Jump to content

Talk:Homosexuality and psychology/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Negative Slant

This article seems to focus on homosexuality as a mental illness and "reparitive therapy" not psychology of homosexuality, which many modern psychotherapist discuss at length (and not at all in the context of it being an "illness" and needing "cured"). Psychologist no longer see homosexuality as an illness, but that doesn't mean they stopped studying it's origins or effects on behavior. As it stands, this article has a decidedly negitive slant. For instance, the paragraph on Freud focuses solely on his view of homosexuality as an illness, and doesn't mention any of his other views or theories concerning it. Some classic and modern views on actual accepted theories concerning homosexuality deserve mention, otherwise this article should be renamed "Homosexuality Myths and Psychology"--Vesperal 05:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. As it stands now, the article is basically historical. Contemporary accounts would greatly benefit it - if you've got the time and resources, by all means make the necessary additions (but please add sources)! -Smahoney 16:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Heres an idea, lets give this article a positive slant and tell everyone how normal and rewarding it is to be a homosexual. Infact everyone nation-wide should be subjected to manditory diversity sensitivity training and political re-education like they do at Ohio State University http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49877

For those that resist and try to hold onto their natural mammalian instincts, I suggest we subject them electro-shock therapy while forcing them to watch homo-erotic pornography until their independant thought process has been so thoroughly repressed and destroyed that they will surrender their biased, ugly, vulgar, prejudiced homo-phobic pre-conceived ideas about sex among mentally sound people normally taking place between a man and a women, and all that nasty business about marriage. Who needs marriage? We should be using science to research ways to turn ourselves into Parthenogen's so everyone can become a homosexual. /sarcasm --Nazrac 23:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Gays and Lesbians the world over are fighting FOR marriage, not against it. Wandering Star 00:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I meant that the article had a negitive slant towards PSYCHOLOGISTS. The current article makes it sound like psychologist either still believe all the old rubbish or have stopped studying it all together, neither of which is true. The research that needs to be added (I'm afraid I don't have even close to enough knowledge about it) needs to be from contemporary psychologists using real science. It doesn't matter to me in the least if this gives a positive or negitive view of the homosexual lifestyle. (In fact it may not, I've read a few things about alchohol abuse for example.) But if you would rather believe that the whole universe is trying to turn you gay, go right ahead. Whatever makes you feel like a victim.Vesperal 02:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Naz, It's a pity that you haven't taken any college courses in psychology or psychiatry.. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) is currently the body responsible for speaking on behalf of the psychiatric profession as a whole. And the APA has maintained that homosexuality is within the normal range of variation for sexuality. The official position is also that attempts at changing a person's sexual orientation are all damaging to the client. That's not a few gay rights activists speaking that's the APA, get it? You who have never studied psychiatry and know next to nothing about it are not going to convince me that the APA, which is composed of the most eminent psychiatrists in the country, doesn't know what it's talking about. Wandering Star 14:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly let me ask you the following questions: When did I say anything about the APA? Have you studied psychology or psychiatry? If so, where? Ohio State University? (see link above) What makes you think I am advocating trying to 'change' homosexuals? What put you under the mistaken impression that I am trying to convince you personally of anything, or by extension care the slightest what you think?

Apparently sarcasm is lost on you as well, as you seem to have completely missed the point of the above statement, it was a satirical jab. I even went to the length of affixing a '/sarcasm' note at the bottom, in consideration for those who are of such feeble mindedness that they might misinterpret the statement. --Nazrac 20:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"But if you would rather believe that the whole universe is trying to turn you gay, go right ahead. Whatever makes you feel like a victim.Vesperal 02:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)"

Its not me who is playing the victim card. We see time and again those who have some inclination to force their opinions on others (or force others to accept them) will play the victim card. Homophobia this, prejudiced biggot that. I'm not the one playing the victim card as I dont need to convince anyone of anything, I'm not the one with an 'alternative lifestyle" issue. --Nazrac 17:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Declassified in the UK

Does anyone know any details regarding how and when homosexuality was declassified in the UK? --Axon Mon Jul 28 15:30:14 PST 2003

It seems to have been as late as 1993, in the UK.

There's some stuff here, so perhaps better source material could be found from that?

http://www.lgcm.org.uk/bible/chap6.htm

"In Britain however the situation had not progressed as far and in 1975 the British Medical journal was still publishing articles on possible treatments including hormonal therapy, aversion therapy and most bizarrely therapy `to mobilise the heterosexual elements' whatever that might mean! Finally in 1992 the WHO deleted homosexuality from its list of mental disorders and the UK government followed suit in 1993. The Royal College of Psychiatrists supported an equal age of consent for gay men when this was debated in the U.K. Parliament in 1995 and continued to do so until this was finally passed by Parliament this year. "

--Amortize

In fact, it seems to have been April 1994. The intention to do so was announced in January 1993, and was implemented in new guidelines that came into force in April 1994.

http://www.lesbianinformationservice.org/etpap.htm

--Amortize

Wow, they actually have a lesbian information service? On their site it uses terms like "Homophobia Awareness from a Multi-Oppression Perspective." Homosexuality used to be considered abnormal and a form of mental illness or inbalance. Today it seems like anyone who doesn't march in gay parades on a regular basis now has some kind of phsychiatric label. These Pro-gay websites talk about "hidden biases" in our psyche, and use the term "phobias" to describe anyone who believes men engaging in lewd acts with one another to be abnormal or offensive. With enough time and brain-washing (also known as sensitivity or diversity training) just about anything can be impressioned into the minds of young people as being normal, perfectly acceptable and even fasionable. Anyone that resists these ideas being crammed down their throat is accused of harbouring some sort of "hidden bias, prejudice or phobia." It is this "hidden bias" or rather natural instinct that is almost certainly responsibility for the survival and continued survival of our species and every other since the beginning of sexual reproduction in the earliest life forms of our planet.

