Tolerance? Not for Christians...

[topspin]

Fail that dummy, they just want that tuition check

 

[Againsheila]

Againshelia, there was a movement to close large, public mental hospitals in that era....but it was not related to the change made to remove homosexuality from the DSM. It may have had something to do with public funds, as you suggest....but there was also a rather public outcry against the conditions inside those hospitals, as you might recall. It was thought better to hold people in smaller, community-based facilities, which in large part never materialized.

It just terrifies me that you'd suggest a person with a homosexual orientation should be confined against his or her will in a mental hospital, alongside paranoid schizophrenics, etc.

I didn't suggest anything, I merely pointed out an historical fact.

The DSM 4 is constantly changing. Personally, I kind of equate homosexuality with deafness. Hear me out...the deaf society doesn't think there's anything wrong with them. In fact, two deaf parents, given the choice will most likely choose NOT to have the cochlear implant put in their child so their child can hear, they don't see not hearing as a deficiency.

Homosexuals do not see what they are as a deficiency either, however, it's not "normal". And yes I put it in quotations and nothing is really "normal". You will never convince me that having sex with someone of the same sex is normal. Then again, you'll never convince me that adultery is okay either. I'm one of those black and white people, no gray areas. Don't try and read between my lines, there's never anything there. I come right out and say what I think.


So, if they ever come out for a cure for homosexuality, what then? Does it suddenly get into the DSM 4 again?

 

[AllieBaba]

Againshelia, there was a movement to close large, public mental hospitals in that era....but it was not related to the change made to remove homosexuality from the DSM. It may have had something to do with public funds, as you suggest....but there was also a rather public outcry against the conditions inside those hospitals, as you might recall. It was thought better to hold people in smaller, community-based facilities, which in large part never materialized.

It just terrifies me that you'd suggest a person with a homosexual orientation should be confined against his or her will in a mental hospital, alongside paranoid schizophrenics, etc.

You have a problem with paranoid schizophrenics? there are arguments against locking them up, as well.

The movement to close the large public mental hospitals is directly related to the huge swelling of homelessness in the 80s. People were turned out into the streets under the pretense that it was better for them and we'd just have to adjust our collective normalcy to accept them.

It was an abject failure. People will never know how huge a mistake because those people live under the radar. But prisons see them, and juvenile detention, and the welfare system. Those people have become our people, and they're a mess.

 

[AllieBaba]

Againshelia, there was a movement to close large, public mental hospitals in that era....but it was not related to the change made to remove homosexuality from the DSM. It may have had something to do with public funds, as you suggest....but there was also a rather public outcry against the conditions inside those hospitals, as you might recall. It was thought better to hold people in smaller, community-based facilities, which in large part never materialized.

It just terrifies me that you'd suggest a person with a homosexual orientation should be confined against his or her will in a mental hospital, alongside paranoid schizophrenics, etc.

I didn't suggest anything, I merely pointed out an historical fact.

The DSM 4 is constantly changing. Personally, I kind of equate homosexuality with deafness. Hear me out...the deaf society doesn't think there's anything wrong with them. In fact, two deaf parents, given the choice will most likely choose NOT to have the cochlear implant put in their child so their child can hear, they don't see not hearing as a deficiency.

Homosexuals do not see what they are as a deficiency either, however, it's not "normal". And yes I put it in quotations and nothing is really "normal". You will never convince me that having sex with someone of the same sex is normal. Then again, you'll never convince me that adultery is okay either. I'm one of those black and white people, no gray areas. Don't try and read between my lines, there's never anything there. I come right out and say what I think.


So, if they ever come out for a cure for homosexuality, what then? Does it suddenly get into the DSM 4 again?

They'll never discover a cure for it because they're doing their best to make it illegal to theorize on the subject.

 

[Madeline]

Againshelia, there was a movement to close large, public mental hospitals in that era....but it was not related to the change made to remove homosexuality from the DSM. It may have had something to do with public funds, as you suggest....but there was also a rather public outcry against the conditions inside those hospitals, as you might recall. It was thought better to hold people in smaller, community-based facilities, which in large part never materialized.

It just terrifies me that you'd suggest a person with a homosexual orientation should be confined against his or her will in a mental hospital, alongside paranoid schizophrenics, etc.

You have a problem with paranoid schizophrenics? there are arguments against locking them up, as well.

The movement to close the large public mental hospitals is directly related to the huge swelling of homelessness in the 80s. People were turned out into the streets under the pretense that it was better for them and we'd just have to adjust our collective normalcy to accept them.

