Interesting article on homosexuality

[packsaddle]

vol_scouter, I checked the meetings of the APS. While you must be a member to submit an abstract (this is not uncommon - a ploy to build memberships), there is no such requirement for attendance. You merely pay the registration fee which, as of yet, is undetermined for the next meeting. I happened to attend a meeting this evening and one of the people there was a friend from our Physics dept. I asked him about your claim and he laughed and said something like, "Are you kidding? We'll let any riffraff into the meeting if they pay the registration, who the hell said THAT?" I said that it was someone from Tennessee...the conversation moved on.

 

When I went to the ANS, the winter meeting registration is already open. Members pay $730 for the full meeting registration. Non-members pay $880. While this is for sure expensive, the increment between member and non-member doesn't seem all that punitive. And, I note, there IS a non-member category.

 

On to the Wilderness Medical Society - and I note that the meeting coming up in Hawaii looks kind of cushy for this kind of meeting. But again, the member price is $725 and the non-member price is $875, hardly an exclusionary increment. But...the meeting looks more like a congressional junket than something truly beneficial to wilderness medicine, I could be wrong.

 

Lastly, the ACP and wadyaknow? The only registration fee visible to non-members is....the non-member fee which BTW is $819. Because I'm not a member I can only surmise that the member registration fee is some increment less than that. I think it's a reasonable speculation don't you?

 

OK, I concede that around here, even the member registration fee for all of these societies could buy you a vehicle that might start and run for, say, five minutes. But the incremental difference between member and non-member is hardly a make or break increment and in all cases non-members can register and attend.

Got any others?

 

[Trevorum]

Wow, that's a pricey field. At the annual meetings for us scruffy archeologists, the non-member fee is merely $205.

[packsaddle]

Yeah, sticker shock. Last spring I took five of my students to a regional meeting (Assoc. of Southeastern Biologists) for one day of sessions and to make one presentation. I paid over $600 per head, non-members paid $50 more. But the students had a great time...it was their first scientific meeting and the paper went really well with lots of great feedback. It was a great way to end a long semester.

 

OK, to connect this limb of the tree back to the trunk, the reason for this was a claim that some information with regard to the original topic of this thread is not really 'open' if it is presented at scientific meetings. Vol_scouter mentioned that these kinds of meetings are often closed to non-members. I and Trevorum both noted that hasn't been out experience. So I asked Vol_scouter for his experience. So far, he has not identified one of the 'closed' meetings that he originally mentioned.

 

Here's his quote:"Over the years I have been to many professional meetings in medicine, physics, and nuclear engineering. It is my experience that only legitimate members of the professional organization are allowed in the scientific sessions. The meeting has a press area where selected research in presented to the press. The selection is based upon criteria made by the professional organization. So the 'studies' featured would likely have been the ones selected by the professional organization. Since we still have freedom of speech, attendees could be interviewed but from what I have seen that is frowned upon. I have no experience with the APA but merely providing what I know from many other professional meetings."

 

This was in response to discussion of the potential influence of various media on the mental development of youth. Whether vol_scouter is right or wrong about his claim, it has little bearing on the discussion. I can't speak to his motives for making the claim but either way, it seems that the original questions remain.

Hopefully, this will help get things back on track, with my apologies.

[Mr. Boyce]

* A 1997 New York Times article reported that a young male homosexual has about a 50% chance of getting HIV by middle age.

* By 1998, 54% of all AIDS cases in America were homosexual men and 90% of these men acquired HIV through sexual activity.

* One study found that the life expectancy for homosexual males is from eight to 20 years less compared to heterosexual males.

* The risk of getting anal cancer soars by 4000% in those who engage in anal intercourse.

 

Since this is such an incredibly unappealing subject, below are just a few links for further reading.

 

 

 

Center for Disease Control

 

The CDC warns that men who have sex with men can result in rapid, extensive transmission of sexually transmitted diseases.

 

 

 

International Journal of Epidemiology

 

Medical studies and other evidence indicate that individuals who engage in homosexual behavior experience dramatically higher risks of domestic violence, mental illness, substance abuse, life-threatening disease, multiple sex partners and premature death by up to 20 years. College-aged men who engage in homosexual behavior are at risk of dying up to 20 years younger than other men, according to Oxford University's International Journal of Epidemiology, which reported: "Life expectancy at age 20 years for homosexual and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men -- nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday."

 

 

 

American Journal of Psychiatry

 

Distress and Depression in Men Who Have Sex With Men: The Urban Mens Health Study

 

CONCLUSIONS: Rates of distress and depression are high in men who have sex with men. These high rates have important public health ramifications. The predictors of distress and depression suggest prevention efforts that might be effective when aimed at men who have sex with men.

 

 

 

Journal of the American Medical Association - General Psychiatry

 

Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders

 

Findings From the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS)

 

Conclusion: The findings support the assumption that people with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders.