--Nazrac 23:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

APA's removal

I learn from a book that the removal of homosexuality from American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) was because the pressure from the gay-rights group. Should we mention that in the context? --Yacht (Talk)Q 01:54, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

That is true, and I would mention it. Regardless of whether homosexuality is really a mental disorder, lobbying is essentially the reason it was removed. There aren't many practicing psychologists who believe it is a mental disorder anymore... you may want to include that. I don't have any real numbers regarding how many clinical vs research vs applied psychologists think it is or isn't, but most recent literature assumes it is not a problem (well, most literature that I've read at any rate). There are some studies suggesting that homosexuality can't be "cured" anyway, although I don't have reference information handy. You could dig into psychinfo or ebscohost databases if you're interested in following up on that for the article; this particular focus of sexuality is outside of my area of expertise.--nameless 02:20, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure in the "lobbying theory" of declassification is actually true: when I originally wrote this article my research indicated that the results of Hooker and Kinsey opened up the possibility that homosexuality was not a disorder. What evidence is there to support the view that lobbying caused declassification? --Axon 15:06, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think Hooker and Kinsey were widely accepted until much later. As late as the mid-1960s, it was standard orthodoxy that homosexuality was unquestionably a mental illness, and that the only people who thought otherwise were a bunch of pseudoscientific kooks and political pressure groups. For example:

  • The eminent Karl Menninger wrote: "homosexuality ... constitutes evidence of immature sexuality and either arrested psychological development or regression" (Introduction, The Wolfden Report: Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offenses and Prostitution, pages 5-7. Stein & Day, New York, 1964).
  • A 1965 collection of papers summarizing opinions on the subject begins with the preface: "most of the psychoanalysts in this volume, except Szasz, are of the opinion that homosexuality is definitely an illness to be treated and corrected". That is, the only person not part of the otherwise unanimous agreement was an antipsychiatry activist and the author of The Myth of Mental Illness. (Marmor, J., editor. Sexual Inversion: The Multiple Roots of Homosexuality. Basic Books, New York, 1965.)

--Delirium 09:17, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

From my understanding, 'lobbying' isn't quite the term for what happened. There were several gay rights groups involved, but the story looks to me more like activisim than lobbying proper, and these groups were partially motivated by some then-recent studies which suggested that homosexuality was incurable, and that most gay men (to my knowledge, lesbians weren't studied) were, in fact, otherwise quite normal, well-adjusted people. Their pressure did not, however, cause the APA to change its diagnosis. Several psychologists within the APA began to exert internal pressure due to their research, which was conducted in response to gay rights groups' demands, and which tended to back up the assertion that, other than their sexuality, these people were by and large perfectly well adjusted individuals. There are, of course, other factors, such as closeted gay members of the APA (which, as Roy Cohn shows, does not mean that they supported gay rights), etc. So, you know, neither the "gay activists pressured the APA into declassifying homosexuality" story nor the "scientists came across unrefutable evidence and saw the light" story really paint a clear picture of what happened. -Smahoney 17:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Tell me, what is the point of "gay activism" other than to pressure, lobby and if need be harass and slander anyone who dismisses the notion that homosexuality is some mainstream alternative to normal sexuality? The whole idea of this "activism" is to challenge the idea of what is normal to begin with. Anyone who tries to resist this idea being pounded into their head, such as in campus 'diversity seminars' and insists they know what they consider to be normal is than accused of harbouring some kind of hidden bias or preconception about homosexuality. I've heard of elementary school children as young as 11 years old being subjected to classroom siminars and discussions about the issue of sexuality, where they are asked things like "can you tell if a person is married or has kids just by looking at them?" The person asking the question is almost always a homosexual. They are further subjected to questions like "how do you know you are not gay unless you have tried it?" That is some question to be asking 11 year olds. Most children at that age dont know how to respond to such a question, let alone recognize the intentions behind the question. You might ask children "how do you know drugs are bad for you unless you try it?" I think we all know what the reaction from parents would be. Parents used to complain about their children being exposed to these seminars and guest speakers when the subject was contraception and sexually transmitted diseases. Today it seems all sorts of gay activist guest speakers are being put infront of children who try to indoctrinate them in the years before they reach sexual maturity. If that is not an outright malicious attempt to stear the impressionable minds of young people down a cetain path I dont know what is. --Nazrac 17:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt the accuracy of your testimony. Nonetheless, I would encourage anyone considering a full reply to User:Nazrac to first think about whether or not this discussion will improve the article, and if the answer is no, to take the discussion elsewhere. -Smahoney 20:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

NARTH

Cross post from User talk:Axon:

Hi Axon: You deleted the statement "The overtly secular National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality is the only professional body to endorse reparative therapy." from Homosexuality and psychology with the summary "deleted POV: NARTH is not considered a "professional body" by all". Please explain why you consider the whole sentence to be POV. I can see that the adjective 'overtly' may tend towards POV (I sought a succinct way to acknowledge that NARTH claims to be secular and ecumenical but has critics who consider it to be dominated by conservative Judaeo-Christian interests) but I do not understand why the whole thing is POV. As I understand matters NARTH purports to be an organization for mental health professionals with a class of membership (Friends) for lay people. I am not a member of NARTH, its opponents or its allies. I hit this page through Special:Randompage and felt that the statement in this section about reparative therapies gave the erroneous impression of a single religious movement promoting these approaches. Hence my changes. Would it be better to restore the NARTH sentence and add the sentence "Some opponents of NARTH argue that its claim to be a professional body is misleading." or some variation thereof? --Theo (Talk) 00:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It rather depends on how you define a "professional body" - it can mean one of two things. It can simply be any body of professionals or it can be some superivising body that accredits professionals. In the former instance, NARTH may well self-describe itself as a professional body . However, it is less likely to belong the later definition. It is also worth pointing out that a Google for the term "professional body" and NARTH comes up with only 9 hits[1], and most of those use the term "professional body" with regard to the ACA, APA, etc. In other words, they use the term in it's second meaning and not in regard to NARTH at all.

Given the ambiguity of the term I think it's POV to describe NARTH as a professional body. Your suggestion that "opponents" do not describe NARTH as a professional body would seem to negate this, but I don't feel this it is appropriate to start discussing the controversy on the page: discussion of whether or not NARTH is a professional body more properly belongs on the NARTH page.

Similarly, the "overtly" secular would seem to place the emphasis of NARTH's claimed secularism and fails to mention the fact that NARTH is widely regarded to be funded by fundamentalist Christian concerns and be far from a secular organisation. We could similarly mention he dispute, but I would strongly argue that any such discussion of controversy of NARTH belongs on the NARTH page.

The simplest solution would me to mention that NARTH offers reparative therapies and link to the pages where more full and neutral discussion can take place. --Axon 13:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Addundum: A quick visit to the NARTH home page indicates that NARTH does not actually describe itself as a professional body. --Axon 13:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for all the explanations. I had understood NARTH to offer full membership only to professionals and to make considerable play of the religious diversity of its membership whilst receiving significant funding from conservative Christian and conservative Jewish groups. If NARTH is not a professional body then the whole point is redundant, since I only mentioned it because I did not want to make an absolute claim about the opinions of professional bodies if even one dissented. --Theo (Talk) 14:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reference to the organization PATH

On 31 May 05, Richman9 inserted the name of the coalition of 15 Christian organizations who support an individual's right to change from homosexuality (PATH), and gave a link to it's Web site. Axon reverted that insertion, stating that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox." I (Richman9) guess I don't understand how this is a soapbox. If the article felt that this coalition was worthy of mentioning, does it not serve Wikipedia's audience to allow them to find out more information about it? If not, then Wikipedia should eliminate references to any and all URLs. This is a legitimate coalition of 15 major organizations with a purpose that is relevant to this article. Why not provide Wikipedia's users with a link to it's Web site?