It was an abject failure. People will never know how huge a mistake because those people live under the radar. But prisons see them, and juvenile detention, and the welfare system. Those people have become our people, and they're a mess.

All true, Allie. You won't get an argument from me...except.....

Few people will be honest as to just how deplorable conditions became in those big mental hospitals. It IS true that smaller, community-based facilities would be better. We just never bothered to fund any.

 

[Madeline]

Againshelia wrote in part:

So, if they ever come out for a cure for homosexuality, what then? Does it suddenly get into the DSM 4 again?

I'm not sure what sort of ethical scientific experiment could ever lead to such a "cure", Againshelia. In my mind, homosexuality is like left-handedness...it doesn't occur most times, but it is normative for a population to include some left-handed people.

Still, you ask a difficult question. If blacks could have children who look white, would they? If couples could choose the gender of their child, would most choose boys for the advantages being male still brings? Is society better off with "designer babies"?

 

[AllieBaba]

Againshelia, there was a movement to close large, public mental hospitals in that era....but it was not related to the change made to remove homosexuality from the DSM. It may have had something to do with public funds, as you suggest....but there was also a rather public outcry against the conditions inside those hospitals, as you might recall. It was thought better to hold people in smaller, community-based facilities, which in large part never materialized.

It just terrifies me that you'd suggest a person with a homosexual orientation should be confined against his or her will in a mental hospital, alongside paranoid schizophrenics, etc.

You have a problem with paranoid schizophrenics? there are arguments against locking them up, as well.

The movement to close the large public mental hospitals is directly related to the huge swelling of homelessness in the 80s. People were turned out into the streets under the pretense that it was better for them and we'd just have to adjust our collective normalcy to accept them.

It was an abject failure. People will never know how huge a mistake because those people live under the radar. But prisons see them, and juvenile detention, and the welfare system. Those people have become our people, and they're a mess.

All true, Allie. You won't get an argument from me...except.....

Few people will be honest as to just how deplorable conditions became in those big mental hospitals. It IS true that smaller, community-based facilities would be better. We just never bothered to fund any.

Where that population lives is ALWAYS deplorable. It has to be. They aren't capable of acting the way "normal" humans do. It's ugly, but true. You don't have a lot of options. They're smart, which makes them dangerous. They have opposable thumbs. They're big. And they tear things apart. They attack themselves and others. So...you can either medicate the bloody fuck out of them, or you can box them up and let them exhaust themselves bouncing off walls and each other. When you turn them out, they don't live in any better way. They still tear things apart, attack themselves and others, craftily commit crimes, and live in filth and torment. On the street they are either predators or victims, there are very few happy in betweens. Only when they die, they crawl off to dark corners and their passing goes unnoticed.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

The DSM 4 is constantly changing.

False. The DSM IV has not changed since it's publication in 1994. Please don't actively make incorrect comments on a topic you clearly don't understand.

The claim was made that psychiatrists believe homosexuality to be an illness. This is blatantly false. The American Psychiatric Association, comprised of the top psychiatric minds in the country and seen as a definitive source of mental illness information, in no way endorses homosexuality as a disease of any kind. Your personal homophobia does not change that fact.

Homosexuals do not see what they are as a deficiency either, however, it's not "normal". And yes I put it in quotations and nothing is really "normal". You will never convince me that having sex with someone of the same sex is normal. Then again, you'll never convince me that adultery is okay either. I'm one of those black and white people, no gray areas. Don't try and read between my lines, there's never anything there. I come right out and say what I think.

Correct: homosexuals do not see love as a deficiency. Neither does any empirical or scientific research show it as a deficiency either. When you say there is nothing between your lines, I can only assume that by "lines" you mean "ears". Science has disproven your homophobia. Medical experts and the leading source of psychiatric information disagrees with your bigotry. The choice you have to make is whether you wish to continue ignoring all the smart people, or perhaps acknowledge that more knowledgable people might teach you something.

The truth is, there's a lot they don't know.

And the truth is, there's a lot we DO know. It would be foolish to ignore the things we do know because there are still things we don't.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

They'll never discover a cure for it because they're doing their best to make it illegal to theorize on the subject.

Wow. You're quite the drama queen, aren't you? Perhaps there's a little gay in you yet. I mean, exaggerating a court case regarding a student not meeting professional standards as the thought police is nothing short of flamboyant!

But you are correct. They will never discover a cure for love. Would you ever want to be "cured" of being heterosexual? The very idea is almost as ridiculous as your drama queen exaggeration. Almost.

