India's health minister says homosexuality is a 'disease'

[janverbeem]

OK. I'm not a mod, but it turns out I was optimistic that this could possibly be a civil discussion. I propose as the OP author the thread be closed. Sorry folks for the mistake of encouraging the first anti-gay poster to explain himself rationally. It's simply not possible to have a calm rational discussion between gays and homophobes.

So then please point where the discussion was uncivil,or is it just that you can't stand to lose a discussion

[jdinasia]

^ I don't want to sound rude or anything,but If you take in consideration the pedofiles caught,how many percent of them are gay?I mean male pedo's going for male children or females going for female children.We all know it is the majority of them.So how many years more before they are also classified as not ill.

Almost ZERO percent of Pedos are gay.

What you "know" and what is real are two different things.

The incidence of pedophiles that state they are heterosexual, are married, or have been in heterosexual relationships is a huge percentage (doesn't matter what gender their pre-pubescent victims are).

The incidence of pedophiles that state they have had a gay relationship, bisexual relationship, or even sex with a man is tiny (again it doesn't matter what gender their pre-pubescent victims are)

You don't sound rude, you sound ignorant regarding sexuality.

[endure]

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).

You do realise that 1986 was only 25 years ago?

From the same article:

Hooker's study

Hooker's (1957) study was innovative in several important respects. First, rather than simply accepting the predominant view of homosexuality as pathology, she posed the question of whether homosexuals and heterosexuals differed in their psychological adjustment. Second, rather than studying psychiatric patients, she recruited a sample of homosexual men who were functioning normally in society. Third, she employed a procedure that asked experts to rate the adjustment of men without prior knowledge of their sexual orientation. This method addressed an important source of bias that had vitiated so many previous studies of homosexuality.

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.

A third expert used the TAT and MAPS protocols to evaluate the psychological adjustment of the men. As with the Rorschach responses, the adjustment ratings of the homosexuals and heterosexuals did not differ significantly.

Hooker concluded from her data that homosexuality is not a clinical entity and that homosexuality is not inherently associated with psychopathology.

Hooker's findings have since been replicated by many other investigators using a variety of research methods. Freedman (1971), for example, used Hooker's basic design to study lesbian and heterosexual women. Instead of projective tests, he administered objectively-scored personality tests to the women. His conclusions were similar to those of Hooker.

Although some investigations published since Hooker's study have claimed to support the view of homosexuality as pathological, they have been methodologically weak. Many used only clinical or incarcerated samples, for example, from which generalizations to the population at large are not possible. Others failed to safeguard the data collection procedures from possible biases by the investigators – for example, a man's psychological functioning would be evaluated by his own psychoanalyst, who was simultaneously treating him for his homosexuality.

Some studies found differences between homosexual and heterosexual respondents, and then assumed that those differences indicated pathology in the homosexuals. For example, heterosexual and homosexual respondents might report different kinds of childhood experiences or family relationships. It would then be assumed that the patterns reported by the homosexuals indicated pathology, even though there were no differences in psychological functioning between the two groups.

The weight of evidence 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.

[janverbeem]

^ I don't want to sound rude or anything,but If you take in consideration the pedofiles caught,how many percent of them are gay?I mean male pedo's going for male children or females going for female children.We all know it is the majority of them.So how many years more before they are also classified as not ill.

Almost ZERO percent of Pedos are gay.

What you "know" and what is real are two different things.

The incidence of pedophiles that state they are heterosexual, are married, or have been in heterosexual relationships is a huge percentage (doesn't matter what gender their pre-pubescent victims are).

The incidence of pedophiles that state they have had a gay relationship, bisexual relationship, or even sex with a man is tiny (again it doesn't matter what gender their pre-pubescent victims are)

You don't sound rude, you sound ignorant regarding sexuality.

I also know a lot of guy's who are gay and married with children.

Edit: for the hair splitters : I meant married with a wife and having children.