Please sign all your posts, Richman9, with four tilda characters.
If you can demonstrate that PATH is a notable organisation by creating a valid article on the subject, for example (rather than the copyright infringing content you copy-and-pasted from the PATH web site), then I see no reason you cannot reference them in this article. However, the page you created for PATH SSA was speedily deleted by the Wikipedia editors. I also notice that, according to your user page, you are yourself involved in the ex-gay group Evergreen International[2] - a group you have attempted to create a page for and link to in other articles[3] - and you may be involved in PATH yourself. Wikipedia is not a soap box for promoting organisations you yourself may be involved with or that you wish to advertise. Please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for more information.
Also, posting links to web-sites in the middle of an article is not appropriate: links in articles are supposed to be references to supporting sources, not for linking to web sites. This is what the External References section of an article is for. Axon 15:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Homosexuality as curable psychological disorder

I'm not sure if the section on the Washington Post article and the detail on who funded this is relevant for this section, which is merely an introduction to reparative therapy and the ex-gay movement. This section should be brief and point readers to those pages? Axon 15:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sources?

Let's put some serious sources on this. Also, The homophobia section reads like a blog- can we be a little more scientific, please?Intellectualprop2002 4 July 2005 17:53 (UTC)

I'm all for more sources in every article. But, how does the homophobia section read like a blog? I think it could be expanded so that what exactly the "ironic twist of fate" is is clearer, and some mention of what sorts of research is being done on homophobia, and what the findings have been would be nice, but it doesn't seem bloggish to me, and it doesn't seem any more unscientific than most of the rest of Wikipedia, not that Wikipedia is a scientific endevor. -Seth Mahoney July 4, 2005 19:01 (UTC)
I wrote the section and, though I agree the "irony" wording is probably a bit POV, I think the source summarises the existing knowledge quite well. I think it could be carefully reworded and maybe a few links to papers in which studies into homophobia had been carried out, but otherwise should stand as is. Axon 4 July 2005 19:09 (UTC)
For the record, I'm actually more or less fine with the "irony" wording. I just think it could be made more clear what exactly is ironic. -Seth Mahoney July 5, 2005 05:38 (UTC)
I'm not happy with the "ironic twist of fate" and it stuck out in my reading of the article. It sounds almost vindictive and not at all appropriate for an encylopedia. I'm just going to remove that part and leave the rest as it stands.Vesperal 05:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Intellectualprop2002 slapped a POV on four articles within 26 minutes

He also wrote two articles that are now up on VfD that have received very strong delete votes on the grounds that they are POV forks and original research: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Either_Or_Argument and Reduced Gene Pool Argument. Those articles purported that there was no genetic basis for homosexuality. The emerging concensus of the community on those articles is that their content is non-encyclopedic. It is interesting to note that the NPOV tagging of the homosexuality-related articles happened in such close proximity to the strong negative reaction to the author's articles.

For what it is worth, I have read this article and do not believe that the POV tag is appropriate. I recommend removing it. Tobycat 5 July 2005 00:57 (UTC)

I'm also fine with removing it. -Seth Mahoney July 5, 2005 05:39 (UTC)
I am removing the POV tag. I believe it was posted inappropriately and nobody has objected to my suggestion above to remove it.Tobycat 8 July 2005 23:11 (UTC)
Why is the first reference in this article a link to religioustolerance.org? A liberally biased religious website should not be considered an authority on the psychology of homosexuality OR on the history of psychoanalysis. Clicking on the link takes you to a page that accentuates the conflict between conservative Christianity and mainstream psychology. Furthermore, skimming the essay leads one to believe that prejudiced, uneducated evangelicals are the sole advocates of reparative therapy. It's quite clear the site holds a fallacious view of Christianity and interprets psychology as a victor over conservatism. For these reasons I respectfully suggest this link be replaced by one to a more credible, less opinionated, source. Thank you. (Baker)

The WHO declaration should be referenced to some official document ( WHO's website ? )—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.226.239.138 (talk) 02:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC).

Roman Catholic Church

The church objects to homosexuality purely on the basis of moral standards. They in no way argue anything about psychology, which is what the article is about. Unless the church comes out with a psychologically-based objection to homosexuality, they should not be in this article. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with SatyrTN and David Shankbone. The Catholic Church has no standing in this article, as they are not a medically or psychologically qualified organization. The changes made by two anon editors should be discussed first, or even better, discussed on the talk page of Religion and homosexuality, or in one of the other religion and homosexuality related articles, where it belongs. Also, please do not engage in an edit war, as that is disruptive behavior and officially disallowed. — Becksguy (talk) 05:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

This article lists several organizations which utilize reparative therapy. The WP article on reparative therapy, aka conversion therapy, says: "Conversion therapy is closely associated with the "ex-gay" movement, which is more explicitly religious." They may utilize psychological methods in the therapy, but they are motivated out of religious concerns. None of those orgs, or the DoD, is "medically or psychologically qualified," so based on Becksguy's argument, none of those orgs should be in the paragraph. The Catholic Church is also motivated out of religious concerns. The paragraph discusses orgs that don't accept the med opinion; it says nothing about those orgs being "medically or psychologically qualified." Either all should be listed, for balance, or all should go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.78.89 (talk) 14:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Then all should go. It's about psychology and homosexuality, not about religion and homosexuality - those articles exist elsewhere.--David Shankbone 17:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, all should go, given the context of the article. However, a recent "clarification" retains mention of the reparative therapy groups, only not mentioning them by name. Again, these groups are motivated out of religious concerns, just as the Catholic Church is. There can be mention of "'certain religious denominations' who regard homosexuality as..." etc., without mentioning the Catholic Church by name, otherwise all should go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.78.89 (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Unless there's any further objection I will re-insert the reference as described above, in the near future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.78.89 (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • My comment above related specifically to the Catholic Church, since that was the concern expressed by SatryTN, but after reading all the other comments, I agree that all specific references should go, based on the context of the article. That includes any specific religious organization, the DoD, and all the ex-gay, or reparative type groups. I think a statement indicating that there are organizations that don't accept the positions stated is fine (such as currently exists) and is needed. However, the DoD is very problematic, as we don't know if it's a psychology or psychiatric based evaluation, or is it policy from an otherwise unqualified leadership, or from a leadership with an agenda. There have been scandals about soldiers wounded in Iraq that can't get needed medical and mental support, and the problems uncovered at Walter Reed Hospital is a national disgrace. So I don't trust the military to be honest about this issue either, especially considering their history on gay service members. They are not an independent and reliable source here. Just as the religious groups aren't, and therefore don't get equal space and prominence. The ex-gay type groups are fringe. — Becksguy (talk) 09:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Intrinsically unbalanced article