 

[AllieBaba]

They'll never discover a cure for it because they're doing their best to make it illegal to theorize on the subject.

Wow. You're quite the drama queen, aren't you? Perhaps there's a little gay in you yet. I mean, exaggerating a court case regarding a student not meeting professional standards as the thought police is nothing short of flamboyant!

But you are correct. They will never discover a cure for love. Would you ever want to be "cured" of being heterosexual? The very idea is almost as ridiculous as your drama queen exaggeration. Almost.

Wait..a female, being a drama queen...is indicative of gayness?

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Idiots on this site equate Christian tenets with "hate speech". Anyone who claims that homosexuality is a lifestyle instead of some sort of pre-birth programming that can't be avoided is a homophobe, and we all know homophobes are just this far from being criminal anti-gay freaks who should all be locked up.

Stretch those brain cells, bones. I know you can.

 

[AllieBaba]

And now it's time for a humorous interlude:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYpwAtnywTk]YouTube - ‪How to trick people into thinking you're good looking‬‎[/ame]

This cracks me the fuck up. I'm too lazy to create a new thread for it. And I don't want to put it on my website because it uses the f-word and you know how I feel about that...

 

[Madeline]

You have a problem with paranoid schizophrenics? there are arguments against locking them up, as well.

The movement to close the large public mental hospitals is directly related to the huge swelling of homelessness in the 80s. People were turned out into the streets under the pretense that it was better for them and we'd just have to adjust our collective normalcy to accept them.

It was an abject failure. People will never know how huge a mistake because those people live under the radar. But prisons see them, and juvenile detention, and the welfare system. Those people have become our people, and they're a mess.

All true, Allie. You won't get an argument from me...except.....

Few people will be honest as to just how deplorable conditions became in those big mental hospitals. It IS true that smaller, community-based facilities would be better. We just never bothered to fund any.

Where that population lives is ALWAYS deplorable. It has to be. They aren't capable of acting the way "normal" humans do. It's ugly, but true. You don't have a lot of options. They're smart, which makes them dangerous. They have opposable thumbs. They're big. And they tear things apart. They attack themselves and others. So...you can either medicate the bloody fuck out of them, or you can box them up and let them exhaust themselves bouncing off walls and each other. When you turn them out, they don't live in any better way. They still tear things apart, attack themselves and others, craftily commit crimes, and live in filth and torment. On the street they are either predators or victims, there are very few happy in betweens. Only when they die, they crawl off to dark corners and their passing goes unnoticed.

Obviously, not all mentally ill people are violent, Allie. And not all are unmourned after their deaths. Still, there is truth in what you say. As a free society, we have no good answer as to what to do with chronically mentally ill people.

They are not the only group of dependent adults we cannot adequately serve. Ever been to a state home for the developmentally disabled? Or a Medicare-only nursing home?

One problem that never gets addressed is this. Wages are so low, these facilities cannot easily compete with fast food restaurants. They are forced to hire and retain sadists, who "supplement" their wages with the pain, degradation and suffering of people who cannot fight back. For such people, I hope there is a hell.....

 

[AllieBaba]

All true, Allie. You won't get an argument from me...except.....

Few people will be honest as to just how deplorable conditions became in those big mental hospitals. It IS true that smaller, community-based facilities would be better. We just never bothered to fund any.

Where that population lives is ALWAYS deplorable. It has to be. They aren't capable of acting the way "normal" humans do. It's ugly, but true. You don't have a lot of options. They're smart, which makes them dangerous. They have opposable thumbs. They're big. And they tear things apart. They attack themselves and others. So...you can either medicate the bloody fuck out of them, or you can box them up and let them exhaust themselves bouncing off walls and each other. When you turn them out, they don't live in any better way. They still tear things apart, attack themselves and others, craftily commit crimes, and live in filth and torment. On the street they are either predators or victims, there are very few happy in betweens. Only when they die, they crawl off to dark corners and their passing goes unnoticed.

Obviously, not all mentally ill people are violent, Allie. And not all are unmourned after their deaths. Still, there is truth in what you say. As a free society, we have no good answer as to what to do with chronically mentally ill people.

They are not the only group of dependent adults we cannot adequately serve. Ever been to a state home for the developmentally disabled? Or a Medicare-only nursing home?

One problem that never gets addressed is this. Wages are so low, these facilities cannot easily compete with fast food restaurants. They are forced to hire and retain sadists, who "supplement" their wages with the pain, degradation and suffering of people who cannot fight back. For such people, I hope there is a hell.....