Edited July 5, 2011 by janverbeem

[endure]

^ I don't want to sound rude or anything,but If you take in consideration the pedofiles caught,how many percent of them are gay?I mean male pedo's going for male children or females going for female children.We all know it is the majority of them.So how many years more before they are also classified as not ill.

From the same site that Saraburioz quoted:

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

Article conclusion from this site:

"Conclusion

The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children. "

[jdinasia]

Not a fact in there ... the APA removed homosexuality in 1973. The Stonewall riots were in 1969, and there certainly was not much of an organized "gay community" by 1973. Please help me out some by pointing out which "gay political groups" existed pre-1973 for long enough to change the minds of the medical community.

There may be a few Dr's out there still that think it is an illness, but not many. Most of those that would say it is an illness would not say that people who are comfortable with their sexuality are mentally ill. There are still some psychiatrists out there that will try and help people who are not comfortable with their sexuality try and change. They are generally called "quacks" as all modern research shows that this type of therapy only creates more issues.

BTW --- you are aware that 1973 was 38 years ago ... aren't you?

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

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.

The above quote redacted for various reasons --- including the bold supersized red font -- and the use of a fallacious argument

From his same source ----

Removal from the DSM 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). Some psychiatrists who fiercely opposed their action subsequently circulated a petition calling for a vote on the issue by the Association's membership. That vote was held in 1974, and the Board's decision was ratified.

Please note Sara --- "The weight of empirical data"

[Jingthing]

OK. I'm not a mod, but it turns out I was optimistic that this could possibly be a civil discussion. I propose as the OP author the thread be closed. Sorry folks for the mistake of encouraging the first anti-gay poster to explain himself rationally. It's simply not possible to have a calm rational discussion between gays and homophobes.

So then please point where the discussion was uncivil,or is it just that you can't stand to lose a discussion

No, I can't stand BIGOTS who make up lies that gay = pedo. That's disgusting hate speech. It's the same kind of lies when people used to say Jews murder Christian children to make matzohs.

It turns out even though I started a topic on this in the gay forum, the mods deleted my OP and moved the topic. Therefore I can no longer claim to be the OP author, so I don't really have the right to request closure of thread. Sorry about that confusion. Back to the hate speech. Enough of this c--p for me.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Jingthing

[jdinasia]

^ I don't want to sound rude or anything,but If you take in consideration the pedofiles caught,how many percent of them are gay?I mean male pedo's going for male children or females going for female children.We all know it is the majority of them.So how many years more before they are also classified as not ill.

From the same site that Saraburioz quoted:

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

Article conclusion from this site:

"Conclusion

The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children. "

My point --- but the more recent research fails to identify even one gay man in studies of sex offenders convicted of acts of pedophilia.

[jdinasia]

^ I don't want to sound rude or anything,but If you take in consideration the pedofiles caught,how many percent of them are gay?I mean male pedo's going for male children or females going for female children.We all know it is the majority of them.So how many years more before they are also classified as not ill.

Almost ZERO percent of Pedos are gay.

What you "know" and what is real are two different things.

The incidence of pedophiles that state they are heterosexual, are married, or have been in heterosexual relationships is a huge percentage (doesn't matter what gender their pre-pubescent victims are).

The incidence of pedophiles that state they have had a gay relationship, bisexual relationship, or even sex with a man is tiny (again it doesn't matter what gender their pre-pubescent victims are)

You don't sound rude, you sound ignorant regarding sexuality.

I also know a lot of guy's who are gay and married with children.

Edit: for the hair splitters : I meant married with a wife and having children.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with my post

[astral]

Just tell me how an animal with no braincells,as all but one in the article are,can make a difference between male and female.Next you gonne tell us that worms are bisexual.

Actually worms are hermaphrodite, both sexes at the same time.........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caenorhabditis_elegans

How does that grab you??????