Unless there is a parallel discussion of heterosexuality and psychology, and/or the change of the title to Psychology of sexual orientation. If homosexuality is psychologized and medicalized, it stands to reason that so should heterosexuality, especially compulsory or exclusive heterosexuality. Haiduc (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Psychology and sexuality would be a better title. --David Shankbone 17:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that would be an improved title, but only after extensive additions have been made to the article to include heterosexuality, as suggested by Haiduc, above. As it is the article focuses on homosexuality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.78.89 (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. There is certainly room for an encyclopedic article on either the relationship between psychology and sexuality, or on psychological views about sexuality (and the same for psychiatry). However, since the late 19th century homosexuality and psychology have had a special relationship that merits a discrete article (for one aspect of this relationship, see Conversion_therapy#History and doctrinal development; also, there is at least one academic journal specifically about psychology and homosexuality (the Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy), there is the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists, etc.) Fireplace (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the need to separate the two. Homosexuality is sexuality; heterosexuality is sexuality. It's not a this-or-that dichotomy. I don't think that homosexuality will get lost in a single article that addresses the relationship between psychology and the full spectrum of sexuality, whether it's titled "Psychology of (or, and) sexual orientation" or "Psychology and sexuality" or something similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.78.89 (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2007 UTC

Freud

Freud considered homosexuality a perversion and sign of problems, so what Merlino said is not accurate. --198.51.130.254 (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Modern view

Much of this article discusses how homosexuality was viewed before the 1973 removal from the DSM, but hardly any time was spent on how it is currently viewed in the psychological world. I wrote a section that discusses this view. I said it included biological and hormonal influences, together with environmental, but focused on the environmental causes of homosexuality since that has more to do with psychology and there is already a page on the biological causes. Everything I wrote was directly from sources published by the major psychological societies. Most of the text was taken directly from Homosexuality#Environment. And yet, it was reverted as "vandalism." I have restored it, but could we discuss why it was marked as vandalism? Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Joshua's contribution clearly wasn't vandalism, and there's clearly a need for a section on the contemporary view of homosexuality from the mental health community. The current version overemphasizes certain aspects while ignoring others (e.g., most mental health/psychology literature about homosexuality today has nothing to do with the causes or malleability of sexual orientation), but it's a start. Fireplace (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
the first sentence is completely POV. It then goes on to propose that most modern psychologist are concerned with its "mallebility"....I guess I could try working with what's there.I don't know how modern some of the "causes" stuff is though, some of that might belong in another section? I'll just remove the first sentence(the restof tha rticle maeks sense without it). I'll try sorting through and reorganising the rest later.Though perhaps we should try to define what we mean by modern? Are studies began in the 80's modern? What about studies done in the 90's? DEfining what we mean could help? Has there are ready been a discussion of what "modern" means?

Kairos (talk) 11:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably the section title should be changed to "contemporary" rather than "modern". The content should describe the current view of the psychology/mental health community as to the origins/determinants of sexual orientation, with citations to official position statements, psychology encyclopedias, the most widely cited journal articles, etc. Fireplace (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I've started, changed the name to contemporary, removed the stuff about malleability. As well as some stuff about how distant fathers and overbearing mothers turned people gay, based on a single study in Thailand, since I think it's giving it UNDUE weight.Kairos (talk) 12:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

While I agree there is a lot to cover besides malleability, malleability needs to be covered and four lines is not unreasonable. About the causes of homosexuality, you said covering the part about distant fathers and overbearing mothers gave it undue weight because it was only covered in one study, but the source wasn't even the Taiwanese study, but these studies: Bell, Weinberg, & Parks, 1981; Bieber et al., 1962; Braatan & Darling, 1965; Brown, 1963; Evans, 1969; Jonas, 1944; Millic & Crowne, 1986; Nicolosi, 1991; Phelan, 1993; Biggio, 1973; Seutter & Rovers, 2004; Siegelman, 1974; Snortum, 1969; Socarides, 1978; West, 1959. I don't think one sentence covering 15 studies is UNDUE weight. The Taiwanese study is more modern, and more generic (paternal care rather than specifically distant fathers), and is completely inline with modern psychology that points to environmental influences as a cause. Also, I think the distinction between anti-gay and homophobic is important. It seems to me that you just want to remove stuff that you disagree with. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The older studies aren't part of the modern view, but rather part of the studies done when the view that's it's an illness caused by an overbearing mother and distant father WAS dominant. And I meant to MOVE malleability, forgot to put it back in.

Kairos (talk) 07:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Nothing in what you removed said anything about an overbearing mother, or that it was an illness, or that any of that made people gay. The sentences you deleted said:
"Other researchers have also provided evidence that gay men report having had less loving and more rejecting fathers, and closer relationships with their mothers, than non-gay men. Whether this phenomenon is a cause of homosexuality, or whether parents behave this way in response to gender-variant traits in a child, is unclear."
Most of the studies cited were done well after 1973 when it was voted on that in the US homosexuality would cease being a mental illness. The most recent one was in 2004. They simply say gay men report having a closer relationship with their mom, not that is what caused homosexuality. In fact, the second sentence you deleted is a discussion about whether it is because of gender-variant traits in a child. I have no idea what you are talking about, but I am perfectly willing to discuss this before putting it back into the article.Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused by the line that reads "Having an older brother decreases the rate of homosexuality." I thought research had actually shown the opposite to be true (see Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation and Biology and sexual orientation#Maternal linkage, birth order, and female fertility). Could this claim be further explained or better sourced? —Mears man (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The study just applied to the twins study, where you have one male and one female twin.I'll try to clarify that.....

Kairos (talk) 07:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that statement just applied to the opposite sex twin studies. Likewise, the other studies did not apply to the opposite sex twin studies, so hence it is inaccurate to say this study contradicts the other studies. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for clarifying that for me. When I read "Having an older brother decreases the rate of homosexuality," I wasn't seeing it in context with the twin studies, but rather as a blanket statement claiming that all males with an older brother are less likely to be homosexual than males without an older brother, which would have been contrary to the studies I mentioned. Thanks for clearing that up though, explaining it was only saying that the male in the male/female twin pair is less likely to be homosexual if he has an older brother. It makes a lot more sense now. —Mears man (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There were several concepts that were removed or changed without explanation, . Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That statement is a lie. Were are already talking about that is the above section. There is not need for a new one. Kairos (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

So I've rearranged the order of the current section, so that it starts off with the combo of causes, then talks about the Thai study, then goes into malleability. This makes more sense to me then talking about malleability first and then the causes. I also tried to improve the grammar of the section, some of which was my fault it the first place.Kairos (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any rebuttal or further explanation as to why you think all mention of research on the affect of family dynamics on the development of homosexuality should be censored from the article? Your explanation that it should be removed because homosexuality is no longer considered a mental illness and that the psychological community no longer thinks it is caused by overbearing mothers has no relevance since the removed sections don't even mention either of your objections. Likewise your objection of them being old studies is confusing since the studies are very recent, one from last year and another from 2004. If you have no relevant objections, I will put it back in the article. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

GO ahead and ADD away.... Kairos (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Requesting an expert on the matter...

