Aineo wrote:I brought up the APA's executive committee action in regards to homosexuality and the DSM III to prove a point concerning "science" and how decisions are made. Badme, all the studies you referred to came after the APA's decision and are by psychologists not psychiatrists who control the DSM III.
Which changes the results of the studies
how?
justforfun000, like the constants in E=mc^2 homosexuality was "defined" as a mental disorder by the same organization that insists that later studies have show that reparative therapy is innately harmful, which is based on "anecdotal" studies that badme claims are invalid.
What are you talking about? E=mc^2 is not an arbitrarily 'defined' figure, made up by scary scientists in their scary lab coats! It's based on calculations made by Einstein. I will ask again: what was the original reason why homosexuality was added to the DSM?
Since we are not discussing homosexuality per se but discussing the "science" behind a scientific pronouncement this discussion is fine where it is.
However, if you would care to check the homosexuality forum I have had this discussion in the past with college students majoring in psychology and they could not find the studies used to remove a "defined" mental disorder from the DSM III.
And the realization that there is no evidence
for a phenomena does not count as a reason? Interesting use of the Burden of Proof you have there.
Now, if the original definition was incorrect in one science why are the other "defined" constants and etc. in other sciences not open to question and futher research and study? It seems science likes to pick and choose what is open to discussion and what is not.
You obviously do not know what you are talking about, since you implied that E=mc^2 is an arbitrarily defined equation!
BTW: I'd still like you to (1) post the original reasons why homosexuality was defined as a mental disorder and (2) state how appealing to your personal experiences is somehow more valid than the studies I presented.
EDIT: And while you're at it, jusify the implicit assumption that homosexuals
should change, assuming it's possible.