[Scott]

Please stay on-topic. The OP is not about pedophilia.

[endure]

Please stay on-topic. The OP is not about pedophilia.

Sorry but when posters bring up these nonsensical sidetracks someone has to refute them otherwise they become accepted by default. Gay folks are no more likely to be paedos than straight folks and the science proves it. Hearsay is just that - bullshit.

[janverbeem]

From his same source ----

Removal from the DSM 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). Some psychiatrists who fiercely opposed their action subsequently circulated a petition calling for a vote on the issue by the Association's membership. That vote was held in 1974, and the Board's decision was ratified.

Please note Sara --- "The weight of empirical data"

So because a certain group of people,previously classified as a mental disorder,gets political active justifies their behaviour?

[geriatrickid]

BBC reports; In a news conference called on Tuesday evening, Mr Azad said his quotes had been taken out of context and that when he spoke of disease, he was talking about HIV/Aids and not homosexuality."Some people have played with the words. I have been quoted out of context," he said.My reference was to HIV as a disease. As health minister, I know [male homosexual sex] is not a disease."

Shefali Sharan, a spokesman from Health ministry has denied the minister’s comments. He stated that the minister’s comment has been taken wrongly and minister was talking about the disease of HIV/AIDS, he was not talking about homosexuality.

Perhaps, it might be best if one were to accept the health minister's clarification and move on.

His comments were either misunderstood or he misspoke, but at the very least he has now retracted those comments and that's what matters.

Failing that, I suggest you consider Atul Kasbekar (photographer of Bollywood stars) that tweeted 'If homosexuality is a disease, let's all call in Queer to work. 'Hello, can't come in today, still Queer'.

[endure]

From his same source ----

Removal from the DSM 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). Some psychiatrists who fiercely opposed their action subsequently circulated a petition calling for a vote on the issue by the Association's membership. That vote was held in 1974, and the Board's decision was ratified.

Please note Sara --- "The weight of empirical data"

So because a certain group of people,previously classified as a mental disorder,gets political active justifies their behaviour?

So perhaps because a certain group of people previously classified as suffering from a mental disorder are no longer classified as suffering from that mental disorder we ought to carry on assuming that they continue to suffer from the mental disorder that they no longer suffer from?

[endure]

BBC reports; In a news conference called on Tuesday evening, Mr Azad said his quotes had been taken out of context and that when he spoke of disease, he was talking about HIV/Aids and not homosexuality."Some people have played with the words. I have been quoted out of context," he said.My reference was to HIV as a disease. As health minister, I know [male homosexual sex] is not a disease."

Shefali Sharan, a spokesman from Health ministry has denied the minister’s comments. He stated that the minister’s comment has been taken wrongly and minister was talking about the disease of HIV/AIDS, he was not talking about homosexuality.

Perhaps, it might be best if one were to accept the health minister's clarification and move on.

His comments were either misunderstood or he misspoke,[/size]

'Misspoke' <deleted> I thought you were a scientist? People who 'MISSPEAK' are politicians or bullshit merchants.

[Crushdepth]

It just goes to show: Democracies often do elect retards.

[kuffki]

Judging from his name, the minister is a Muslim,

and I understand that the Koran does forbid such acts.

and yet Pattaya is full of Muslims taking ladyboys back to their rooms

[Steely Dan]

This reminds me of the damage caused in South Africa when their health minister recommended treating HIV with garlic and betroot instread of with retroviral drugs. The similarity being the crass ignorance shown by someone in a position of reponsibility.

This is a hard topic to discuss without causing hurt or appealing to bigoted viewpoints, but I suspect Homosexuality must have a cause which is multi-factorial but I suspect endocrinology may hold many of the answers. As a zoologist I'm well aware of homosexuality across the animal kingdom, so what is 'normal', indeed how do you even define it?