I'm putting in a request/needs an experts attention notice at the top page of the Article. This is part of an effort to avoid a pointless revert war that were almost in now... Kairos (talk) 09:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

sexual orientation is not innate and fixed

The American Psychiatric Association published a position statement on sexual orientation. Among other things it stated, it also talked about the malleability of homosexuality stating:

"some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime."

I summarized this by stating:

The current medical view of sexual orientation is that it is not innate and fixed, but instead develops across a person's lifetime.

This was changed to:

Current research also suggests that sexual orientation is not necessarily innate and fixed, but instead can develop across a person's lifetime.

I have problems with this change for several reasons.

  1. The source did not say whether they came to that conclusion from current research, past research, both or some other source.
  2. The word "suggests" makes it sound as if it is still under consideration, whereas the original source just stated it as a fact.
  3. The word "necessarily" makes it sound like it could be innate and fixed for some individuals, which isn't what the source said.
  4. The word "can" makes it sound as if there could be people for which it doesn't develop across their lifetime, which again isn't what the source said.

I took out my wording and put in a direct quote from the APA so as to avoid misinterpretation, however that was reverted. Can you please justify each of the changes you made from the original source? Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the SENTENCE YOU ARE REFERING TOO IS NOT The APA's opinion, it was refering to studies referenced(which indicate that SOME people's sexuality is malleable) which is why that is worded the way it is. Also the malleability section was added to. To make the APA's opinion clearer, among other things. Metatron's Cube (talk • contribs) 20:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused. First you say it is not the APA's opinion, but refers to studies referenced, and then you say the malleability section was added to make the APA's opinion clearer. Anyhow, here is the reference that is currently used to justify the statement:
American Psychiatric Association (May 2000). Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues. Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrics. “some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime.
That is a reference to a fact sheet, not to any studies. I'm not against having some kind of summary of the previously mentioned studies, but I want the quote from the APA to appear without the changes that you added. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Addressing only the APA quote in controversy: that quote appears to be outdated. The language you're quoting comes from a source that, as best I can tell, paraphrases the old version of the "Just The Facts" pamphlet, which read: "Sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime--different people realize at different points in their lives that they are heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or bisexual."[5] The current 2008 version of the "Just The Facts" pamphlet replaces that old sentence with a new one: "Sexual orientation has not been conclusively found to be determined by any particular factor or factors, and the timing of the emergence, recognition, and expression of one’s sexual orientation varies among individuals."[6] If you're going to quote the APA, you should use the current language. Fireplace (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The quote was not from the Just the Facts pamphlet, though the verbiage is similar. The quote comes from the 2000 American Psychiatric Association Fact Sheet on Sexual Orientation. It is displayed on the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists page. Nor is this just a paraphrase of the old Just the Facts pamphlet. This exact language was also quoted by Throckmorton in the Ohio DOMA Case, and he cited the 2000 American Psychiatric Association Fact Sheet on Sexual Orientation, not the Just the Facts pamphlet.[7] Now it is true that pamphlet had similar language, which was subsequently changed, but that pamphlet was designed for high school employees, while the fact sheet was intended for a more general audience. The 2000 fact sheet is the one that is currently displayed on the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists web site, so I have no reason to believe that fact sheet is outdated. Joshuajohanson (talk) 07:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
You appear to be missing his point, he did not claim that the sourc was the "Just the Facts" Pamplet and thsu out of date. Rather he pointed out that it referenced an out of date Pamplet. Also, your version of the sentence is absolute and thus contradicts the very next sentence, while "mine" does not. And I apologise about the confusion of the source, though it appears that I wasn't the only one confused.Kairos (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Responding to Joshua: Having scoured the APA's website, they no longer seem to be publishing or archiving that fact sheet. (If I'm mistaken, please correct me.) The current version of that fact sheet seems to be maintained by the American Psychological Association here (this version also omits the quote under dispute). So, it's a publication that isn't currently being published or distributed by the APA, and the two examples of current related documents omit or substantially change the quote. These are sufficient reasons to doubt that the language from 2000 is currently endorsed by the APA. Fireplace (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I also scoured the Psychiatric APA website and found nothing, but that doesn't mean they don't publish it, just they don't publish it online. I do see your point, but I think that assuming the Psychological APA took over the job of the Psychiatric APA amounts to original research. The fact that the Psychological APA verbiage is different than the Psychiatric APA is understandable because they are different associations. That doesn't nullify the verbiage used by the Psychiatric APA. Unless the Psychiatric APA prints something new, I don't think we can discard the old one. I do find it odd that the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists web site publishes it, and not the Psychiatric APA, but then why would the AGLP currently be publishing something that is out of date? Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Note on the short citations

I've been adding a bunch of short citations. The full citations are in the back of Sandfort, T; et al. Lesbian and Gay Studies: An Introductory, Interdisciplinary Approach. It's my intention to enter the full citations once after the article has filled out a bit and stabilized. Fireplace (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2

Move

This was moved without discussion to Psychological views of homosexuality. The article is more broad than just views on homosexuality. It also includes research in the area. For example "gay men are more likely to be out to friends and siblings than co-workers, parents, and more distant relatives" isn't how psychology views homosexuality, but a result from a study. Also, therapies like gay affirmation therapy isn't a view either. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

We're interested here in views based on research, so the two aren't different in practice - they're the same thing. Your objection is pedantic, and incorrect, too. "Therapies like gay affirmation therapy isn't a view either" is not a coherent objection; the article is concerned with views of and from therapy. BG 20:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a huge difference between discussion about therapies and views on therapies. Homosexuality and Psychology is more inclusive than Psychological views of homosexuality. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
No there isn't. Discussion involves views and views involve discussion. I didn't move the page to Psychological views of homosexuality because it was more "inclusive"; I moved it because that title is more accurate. BG 20:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Psychology and homosexuality

