When science meets religion (and it hurts ...)

I read with dismay the website Pontifex, a clearly Catholic, an article that presents the ideas of the psychiatrist Francesco Bruno on homosexuality.
Find the original here.

On the site of the Observatory of Psychology in the media instead you read is a report of the interview is to review our editorial staff. You can read them here.

Let's look in detail and try to clarify the statement.

1) When asked if homosexuality can be considered normal or disease responds by saying that once was but that is considered pathology, psychiatry that the WHO had "canceled". But he added, this decision was reached only because the American homosexual lobbyists have campaigned door to door.

I always thought that science and scientists, experts, scholars did not so easily influenced by the common man.

It 'true that gay activists have taken place during a meeting of APA in the '70s and '71, but it is also true that from '72 onwards were the same gay psychiatrists to address the problem scientifically. We recall that in those years psychiatrists homosexuals could not declare their sexual orientation otherwise no psychoanalytic institute would enable them to train and work (An example is the Dr. H. Anonymous).

In the years '72 and '73 as is customary APA scientific committees have been established for them to pass in review the studies considered most scientific sexology and this led the Board of Trustees of the APA to remove homosexuality from the DSM-II and replace with Sexual Orientation Disturbance.
In 1974 a petition of analysts said the revocation of the decision of the Board through a referendum among the members (hence the possibility to modify chosen as the first was given to all in a completely democratic).
58% of the 10,000 APA members voted in favor of the decision of the Board.

In 1974 the then State Position (official position) of the APA was:
"Since that homosexuality per se implies no impediments in judgment, stability, reliability, or generally in social skills or professional, APA deplores all forms of discrimination against homosexuality, public and private, in any context , at work, at home, in public offices, and declares that in no way homosexuals are treated differently from others with regard to judgment, ability and reliability ... "Again, the APA supports and recommends the repeal of all laws discriminatory in regard to homosexual acts between consenting adults.

In 1980 he was distinguished in DSM-III ego-dystonic homosexuality (persistent and marked distress about sexual orientation) and in 1987 with DSM-III-R is totally canceled.

For now, waiting for the DSM-V, the only option is the Sexual Disorder NOS.

The cultural normalization of homosexuality as a result of the APA decision opens some questions:

a) If homosexuality is not a disease, and
b) If you do not accept the letter of the biblical prohibitions against homosexuality, and
c) If the contemporary, secular democracy separates church and state, and
d) If gay people are citizens / and appropriate / productive e / e,

So what's wrong with being gay?

Source: [J. Drescher, International Conference on Homosexuality and Psychotherapy, 7 November 2009]

Let's go back to dr. Bruno insists that saying:
2) "I was and the rest of the belief that homosexuality is a disease, an abnormality of sexuality and a disorder. For disorder is defined as a detachment from reality and no rain is falling on to the fact that sexuality has as its first and main objective reproduction of the species. Now is not this event possible in the sexual act between persons of the same sex. "

Take, for good as the Dr. says. Bruno. Let us consider normal sexuality, adequate, fair, free from interference only reports destined for procreation. We ought to consider objectively identical to homosexual relationships as well:

• all sexual relations between male and female which did not lead to fertilization of an egg;
• all sexual relations between male and female sterile so that they are constitutionally unable to procreate;
• all sexual relations between male and female because of a disease if one of the two (or both) has lost the reproductive organs;
• all sexual relations between males and females in the presence of neoplastic diseases who require care radio and / or chemotherapy (usually advised to have intercourse is protected because it could produce pregnancies and fetuses with severe abnormalities);
• all sex anal / oral between male and female;
• all sexual relations between male and female protected (and I believe are the majority!);
• all sexual relations between male and female menopause / andropause.

As we all know sexuality is not exclusive of procreation, but contains other components such as pleasure, intimacy, affection and is a physiological component, indispensable for the life of each and is one of the primary needs identified by Maslow in 1954 .

Even Dr. Bruno the question "Who decides if we are essentially in the case of illness or normality?" Says
3) "the doctor, leaving aside the decisions of the world organization. It provides only for a doctor in his free choice, knowledge and belief. Enough with the taxes and bureaucracies that cut the legs as the doctor can see in his freedom. If you were to me absurd to say that it is legitimate to make a lethal injection to a dying man, I would deny doing it, for the principle of sanctity of life and the duty that has the medical care, avoiding any cruelty. "

Let us analyze this statement on the opposite side. He says that every doctor (and no mention of psychologists!) Must act freely, knowledge and belief. But if acting in science should take into account what the WHO, the APA and other scientific organizations says. So if he refuses to follow the science remains the choice in conscience. Notwithstanding this assumption should be equally possible that a physician, conscientiously feels he can help a person in a permanent vegetative state to die, can do so without encountering any legal process against him. Or not?

On the much disputed issue of whether homosexuals are born or made ​​claims:
4) "becomes, often for environments in which we live, by choice or by tendency. In part there may be people who are genetically predisposed to homosexuality, but it is said, as if other diseases that virus, I'm not referring to homosexuality for viruses, explode or not. But homosexuals are made, and most of the time, for freedom and precise control. In a society that has lost its ethical value. "

The dr. Qazi Rahman, the profession of Cognitive Biology at Queen Mary University of London is the opposite opinion. He says that almost all scientists agree that homosexuality has simply natural causes and that sexual orientation is not a choice. The choice comes down to heterosexuality or homosexuality, even if there is a small change that can not exclude the bisexual behavior. The causes for a different sexual orientation are found in two areas: the variation of genes and "non-shared factors" such as. hormones. Both are biological factors.
The Karolinska Institute has shown that heterosexual men and lesbian women show an asymmetry in the right hemispheres of the brain, contrary to the straight women and gay men (more symmetrical). This difference would be localized in the amygdala, the part of our brain responsible for orientation in response to emotional stimuli.

We are far from finding the "gay gene" whose first studies date back to Dean Hamer in 1993. The discovery of which taciterebbe consciences and religious moralists, but perhaps not eliminate discrimination and homophobia in society.

I think the only choice that a gay person can do is live peacefully or to hide her identity for life, often choosing a heterosexual life that does not belong to satisfy social demands to which it is subjected daily pressures.

WANT TO KNOW WHAT ARE THE FEED?
Click here!
_____________________________________

ONLINE COURSE GUIDELINES APA
Buy It Now! What are you waiting?
_____________________________________