[geriatrickid]

BBC reports; In a news conference called on Tuesday evening, Mr Azad said his quotes had been taken out of context and that when he spoke of disease, he was talking about HIV/Aids and not homosexuality."Some people have played with the words. I have been quoted out of context," he said.My reference was to HIV as a disease. As health minister, I know [male homosexual sex] is not a disease."

Shefali Sharan, a spokesman from Health ministry has denied the minister's comments. He stated that the minister's comment has been taken wrongly and minister was talking about the disease of HIV/AIDS, he was not talking about homosexuality.

Perhaps, it might be best if one were to accept the health minister's clarification and move on.

His comments were either misunderstood or he misspoke,[/size]

'Misspoke' <deleted> I thought you were a scientist? People who 'MISSPEAK' are politicians or bullshit merchants.

I push paper and I have seen enough examples of people putting their feet in their mouthes to be understanding of the situation. I have also heard people say things that they didn't mean to say. Whatever the case may have been, he is basically saying he erred. That's what matters to me. An error was made and was acknowledged as an error. The erroneous statement has been retracted.If he says he was wrong and we know he is wrong, why argue over the issue?

[geriatrickid]

This reminds me of the damage caused in South Africa when their health minister recommended treating HIV with garlic and betroot instread of with retroviral drugs. The similarity being the crass ignorance shown by someone in a position of reponsibility.

This is a hard topic to discuss without causing hurt or appealing to bigoted viewpoints, but I suspect Homosexuality must have a cause which is multi-factorial but I suspect endocrinology may hold many of the answers. As a zoologist I'm well aware of homosexuality across the animal kingdom, so what is 'normal', indeed how do you even define it?

The South African "health minister's" statement was one of many ignorant statements that she had made during her tenure. She was loathed by the public health specialists and she was seen as a one woman saboteur of the health ministry's herculean efforts to make South Africa a better place.She owed her position to political ties, and not to expertise.

The Indian health minister owes his position to his reputation for being able to manage and organize labour intensive projects. His key mission is to deliver on the Indian government's promise of improved health care. One of those tasks is to get the disorganized public health care system organized and the hospital administrations cleaned up. He is the minister that has revitalized the population control program and he is the minister that has pushed the vaccination programs forward. To date, he is building a public health network that will save thousands if not millions of lives from early death and preventable illness. To date he has neither advocated against nor withheld medical care from at risk population segments. On the contrary, his policies will allow HIV testing to reach rural areas and they will facilitate earlier treatment of infected subjects. This is why, I am asking for some understanding. Judge him on his actions to date. The South African minister wouldn't have been fit to carry his briefcase. He made a stupid error when using words that were wrong. He says he is wrong. The South African minister never admitted the error of her position.

[Scott]

History records some quite evil people who did a few things well (The Volkswagen comes to mind).

HIV medication is of little use to people who are too stigmatized to get tested and when the pervasive attitude from the top down is negative.

[jdinasia]

So because a certain group of people,previously classified as a mental disorder,gets political active justifies their behaviour?

Maybe you should have noted "The weight of empirical evidence" as well .... Again the "Gay Rights Movement" is generally accepted to have really begun in 1969 with the Stonewall riots. There were a few small groups earlier but they were not particularly political. There was a small group of very vocal activists (smart and decisive too!) but by 1973 there still was no large scale gay movement in the USA. The group of "political activists" has to be mentioned because they are part of history but they were (in 73 and before) a very small group. They fought the post-Freudian analysts on the view that medicine already had weighed in on ...

Re GK's impassioned plea to let the bigot mentioned in the OP off the hook .... Scott has it right. Stigmatizing a group of the population will not help solve HIV issues. This guy isn't a saint, he isn't even a Meechai!

[Pakboong]

I expect we will see homosexuality as a perfectly natural existence, in much higher numbers, within perhaps a generation. My family has always had several who came out in the early days when coming out was not taken easily. Now, it is all just as natural as anything else.