I tend to agree with BG, but not with the move. The title is Psychology and Homosexuality, so I would expect this to treat what psychology has to say about homosexuality - not what psychologists and psychiatrists have to say about conversion therapy, nor psychoanalytic and psychotherapeutic approaches to sexual orientation/identity dysphoria. This should cover what the discipline says about the phenomenon, theories about etiology, the mechanisms that give rise to dysphoria (ego-dystonic sexual orientation), fluidity and malleability - the stuff psychologists deal with, like what happens when they remove female rats ovaries in-utero and give them androgens, and how those rats mount male rats that had their testes removed in-utero and are injected with oestrogens, how the female rats do masculine behaviour and vice-versa, and how they extrapolate this stuff to humans. Perhaps Psychology of homosexuality would be a more accurate title - but whatever you call it all this stuff about conversion therapy belongs somewhere else - psychologists views of conversion therapy - or psychological views of SOCE? It is off-topic. Mish (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to move the page again in the absence of consensus. Psychological views of homosexuality would be my preferred title, but it doesn't make a massive difference which one is used. Psychology of homosexuality would perhaps be too narrow. BG 23:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients

Psychotherapy aimed at helping lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients who are unhappy with their sexual orientation is now absent from this section. I do not think it is NPOV to talk about therapy aimed at helping lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients who are happy with their sexual orientation, but not therapy to help those who are not. Both points of view should be respected. I suggest we write a section summarizing ego-dystonic sexual orientation, discussing the different approaches and resources available to help those with ego-dystonic sexual orientation. It does not need to be as long as the deleted section, nor does it need to focus solely on SOCE or CT. I think alternative approaches are more valuable. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's absent, and it should stay absent, since we now seem to have the makings of a consensus against your position, especially following the latest revert. I am opposed to a new section "summarizing ego-dystonic sexual orientation" - please try to fit things within the framework set by the lead. Maybe such information could be included in an already existing section. BG talk 23:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
The psychotherapy section is already existing. It does fit very nicely into that section. This is a different topic than the SOCE topic. No one has made any comment on whether ego-dystonic sexual orientation should be included yet. Ego-dystonic sexual orientation is more broad, and can include helping people with ego-dystonic sexual orientation learn to accept their sexual orientation identity, as well as to reject it. Doesn't that fall under "What determines successful adaptation to rejecting social climates in gays and lesbians?" I really don't see a difference for psychotherapy that helps people with an ego-syntonic sexual orientation adapt to rejecting social climates and helping people with an ego-dystonic sexual orientation adapt to rejecting social climates. They both fall under the lead. Joshuajohanson (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The psychotherapy section does exist, but that doesn't mean it should. It might be better to relocate its contents in other sections. I'm afraid I really can't make sense of your other comments. BG talk 02:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why you don't think the psychotherapy section should exist. Why can't psychological methods to help people with a homosexual orientation be part of an article on Homosexuality and psychology? Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that the subject of this article is psychological research on homosexuality. You insisted that it instead be defined as "Homosexuality and psychology", without futher explaining what that means. If that is the subject of the article, then I suppose you need sources that define psychotherapy for gay people as "Homosexuality and psychology". If you don't have them, then the section shouldn't be there. BG talk 00:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Homosexuality and psychology is the overlap between homosexual and psychology, much like Religion and homosexuality or Biology and sexual orientation or Sexual orientation and military service. It isn't exactly defined, but talks about how the two topics relate to each other. Psychotherapy for people with a homosexual orientation isn't a definition of psychology. It falls under the general umbrella of homosexuality and psychology because it deals with homosexuality as it relates to psychology. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be working under the assumption that psychotherapy is the same thing as psychology, or is part of psychology. That's not necessarily the case, and it's a poor justification for adding material to the article. BG talk 02:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Not that it is the same thing as or part of, but related to. I went to the psychotherapy page, and it is part of the psychology project, has the psychology banner and everything. Psychotherapy category is under the psychology category. I don't understand your logic. I think we should stick with the convention set so far in wikipedia, but whatever. You mentioned it possibly going under another category. What category is that? I think therapy is part of "What determines successful adaptation to rejecting social climates." Ego-dystonic sexual orientation is definitely part of psychology. Where do you think it should go if not under psychotherapy? Joshuajohanson (talk) 02:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The material might be placed under social adaptation and identity then, if sources draw the correction directly. BG talk 02:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Reorganization

I have some major problems with the organization. The whole structure relies heavily on Sandfort's listing of the five categories of research. While it was probably a good categorization for his book, it doesn't seem evident that he meant those categorizations to be exclusive, nor that this was the only way to categorize homosexuality and psychology. Having a fixed list seems to make it so that this is the only way to categorize homosexuality. Specifically I think psychotherapy has a lot to do with psychology. I also don't like the bullet structure. I think there should be a category for fluidity of sexual orientation, another for sexual orientation identity development, another one for stress associated with homosexuality. I would also like to see the therapy section expanded to include sexual orientation identity exploration and reconstruction. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality undergoing revision

The article Homosexuality is undergoing revision. The revised version is available in the sandbox and the project documentation and coordination is taking place in the Sandbox's talk page.

I would appreciate if people joined in. I'm currently looking towards forming a team for the revision and future maintenance of this article.

Thank you, Pdorion (talk) 08:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

the latest book on the issue

thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.4.98 (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Needs Outside-USA Data And Perspectives

This article, "Homosexuality and psychology", at time of writing (2011-04-05) is currently just about "Homosexuality and American psychology". It's a pretty cut-and-dry case for a "Globalize/USA" box.

Consider the second paragraph:

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. The American Psychological Association Council of Representatives followed in 1975.

That's it. No mention of whether about the same thing was happening in a dozen different countries, or whether the APAs were a decade ahead, or behind, corresponding groups in other countries. And so on, for the whole rest of the article. Because all organizations discussed are American, the reader will infer (correctly or not) that the studies and numbers are, by default, American.

(For example, and not to be sarcastic, but I have a feeling that when there's the paragraph contrasting caucasian vs black suicide rates, I must not assume that these numbers have been derived from studies in Japan. So,... Wales? South Africa?)

In an attempt to prevent misinterpretation: I do not (at all!) mean that this article's topic, or even the concepts in it, are USA-specific. But instead, note the wording, emphasis mine:

The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page.

