compromise to appease those psychiatrists – mainly psychoanalysts – who still considered homosexuality a pathology. Others questioned the appropriateness of having a separate diagnosis that described the content of an individual's dysphoria. They argued that the psychological problems related to ego-dystonic homosexuality could be treated as well by other general diagnostic categories, and that the existence of the diagnosis perpetuated antigay stigma.

Moreover, widespread prejudice against homosexuality in the United States meant that many people who are homosexual go through an initial phase in which their homosexuality could be considered ego dystonic. According to the American Psychiatric Association, "Fears and misunderstandings about homosexuality are widespread.... [and] present daunting challenges to the development and maintenance of a positive self-image in gay, lesbian and bisexual persons and often to their families as well."

In 1986, the diagnosis was removed entirely from the DSM. The only vestige of ego dystonic homosexuality in the revised DSM-III occurred under Sexual Disorders Not Otherwise Specified, which included persistent and marked distress about one's sexual orientation (American Psychiatric Association, 1987; see Bayer, 1987, for an account of the events leading up to the 1973 and 1986 decisions). "


Sir Charles and I have both posted it, I will post it once again.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html

please read this at least the conclusion portion of the page.

 

[lobotomybeats]

homosexuality was considered a "sexual deviation" and was in the DSM-II. it was revised and reprinted. in 1974 "homosexuality" was removed and replaced with "sexual orientation disturbance". which was then replaced by "ego-dystonic sexual orientation".. which was later removed also.

which mental distresses are you talking about? whatever they are, are they not caused by other things as well?


"Subsequently, a new diagnosis, ego-dystonic homosexuality, was created for the DSM's third edition in 1980. Ego dystonic homosexuality was indicated by: (1) a persistent lack of heterosexual arousal, which the patient experienced as interfering with initiation or maintenance of wanted heterosexual relationships, and (2) persistent distress from a sustained pattern of unwanted homosexual arousal.

This new diagnostic category, however, was criticized by mental health professionals on numerous grounds. It was viewed by many as a political compromise to appease those psychiatrists – mainly psychoanalysts – who still considered homosexuality a pathology. Others questioned the appropriateness of having a separate diagnosis that described the content of an individual's dysphoria. They argued that the psychological problems related to ego-dystonic homosexuality could be treated as well by other general diagnostic categories, and that the existence of the diagnosis perpetuated antigay stigma.

Moreover, widespread prejudice against homosexuality in the United States meant that many people who are homosexual go through an initial phase in which their homosexuality could be considered ego dystonic. According to the American Psychiatric Association, "Fears and misunderstandings about homosexuality are widespread.... [and] present daunting challenges to the development and maintenance of a positive self-image in gay, lesbian and bisexual persons and often to their families as well."

In 1986, the diagnosis was removed entirely from the DSM. The only vestige of ego dystonic homosexuality in the revised DSM-III occurred under Sexual Disorders Not Otherwise Specified, which included persistent and marked distress about one's sexual orientation (American Psychiatric Association, 1987; see Bayer, 1987, for an account of the events leading up to the 1973 and 1986 decisions). "


Sir Charles and I have both posted it, I will post it once again.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html

please read this at least the conclusion portion of the page.

Don't bother posting facts, they are lost on him. He is still operating under the belief that political motivation was the only reason homosexuality was removed from the DSM. Bending opinions is an easy way to make points that align with your bigotry.

 

[lobotomybeats]

I'm actually going by the manual.

http://www.torahdec.org/Downloads/DSM-II_Homosexuality_Revision.pdf

 

[sir charles]

You understand that you are arguing against what the APA decided on, right? You're contradicting a manual for ****'s sake. If facts don't sway you nothing will.

I'm actually going by the manual.

http://www.torahdec.org/Downloads/DSM-II_Homosexuality_Revision.pdf

Why don't you go by the people who made the manual, which is now outdated?

http://catholicsocialscientists.org/CSSR/Archival/2001/Nicolosi_71-78.pdf

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html

If you are going to base all of your arguments on a book that was put out of commission in the 70s-80s, well, there's not much more I can do for you.

 

[Comparison Ford]

I'm actually going by the manual.

http://www.torahdec.org/Downloads/DSM-II_Homosexuality_Revision.pdf

Dense as lead.