When science meets religion (and it hurts ...)
I read with dismay at the 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 but you can read the interview and a report is to comment on the 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 it was once considered to be the psychiatric disorder, but that the WHO have "cleared". But he added, this decision was reached only because the American gay lobby groups 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 in the '70s and '71 APA, but it is also true that from '72 onwards were gay psychiatrists themselves facing the problem scientifically. We recall that in those years gay psychiatrists could not declare their sexual orientation otherwise no psychoanalytic institute would enable them to train and work (One example is the Dr. H. Anonymous).
In the years '72 and '73 as is customary APA committees have been established to review scientific 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 disorder of sexual orientation.
In 1974 a petition of analysts said the revocation of the decision of the Board through a referendum among the members (ie the ability to change what has been given first choice at 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 the trial, 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 declared that under no circumstances homosexuals are treated differently from others with regard to trial, capacity 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, the ego-dystonic homosexuality (persistent and marked distress about sexual orientation) and in 1987 with the DSM-III-R is completely erased.
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 am of the belief that homosexuality is a disease, an abnormality of sexuality and therefore a nuisance. For disorder is defined as a detachment from reality and the fact that it rains there in the first and sexuality has as main purpose the reproduction of the species. Now is not this event possible in the sexual act between persons of the same sex. "
Take, for as good as says Dr. Bruno. Let us consider normal sexuality, adequate, fair, free from interference only reports destined for procreation. We should look identical to the objective for even homosexual relationships:
- all sexual relations between male and female which did not lead to fertilization of an egg;
- all sexual relations between male and female who are constitutionally unable to procreate so sterile;
- all sexual relations between male and female because of a disease if either (or both) has lost the reproductive organs;
- all sexual relations between male and female 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 think 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 .
Dr Again. Bruno the question "Who decides if we are essentially in the case of illness or normality?" Says
3) "the physician, setting aside the decisions of the world organization. It establishes only the 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 the sanctity of life and the doctor has the duty to care, avoiding any rage. "
Let's analyze this statement in the opposite direction. He says that every doctor (and no mention of psychologists!) Must act freely, knowledge and belief. But if it acted in science should take into account the WHO, says APA and other scientific bodies. So if he refuses to follow the science remains the choice in conscience. Notwithstanding this assumption should be equally possible that a doctor who, 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) "are made, often for environments in which we live, by choice or trend. In part there may be people who are genetically predisposed to homosexuality, but it is said, as if that pathologies other viruses, I am not referring to homosexuality as viruses, explode or not. But homosexuals are made, and most of the time, for free and precise control. In a society that has lost its ethical value. "
The dr. Qazi Rahman, a profession of Cognitive Biology at Queen Mary University of London is the opposite opinion. That almost all scientists agree in saying that homosexuality has only natural causes and that sexual orientation is not a choice. The choice comes down to heterosexuality or homosexuality, even if there is a small variation that can not exclude the bisexual behavior. The causes for a different sexual orientation refer to two areas: the variation of genes and "non-shared factors" such as. the hormones. Both are biological factors.
The Karolinska Institute has shown that heterosexual men and lesbian women show an asymmetry in the right part of the cerebral hemispheres, in contrast to heterosexual women and gay men (more symmetrical). This difference would be located in the amygdala, the part of our brain responsible for orientation responses to emotional stimuli.
We are very far from finding the "gay gene" whose first studies date back to Dean Hamer in 1993. The discovery of which acknowledge the moral and religious conscience, but perhaps not eliminate discrimination and homophobia in society.
I think the only choice a homosexual person can do is live peacefully or to hide her identity for life, often choosing a heterosexual life that does not belong to satisfy the social demands to which pressure is subjected daily.
WANT TO KNOW WHAT ARE THE FEED?
Click here!
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ONLINE COURSE GUIDELINES APA
Buy now! What are you waiting?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
This post has 3 comments
February 5th, 2010
Perhaps it is Mr. Giancarlo that should shake off its ideology that sees sex and sexual pleasure solely aimed at procreation, since one can be finalized only if there is actually a "Someone" who creates something for a given end decided to priori, that only sinned Some of this there is no evidence.
With a scientific approach, however, you should simply say that sexual pleasure is nothing other than a device, developed by evolution, two subjects to induce mating, mating than later, regardless of the actual will of the people to procreate, bring in some cases to play, you play that is necessary for the continuation of the species, but not for the individual research rather simply the satisfaction of his biological need for pleasure.
No coincidence that homosexuality is found in several animal species in the face of nature of the alleged purpose player. Not to mention that the man got his gradual emancipation from nature, and not be slaves.
January 4th, 2010
Greetings to you too. And you tell a little more rather than continuing to see only black and white.
January 4th, 2010
Dear Dr., human sexuality has two ends tied together to build a strong relationship capable of receiving a new life.
The pleasure linked to sexuality is not an end, rather it is functional, that is helping to achieve the objectives that remain only the relationship between a male and a female and the conception of a life. The fact that you do not always realize the second objective, that is, the Concord, does not mean that the 'sexual act is so inadequate, pathological, abnormal or another, may be simply that the' act took place in the woman's fertile days. The normality of sexuality is not given from conception, but only by the possibility that the 'act can lead to conception. Then, when fertility is precluded by a disease, the 'exercise of sexuality is certainly still possible and effective to achieve the first objective (the report), but it is certainly impaired sexuality, injury and, in some sense inadequate.
However, if the 'sexual act is sterile because of a disease, but because expression of a homosexual relationship, the' act is in itself bankrupt and his failure starts from the very definition of homosexuality. The 'Homosexuality is a failure by definition, is incapable, by definition, to achieve the' critical obiettvo of sexuality.
It seems to me that Professor Brown has stressed that it is clear to every person with common sense.
He shook off a bit of ideology and look at the reality.
Wishes.