Here's hoping that people can add some non-USA data, and label which countries are being talked about and when, so we can see similarities and differences between how homosexuality and psychology relate in many different societies. -- Sean M. Burke (talk) 12:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

New 2012 study by Mark Regnerus, sociology professor at the University of Texas

A new study conducted by Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas has revealed, among other things, that 40% of children (aged 18 to 39) whose parents are homosexual have had an affair while married or cohabiting, compared to only 13% of children from heterosexual families. It also showed that 23% of children whose parents are lesbian or gay have been touched sexually by a parent or an adult, compared to 2% of children from heterosexual families, and that 31% of them have had sex against their will, compared to 8% from heterosexual families. The study stresses, however, that it would be wrong to conclude from its data that the abuser was necessarily one of the parents, or that the abuse had anything to do with the parent's sexual orientation. The study also shows that 12% of those with lesbian parents and 24% of those with homosexual fathers have considered suicide, compared to 5% of those from heterosexual families. Children with homosexual parents are also more than twice as likely to be in therapy "for a problem connected with anxiety, depression or relationships" - 19% of children compared to 8% of children from heterosexual families. Furthermore, 20% of children with lesbian parents and 25% of children with homosexual fathers have had a sexually transmitted disease, compared to 8% of children from heterosexual families. 28% of children with lesbian parents and 20% of children with homosexual fathers are currently unemployed compared to 8% of children from heterosexual families. Adult children with homosexual parents are also more likely to smoke marijuana and to get arrested.

Due to the findings, it is very controversial, and that is why my edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homosexuality_and_psychology&diff=497579176&oldid=497039907 and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_parenting&diff=497585303&oldid=497583187 has been undone, simply because another user disagreed and claimed the study is: "widely criticized and flawed." Criticized by whom? It is a new study, nobody had yet written an article debunking it. Flawed according to whom? Your personal opinion? That is not a reason to vandalise the article and undo my edit.

The study is published and available here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610

The fact that this is not allowed on the article prior a "discussion" is unfair. What difference does it make? They are findings from a study; how could a "talk" about it make any difference? Do we have to come to an "agreement" to put this information into the article itself? And if we don't, we will just ignore it and purposely leave the study out of the article, because somebody's opinion about it disagrees? This is not objective and completely unprofessional, not to mention biased. This is nothing more than intentionally leaving a study out of the article because somebody disagrees with the findings.

There is no valid, honest, objective reason to remove this information from the article, yet I was forced to open a "talk" about it because of no other reason than somebody not liking the results of the study. This is unacceptable, yet here I am anyway, opening a "talk" about it. So, what is there to discuss? Your opinion disagreeing with the results? That is not a reason and is completely subjective. In other words, it is irrelevant. There is absolutely nothing to talk about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.23.111 (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

NOTE that what is essentially a duplicate of this discussion is currently taking place at: Talk:LGBT_parenting#New_2012_study_by_Mark_Regnerus.2C_sociology_professor_at_the_University_of_Texas. As the study being discussed is more applicable there than here, please look at the discussion there. Zad68 18:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

adding information

I have some proposed changes/ additions to the page. I'm interested in adding a section on the historical evolution of how Psychology as a field has approched homosexuality. Here is an outline of my proposed additions, and I welcome comments or suggestions as a new used and someone hoping to contribute to this page!

The new section would be titled Historical Background and I'd like to discuss some major theorists such as Freud and Psychoanalysts, Havelock Ellis and Alfred Kinsey and what their approaches contributed to psychology and homosexuality. Also, I'd like to talk about some Major studies in history such as Hookers’ 1957 study the history of homosexuality in the DSM and its removal in 1973 Hgodfrey8 (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

can we get this semi-PROTECTED?

GAH! we get an endless supply of anon edits that are crap. No offense to any unregistered peoples who have actually contributed, but your outnumbered by a gazzillion to one. While this article has some problems, it doesn't help to have to keep reverting idiotic crap. How do we request that? Kairos (talk) 08:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You can request page protection here: WP:RFPP. However, I reviewed the last year's worth of IP edits and disagree that there's enough editing from IPs that would be considered disruptive to warrant page protection. Zad68 13:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Kairos, you seem to be intent on suppressing opinions that do not agree with your views. Why should this page get any more protection than any other pages? The relationship of "psychology" and homosexuality is varied globally, so there will be people who disagree with the views presented on this page, and just like the pro-homosexual views can be passionate, so can the anti-homosexual views. By trying to control what people have to say about this topic, will only support the idea that homosexuality is indeed a mental illness, since the inability to see the other side on an issue is a sign of psychological weakness Truthisfreedomandjustice (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

No theories for the etiology of homosexuality

The most important part of the article is completely neglected. Why has nobody added any theories for the etiology of homosexuality yet? For starters, you could add Daryl Bem's "Exotic Becomes Erotic" theory. I'd do it myself but I'm new and I don't know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeBonolo (talk • contribs) 17:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

  • The "origin of homosexuality" is that it's a normal expression of human sexuality. We couldn't use a nonproven hypothesis that pretends it's an mental illness, nor should we.

Kairos (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

  • homosexuality is by no means a "normal expression of human sexuality"...your statement is, not only bias, but ridiculous. Homosexuality is as normal as S&M, and I do believe that most consider S&M to be an abnormal sexual expression. Truthisfreedomandjustice (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

"Homosexuality is as normal as S&M". Wow...just wow. I don't know what you mean by "normal" (normal in a moral sense, normal in the sense of how many are homosexual etc. ((Which wouldn't matter anyway, since the only "real" occation homosexuality would not be normal is when it comes to certain religious morals, but religious "morals" are not because of rational reasons and might even be immoral in many cases, so i take the liberty of ignoring "normal" in that sense)) but that was the most ignorant piece of crap i've read this week. If your reasons claiming that homosexuality is abnormal are actually scientific, i'd be very much interested to see that material, as it is unheard of. If it's on a religious basis though, say so and i'll save us both some time by not starting/countinuing a futile debate. A third possibility is that what you said was just poorly worded, in that case you have my apologies. *Sigh* AIKÄRBÄST (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Homosexuality as mental illness