I have both an Aunt and an Uncle who have each come out after having 4 children apiece in heterosexual marriages. It is interesting to watch how the family as a whole adapts to such things.

I also have a daughter who figure skates and the vast majority of her male friends are gay. What is interesting to watch is their individual development. I have known many from their early years and I have often wondered if the skating enviornment was a factor in their sexuality. Many gave no clues of being gay as young children. Not that I would have any idea what to look for, it was interesting to watch. Usually their mothers started them in the sport and ultimately the sport itself seemed some sort of sanctuary for living gay without much of the judging from the other more traditionally homophobic life styles. It seems more like they chose gay over straight but who knows?

My favorite nephew just returned from Canada where he went to marry is male partner so it is all open in my family and so far, there has not been a downside to it at all.

[Jingthing]

The vast majority of child sexual abuse globally involves a MALE parent (or close relative) abusing a FEMALE child. Most of these NEVER come to the attention of the law. Imagine how hard it is for a child to report their parent. Trying to demonize gays as being any more likely to be pedophiles is basically HATE SPEECH.

Also so predictable. Yes, I said I was gone from this thread, but again, if it's going to be a harbor for demonizing gays, why is it still open?

Edited July 6, 2011 by Jingthing

[coma]

I definately wouldn't call it a disease.However I do find it hard to call homosexuality 'natural'. Having grown up with an older sibling who is gay I have always found it more odd, perculiar,strange.

[Pakboong]

The vast majority of child sexual abuse globally involves a MALE parent (or close relative) abusing a FEMALE child. Most of these NEVER come to the attention of the law. Imagine how hard it is for a child to report their parent. Trying to demonize gays as being any more likely to be pedophiles is basically HATE SPEECH.

Also so predictable. Yes, I said I was gone from this thread, but again, if it's going to be a harbor for demonizing gays, why is it still open?

JT, I am certain you are correct here.

[endure]

Please stay on-topic. The OP is not about pedophilia.

Sorry but when posters bring up these nonsensical sidetracks someone has to refute them otherwise they become accepted by default. Gay folks are no more likely to be paedos than straight folks and the science proves it. Hearsay is just that - bullshit.

MMM.

I have to share my experience to this reply.

I've worked with two guys who ended up being convicted of paedophilia and they were both gay. I know that proves nothing, just saying.

Do you think that more than half the men convicted in Thailand in the past 20 years were homosexuals?

Would you say that more than half the Catholic priests convicted of similar charges were homosexuals?

I want to hear your opinion before i post the second part.

I've given you the science. My opinion is irrelevant.

[saraburioz]

The vast majority of child sexual abuse globally involves a MALE parent (or close relative) abusing a FEMALE child. Most of these NEVER come to the attention of the law. Imagine how hard it is for a child to report their parent. Trying to demonize gays as being any more likely to be pedophiles is basically HATE SPEECH.

Also so predictable. Yes, I said I was gone from this thread, but again, if it's going to be a harbor for demonizing gays, why is it still open?

Do you have any proof of this and are these men straight or gay?

Actually, I heard that most cases involved the mother.

You are just demonizing straights.

Edited July 6, 2011 by saraburioz

[Scott]

There are some major misconceptions permeating this thread. First is the link between pedophilia and sexuality. Pedophiles are attracted to children because of traumatic events that occurred in their life and they emotionally quit growing. The selection of the age of victims is indicative of the age the trauma was experienced. The selection of same sex victims is because prior to puberty boys have virtually no interest in girls.

These people are not gay--they have never matured to the point of being able to be in any type of intimate relationship with an adult--either male or female.

The most common type of pedophile is a regressed pedophile and this is someone who is emotionally stunted and when faced with a life crisis, they revert to an earlier emotional stage. These people nearly always have sex with pre-pubescent females.

Once children reach puberty, all bets are off. Sex is still against the law, but it is not pedophilia.

Now back on the topic or Jingthing's desire will become a reality.