 

 

 

Corporate Resource Council

 

Sexual relationships between members of the same sex expose gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to extreme risks of sexually transmitted diseases, physical injuries, mental disorders and even a shortened life span.

 

 

 

National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality

 

A few headlines/links from their Medical Issues page:

American College Of Physicians Notes Syphilis Rise Among Homosexual Males

 

 

 

Researchers Doubt Vaccine For HIV Will Ever Be Found

 

 

 

Link: Barebacking persists despite risks - Some homosexual men decry HIV warnings as 'discriminatory'

 

 

 

HIV Rates Rising Dramatically In Asia Among Homosexuals/Bisexuals

 

 

 

Canadian Homosexual Group Wants Age Of Consent Lowered

 

 

 

Link: Depression - The New STD?

 

 

 

CDC Says Homosexual Sex Key Rise In Syphilis Nationwide

 

 

 

Rare STD Spreads Among Homosexuals In Canada, Massachusetts

 

 

 

CDC Issues Alert On New Disease Infecting Homosexuals And Bisexuals In Europe

 

 

 

Homosexual Acts Defy Design of the Body, Immunological Journal Finds

 

 

 

Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems

 

 

 

Gender Differences Are Real

 

 

 

Why Isn't Homosexuality Considered A Disorder On The Basis Of Its Medical Consequences?

 

 

 

Recent Studies on Homosexuality and Mental Health

 

 

 

Link: The Health Risks of Homosexual Sex, by internist John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D.(Note: this is a downloadable PDF file from the web site of the Corporate Resource Council)

 

 

 

The American Journal of Public Health Highlights Risks of Homosexual Practices

 

 

 

Risk Factors Associated with Lesbianism May Be Higher than with Homosexual Men

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

You don't have credibility quoting NARTH and Corporate Resource Council; Glenn Beck has more credibility than these organizations.

 

(fix typo)(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[DanKroh]

Ok, I'm going to preface all of this by saying, "So?" Does any of this (assuming any bit of it is gathered by legitimate scientific methods, and that's a big assumption for most of it) make homosexuals any less worthy of respect or the right to be treated with the dignity and equality due any other human being?

 

Now, on to the meat of this:

 

"* A 1997 New York Times article reported that a young male homosexual has about a 50% chance of getting HIV by middle age."

 

Yeah, because the NYT does so much scientific research. Without knowing where they got these numbers from, can't comment on their validity.

 

"Center for Disease Control

The CDC warns that men who have sex with men can result in rapid, extensive transmission of sexually transmitted diseases."

 

Shocking! Is this supposed to be something we don't know? Guess what, women who have sex with men can result in "rapid, extensive transmission of sexually transmitted diseases" as well. Ever heard of HPV, HSV, syphilis, chlamydia, etc?

 

"International Journal of Epidemiology"

Again, this is NOT a citation. Author, year, volume, etc?? Without that information, no one can look at the research methods and tell whether it is was legitimately done or not, or whether the conclusions were accurately quoted. This article could be 20+ years old. A lot has changed in the last 20 years in the health of gay men.

 

"American Journal of Psychiatry

CONCLUSIONS: Rates of distress and depression are high in men who have sex with men. These high rates have important public health ramifications. The predictors of distress and depression suggest prevention efforts that might be effective when aimed at men who have sex with men.

 

Findings From the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS)

Conclusion: The findings support the assumption that people with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders."

 

Again, this is supposed to be surprising? If someone constantly told you that you were an abomination, were a pervert, if you were shunned by your family and religion, don't you think you'd be more likely to be depressed, too?

 

"Corporate Resource Council"

 

Who? Is this a scientific body?

 

"National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality"

 

You're kidding me, right? You are really going to quote NARTH?

 

What exactly was your point again? Or are you just going to keep posting lists at random intervals of things you found on the internet that support your bias?

[Mr. Boyce]

I'm trying to find facts. I'm keeping an open mind until I do so.

 

My motive here is finding out the truths that have been established---is this a bad thing? If so, why can we not discuss the facts? We have a multi-billion dollar scientific establishment in this country, and I'm trying to locate facts about homosexuality. I can see this is an emotionally charged issue, and it's a partisan one, but even so, I want to see facts and make up my own mind based upon them.

 

 

[DanKroh]

"I'm trying to find facts. I'm keeping an open mind until I do so."

 

Really? And yet, every article you quote here presents an obvious anti-gay bias, some from very disreputable sources. Why is that? Do you see why it gives the strong impression that you have already made up your mind and are looking for material to support your own opinion?

 

"My motive here is finding out the truths that have been established---is this a bad thing? If so, why can we not discuss the facts? We have a multi-billion dollar scientific establishment in this country, and I'm trying to locate facts about homosexuality. I can see this is an emotionally charged issue, and it's a partisan one, but even so, I want to see facts and make up my own mind based upon them."