Er..yes, I have been to state homes and medicare-only nursing homes. I've worked in both. I lived in Pendleton, where the state hospital was shut down in the 80s (and reopened as a prison). My mother was a nurse at the state hospital, my husband was a lietenant at the prison, and my ex worked more recently in the ward for the criminally insane.

When you allow the state to take over the duties normally performed by private businesses and family, you are setting people up for exploitation, neglect and abuse.

And please, the majority of people who work in care facilities are not sadists. It's a HUGE industry, and attracts its share of weirdoes (as does teaching) but for the most part, the people who do that work do it because they feel a sense of pride in their work.

 

[Againsheila]

The DSM 4 is constantly changing.

False. The DSM IV has not changed since it's publication in 1994. Please don't actively make incorrect comments on a topic you clearly don't understand.

The claim was made that psychiatrists believe homosexuality to be an illness. This is blatantly false. The American Psychiatric Association, comprised of the top psychiatric minds in the country and seen as a definitive source of mental illness information, in no way endorses homosexuality as a disease of any kind. Your personal homophobia does not change that fact.

Homosexuals do not see what they are as a deficiency either, however, it's not "normal". And yes I put it in quotations and nothing is really "normal". You will never convince me that having sex with someone of the same sex is normal. Then again, you'll never convince me that adultery is okay either. I'm one of those black and white people, no gray areas. Don't try and read between my lines, there's never anything there. I come right out and say what I think.

Correct: homosexuals do not see love as a deficiency. Neither does any empirical or scientific research show it as a deficiency either. When you say there is nothing between your lines, I can only assume that by "lines" you mean "ears". Science has disproven your homophobia. Medical experts and the leading source of psychiatric information disagrees with your bigotry. The choice you have to make is whether you wish to continue ignoring all the smart people, or perhaps acknowledge that more knowledgable people might teach you something.

The truth is, there's a lot they don't know.

And the truth is, there's a lot we DO know. It would be foolish to ignore the things we do know because there are still things we don't.

Prior to the 1970's, it was considered a mental illness. People were institutionalized for it. First they kicked the homosexuals out of the institutions, then they kicked out the rest. Just history, not homophobia. I'm not afraid of homosexuals. I never have been.

You spelled knowledgeable wrong....seems to me if you're going to comment on what someone knows, you should make sure you do it right.

Psychology is a soft science. Do you understand what that means?

Science hasn't proven anything one way or the other about homosexuality. There have been plenty of studies but no concrete evidence one way or the other. Now if you want to examine if there is a physical difference in the brains of homosexuals, we might actually get somewhere, but no one seems to want to do that. As for ADD, something many people claim doesn't exist, there is CONCRETE evidence that is does. The brains are physically different between people with ADD and "normal" people. I would be interested in a study showing if there is such a difference in homosexuals vs "normal" people. They won't do it though because it's become PC to just accept them and anyone who even questions if it's normal or not is called a "homophobe" as you have proven.

 

[AllieBaba]

Psychology isn't a science of any size, shape or form. They tried to convince people it was, but they couldn't make it stick.

It changes all the time and the only thing it's good for is helping people understand themselves a little better. It cannot shine a light on others.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Wait..a female, being a drama queen...is indicative of gayness?

If you like, I can just call you plain old stupid for equating this court case with the thought police. Does that help you at all?

Prior to the 1970's, it was considered a mental illness. People were institutionalized for it. First they kicked the homosexuals out of the institutions, then they kicked out the rest. Just history, not homophobia. I'm not afraid of homosexuals. I never have been.

So you're saying that 4 DECADES ago, before ANY reproducible research was done on the matter, we had the wrong idea about something?! OH MY!

Well if you plan on living in the 1970s, there might be a point behind your ignorance. But welcome to 2010! Please note the difference in centuries.

Psychology is a soft science. Do you understand what that means?

Psychology isn't a science of any size, shape or form. They tried to convince people it was, but they couldn't make it stick.

It changes all the time and the only thing it's good for is helping people understand themselves a little better. It cannot shine a light on others.

Oh so I get more fun psych opinions from the person who claims the DSM IV changes constantly? So you think psychology is a soft science? Well if we ignore all the neurology discoveries that came as a direct result from psychiatry research, then sure. Oh and I suppose we'd need to ignore all the data we have on the most effective pharmacological treatments of psychiatric disorders. Alzheimers is apparently just a "soft science" that changes all the time!