Shouldn't there be a section on the question whether homosexuality is a mental illness? I realise mainstream Western psychiatry says it isn't, but that wasn't always the case, and psychiatry in some countries still holds that homosexuality is an illness. As this is therefore a valid debate, shouldn't there be a section on this?JohnC (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The psychiatric classification ended in 1973. We do discuss that. There is no sign of any significant move to change that in relevant WP:RS. If countries classify it as you suggest, there would be sources for that? However, that doesn't warrant a POV section on how it should be dealt with that way, it requires a brief note that some countries still treat it this way (if they do...). - MishMich - Talk - 11:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I will refrain from putting myself in a position to get in trouble with the administrators by attempting to edit this article neutrally myself, but it appears that there is no mention about the circumstances under which homosexuality was removed from the DSM. Many sources indicate that it was only removed after threats of terror from pro-LGBT activists. "The original APA vote was called at a time of significant social change and was taken with unconventional speed that circumvented normal channels for consideration of the issues because of explicit threats from gay rights groups to disrupt APA conventions and research" (Stanton L. Jones, Mark A. Yarhouse. Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate. ISBN: 9780830875542). "The vote may have been a demonstration of support for homosexual civil rights and not the views of psychiatrists about the pathological status of homosexuality" (Jeffrey S Siker. Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate. ISBN: 9780664255459). I'm sure there are plenty of other references for those who have access to more extensive databases. --Dromioofephesus (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, There are socio-political connotations involved with homosexuality. It's not a disease, such as AIDs. At least, I've not been informed of any way homosexuality is passed to offspring, which would be extremely detrimental for the human race were it passed on without notice. As a mental illness, I've personally considered that it's an abnormal psychology that is not in jive with human productive activities. As such, I believe it's fair enough to say that homosexuality is abnormal. However, it may not be fair enough to say that it's a mental illness without qualifiying it in some manner. The only qualifying manner I have found is for an individual to argue that the biological function, or biological imperative, of a DNA-based organism is to reproduce. With that in consideration, it could be argued that the individuals are mentally ill. However, the individuals were biologically developed by DNA and other developmental biology factor to become homosexuals, thus have an biological if not ecological function. --Cyberman (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
The declassification of homosexuality as a mental affliction was largely due to pressure from radicalized homosexual groups. If you scream loud enough, you'll get what you want just to make you stop screaming. In essence, the APA was bullied into revising the definitions due to political correctness. Dromioofephesus was spot on. However, I have not edited anything supporting that argument, because I do not have the sources readily available to me to do so, and, like Dromioof, I don't want to cause anhy problems.
Homosexuality is not a "disease" in the physical sense, because you cannot "give someone the gay" like you can give them AIDs or a common cold. It can be seen as a mental affliction/illness/disease because, as Cyberman noted, it's abnormal or differing from neurotypicality. Homosexuality does not line up with reproductive biology. --99.157.108.186 (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

To the previous two posters, I believe you are separate, but I'm not sure. Sorry I'm not logged in but it's MarkVinerMD (my account name). I've made recent edits to the section about the DSM on this article which reflect the fact that homosexuality was (almost) removed from the DSM-III completely as a disorder due to *political* pressure from activists, yes. This is admitted by Dr. Spitzer and others and I and I'm sure others would be prepared to cite this. To 99.157.108.186: There are communicable and infectious diseases and then there are essentially non-infectious disease. That's why there are infectious disease doctors. Is cancer a disease? In the physical sense, even? Of course it is. One can get hung up on whether to call homosexuality a syndrome or disease but it's certainly disordered psychology from the classical standpoint. It's disordered from the Western (and even most Eastern) moralities. I've consulted with Native American tribe members from Alaska about this who are not even Christian, but shamanic. Now sure, that last bit is anecdotal, but that's part of the point I'd like to make and as an MD I'd love to see this article show the encyclopedic truth on this matter. That is, that homosexuality is only no longer a disease per the American Psychiatric Association because of political pressures from "activists", not from "overwhelming evidence" of any kind. Nowhere should a sound encyclopedia cite "overwhelming evidence" without a citation, ever. This is a political sham, but I'd like to keep it civil. 2601:19A:4201:F801:E451:C5C9:8DB8:D333 (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC) Dr. Mark William Viner Monday January 18th 2016 12:53 PM Eastern US Time

Psychology and homosexuality

It seems that the title of the page may be misleading. I had expected to find information about psychological theories for homosexuality, but found that the information was more founded in popular psychology. Perhaps a more s scientific approach would be helpful. EBL 18:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellie bl (talk • contribs)

Misinformation re: Regnerus

I am reading the above and it is factually incorrect. Regnerus studied heterosexual couples where one parent had a dalliance with a gay paramour. Moreover, their children where aware of the extramarital affair since the information comes from now grown children. In other words, Regnerus studied dysfunctional families. Regnerus in an interview with the NY Times said that the had to compare apples to oranges due to a lack of oranges. The intense criticism is a result of making sweeping claims without studying any people who were raised by gay couples.

Regnerus is a zealous Catholic convert and this study was funded mostly by Witherspoon Institute which is, essentially an Opus Dei organization. As a federal judge in Michigan noted, the funder wanted a result and Regnerus obliged. The intent of this study was to influence the Supreme Court in advance of United States v. Windsor. It did not. David Cary Hart (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Homosexuality and psychology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Homosexuality and psychology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Homosexuality and psychology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Rollback

@Asukite: can you please rollback to the last edit by Uelly? The previous unidentified editor has used no sources. Freud based all of his theories on 8 cases. I suspect the editor to be a recently banned subscriber to Freuds theories, rearing his ugly head on WP again. Sxologist (talk) 02:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Oops! I suppose I could have looked closer. Thanks for the input, I'm by no means an expert but the edit seemed fishy.  A S U K I T E   02:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Sxologist (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello again. As my edit was reverted, I wanted to leave a snippet from my talk page message to the IP editor 103.67.157.126 explaining the rationale for my content removal, as this may help future discussion: After a review of the source material in question ("The Freud Encyclopedia: Theory, Therapy, and Culture" by Eward Erwin, pg. 258) I am able to verify that the material which was removed was indeed present in the source; however, as this article is about the topic of Homosexuality and Psychology in general, and as Freud's work, though notable, is not necessarily authoritative or well-accepted on the topic, I will still agree that the material in question does not belong in the article.  A S U K I T E   14:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

You, most of the editors relating sexuality articles doing completely partiality frequently in LGBT related articles, and I am being surprised again and again that no authority of wikipedia is bothering about it. If it continues on, I fear by God that one day people will not or never continue keeping trust in this hard working encylopedia for doing political partiality and those who are doing it may one day be notorious as politically partial and openly hypocrite editors of their own will, which you all are proving again and again, you always make the interpretation of wikirules in favour of your wish, and the same policy you interprete differently to defend other edits which you do not wish to keep, all out hypocricy and also seeing that english wikipedia authority is also supporting you in this hypocrisy, I am not still clear, if they are doing, they are really doing also a heinous act of hypocrisy by supporting some wikihipocrites ignoring its own policy behind. 103.67.157.125 (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC) 103.67.157.125 (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, it's never good to call experienced editors hypocrites 5 times in one sentence. The fact is, when it comes to homosexuality, the scientific consensus simply is that it is not a disorder. And that is vastly more established than it was 50 years ago. So, regarding this, we do not put WP:Undue weight on quotes from two individuals to create a WP:False balance in favor of WP:Fringe ideas. As for Perloff saying that "making such choice unethical would deprive a patient of a treatment of choice", what the vast majority of sources say is that it is unethical to offer "treatment" (conversion therapy) that does not work and that can actually harm. Crossroads -talk- 04:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Opodisadly.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 25 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sydlieberman.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homosexuality_and_psychology/Archive_1&oldid=1159217446"