 

Then, please, please, please, go in search of real, scientifically supported FACTS. NOT opinions pieces from the NYT and Bill Donohue. NOT quotes taken out of context from legitimate sources like the CDC. NOT white papers, brochures, and vanity pieces published by well-known anti-gay groups who have demonstrated over and over again that they have absolutely no ethics when it comes to supporting their anti-gay agenda. Go read REAL scientific journal articles, in their original forms. NOT opinion pieces that merely quote legitimate journal articles, where you do not know if the work has been misquoted or deliberately distorted.

 

If you are really, truly looking for FACTS and not opinions to shore up an anti-gay bias, THAT is where you should go looking for them. But despite being presented with several places to start, you continue to return to quoting sources like NARTH.

 

Why is that?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

For someone looking for "truth", you seem to stumble across known quacks pretty easily.

[Mr. Boyce]

It's easy to impugn motives (in my case, your assumptions are quite mistaken). But the more you do this, the less facts you present. Show me something real and substantive.

 

If you have something factual that argues against these studies, please present it.

[DanKroh]

"It's easy to impugn motives (in my case, your assumptions are quite mistaken). But the more you do this, the less facts you present. Show me something real and substantive.

 

If you have something factual that argues against these studies, please present it."

 

I am not so much impugning your motives as I am asking you if you understand why someone WOULD impugn your motives, given the type of material you continue to present. I'm not making assumptions. I'm asking you why you chose to present the articles you did, and continue to disregard the other resources pointed out to you. But you chose to ignore that question.

 

I have presented you with list upon list of factual references, citations, and places to find more. And as often as I lead this horse to water, I still can't make the water jump into its mouth.

 

Sorry, not going to waste any more of my time compiling lists of citations that you are going to ignore. But I will continue to point out when and how sources you present are lacking.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

NARTH continues to cite research done by long-discredited Paul Cameron.

The Corporate Resource Council is a political front owned by the Alliance Defense Fund. It's a conservative Christian organization opposed to homosexuality for religious reasons.

[Mr. Boyce]

That's fine, but the Center for Disease Controls has at least a prima facie appearance of being a respectable source of information. I believe there are other ostensibly credible entities among those I ran across.

 

You don't like NARTH. That's fine, too, although by what is being said seems that you don't like their funding sources or conclusions, rather than the scientific basis of their particular researches and conclusions. Can you see that there is a very real difference between the message and the messenger?

 

Again, pull out the politics here. You assume I don't "agree" with you, and hence must be attacked. But this is only your assumption, and not real. I'm looking for real facts in all this swirl of partisanship. . . am I to be attacked for this?

[DanKroh]

"That's fine, but the Center for Disease Controls has at least a prima facie appearance of being a respectable source of information. I believe there are other ostensibly credible entities among those I ran across."

 

Yes, some of them, like the CDC, are credible sources. But when you pull information from them out of context, without a basis for comparison, then it just becomes meaningless. All you've done with the info from credible sources is quote statistics that cast gays in a bad light, without providing comparable statistics about heterosexuals. That's introducing bias. Anyone could also quote lots of statistics from credible sources that imply that all heterosexuals are seriously depraved. That's also bias.

 

"You don't like NARTH. That's fine, too, although by what is being said seems that you don't like their funding sources or conclusions, rather than the scientific basis of their particular researches and conclusions. Can you see that there is a very real difference between the message and the messenger?"

 

Do a little research about NARTH. I don't disagree with them because I don't like their funding or conclusions. I (and every other reputable researcher) don't like their conclusions because they do shoddy, biased research or they deliberately distort the good research done by reputable scientists to support their agenda. Can *you* see that difference?

 

"Again, pull out the politics here. You assume I don't "agree" with you, and hence must be attacked. But this is only your assumption, and not real. I'm looking for real facts in all this swirl of partisanship. . . am I to be attacked for this?"

 

I'm not attacking you, much as you want to play the victim. You choose to take personal umbrage when I say that the sources you are quoting are biased. I DO say that you seem to lack the ability to tell a reputable, legitimate scientific fact from the opinion and propaganda put forth by anti-gay political groups, because you've demonstrated it over and over. I'm *trying* to take the politics and partisanship out of it by asking you to go look at legitimate scientific research, but YOU keep returning to the same incredibly biased sources and opinion pieces published by political groups, where we have no idea if they are accurately representing the facts. I am, and will continue to, "attack" sources that use junk science or opinion, when you try to present them as "facts". Or can't you see that difference, either?

 

I have no idea if you "agree" with me or not (or at this point, what we are supposed to be agreeing/disagreeing about). Frankly, I don't really care. Your history on this forum speaks for itself. But I *do* care when you present junk science and opinion as "fact". Because if you can't tell the difference, we have no basis for a discussion.

 

Oh, and just to head off the next accusation, I am neither angry nor emotional about this issue. I am getting a little frustrated because I'm being asked over and over again to discuss facts, when there are no facts present to discuss, not to mention being accused of personal attacks where I have made none.

[BDPT00]

Can we get a scientifically derived conclusion or position on this subject from the American Psychiatric Association?

BDPT00