Perhaps you are thinking of psychology? Psychiatry is a clinical medicine involving heavily researched treatments. You're 0 for 2 regarding knowledge on this topic now, but feel free to keep talking as if your misdirected opinions hold any value.

 

[bodecea]

Psychology isn't a science of any size, shape or form. They tried to convince people it was, but they couldn't make it stick.

It changes all the time and the only thing it's good for is helping people understand themselves a little better. It cannot shine a light on others.

And Medicine DOESN'T change all the time?

 

[AllieBaba]

That's my point. You don't stop people from theorizing on things because you're partial to the current fads. You encourage and protect speech and thought. They are sacrosanct, as long as they do not incite others or cause harm.

Saying homosexuality is a lifestyle does NOT cuase harm or incite people (well, except for the lefty loons). And the one place where all speech is sacred SHOULD be our schools. When they are not suffering from a variety of dysfunctionalities, as they are now, students are encouraged to explore different theories and discuss them.

Not anymore, though. Now that the left is in charge, freedom of speech is held in disdain. The smart people are enthroned in the gilded halls, and if you don't agree with them, then you don't deserve to talk, or to go to school, or even work.

And STH, i never said the DSMIV change continually, you impotent twit. I don't care if you call me stupid. You obviously are so busy wallowing in the pap fed to you on NPR that your brain quit working years ago.

As far as that goes, jackass, the psych community does not claim to be scientific. That would be...becuase it isn't.

And you completely missed the point I was making about what the fads were a couple of decades ago. My point, since you are too dense to understand, is that it's a field that constantly changes. That means, since there is no scientific evidence (still) that homosexuality is anything but a choice, that likely the pendulum will swing again and we'll have a completely different theory than the idiots of the ACA and their minions in public schools embrace.

Read the ethics material on the subject if you are truly interested. Then do some research on recent genetic studies and get back to me.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

That's my point. You don't stop people from theorizing on things because you're partial to the current fads. You encourage and protect speech and thought. They are sacrosanct, as long as they do not incite others or cause harm.

Except this is the exact OPPOSITE, whereby the student wanted to discriminate and discourage free thought by simply shutting down whenever a gay person was in front of her. She wasn't actively "theorizing" anything. She was being a bigot and refusing to acknowledge a large topic in healthcare. There is no educational value there.

STH, i never said the DSMIV change continually, you impotent twit. I don't care if you call me stupid. You obviously are so busy wallowing in the pap fed to you on NPR that your brain quit working years ago.

No, the other person I was directly quoting did. Reading is fun!

As far as that goes, jackass, the psych community does not claim to be scientific.

False. Research

The DSM-IV is still driven by research and the scientific method. You can choose to believe it "doesn't count" for some inane reason, but the smart people in the room still don't care about you.

 

[Bfgrn]

... Jennifer Keeton, who has sued Augusta State University to keep from getting expelled for not repudiating her statements about homosexuality. Keeton expressed her biblical perspective on the subject in and out of class while working toward a degree in counseling, and the school mandated a “remediation plan” that appears to have required her to renounce her Christian doctrine in order to gain a diploma from the school. The school has responded that a bias against homosexuality would disqualify Keeton from certification, a position that would put most Christians in Keeton’s position.

... It sounds to me like the ACA [AMERICAN COUNSELING ASSOCIATION] wants a “don’t ask, don’t tell” rule for religion. That runs square into the First Amendment, especially for a state-run school. The ACA’s idea of who comes first doesn’t get to trump the restriction on freedom of religious exercise. If clients get off-put by Keeton’s approach to counseling, they can look for another counselor. Now, the ACA can decide not to certify her; as a private organization, they have that prerogative. If they do that explicitly based on her religious belief, however, they may have a problem with that in court, especially as it will block Keeton’s ability to make a living.
The state-run school has no such leeway. They cannot impose a religious test for graduation, no matter how they dress it up.
THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS: JENNIFER KEETON TOSSED OUT OF GRAD SCHOOL BECAUSE
SHE'S A CHRISTIAN - if she was Muslim, then Obama and Holder would be suing on her behalf!


The remediation plan, according to the lawsuit, noted Keeton’s “disagreement in several class discussions and in written assignments with the gay and lesbian ‘lifestyle,’” as well as Keeton’s belief that those “lifestyles” are cases of identity confusion.
Jennifer Keeton ordered to approve of homosexuality or be expelled from grad school | JAMES EDWARDS

Jennifer Keeton has every right to her views on sexual orientation. BUT, being accredited as a counselor is not a RIGHT...

What part of the adult world don't you understand PC?