Of course, Prof. Goldberg is entitled to his opinions, but I am not sure how that relates to this discussion.
Psychoanalysis (Freud, Jung, etc) is a pretty woolly subject. There’s not a whole lot of scientific credibility to it, but is primarily conjecture, based upon very small samples or case studies.
May I also suggest you find something a little less biased than NARTH as a source? They are upfront about their agenda.
Perhaps Dr Goldberg is a little more qualified than you or me as he has conducted clinical studies on the subject?Please read further.
:)Hi Lynx:)I don’t know what happened to my other greeting post?
I can’t cite some source, and am too tired right now to look one up, assuming anyone has even had the courage to publish one. I have, however, been told by one psychiatrist and one psychologist that there really is no psych test that will identify homosexuality; the sole common factor being that they do tend to score high on the narcissism scale. I don’t know how high or whether there are exceptions or, if there are, how many. I only know what they told me.
This might be worth a look:
Narcissism and Self-Esteem Among Homosexual and Heterosexual Male Students
Author: Gidi Rubinsteina
Affiliation: a School of Behavioral Sciences, Netanya Academic College, Netanya, Israel
View Full Text Article
Download PDF (~134 KB) View Article Online (HTML)
According to orthodox psychoanalytical theory, narcissism and homosexuality are strongly associated. This association played a major role in pathologizing homosexuality. The present study compared self-esteem and two measures of narcissism among 90 homosexual and 109 heterosexual male students, who filled in a demographic questionnaire, Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale, the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, and the Pathological Narcissism Inventory, which addresses both grandiose and vulnerable subtypes of narcissism. The hypothesis, which is based on the Freudian connection between narcissism and homosexuality, is supported by the results, indicating that the homosexual students score higher in both measures of narcissism and lower on the self-esteem measure, compared to their heterosexual counterparts. Intra-psychic, as well as environmental, interpretations of the results are suggested in the discussion.
Ask the people. There was a blood drive at an (I think Ontario?) University a couple years ago and the Gay/Lesbian/ / / / / /whatever group encouraged people to “act gay” (I guess as a sort of protest). Seems like the aim was to attract attention.
““Political correctness” really is a suicide pact. It really is.”
There’s your first quote Ridgerunner-copyrite it FAST!
I didn’t say they banned me for life. There was a period of time, though. I can’t remember how long it was now, but it was long. Given the nature of ranching, though, it virtually amounted to a lifetime ban due to the disqualification period and the frequency of giving injections of one kind or another. I have actually thought that some year I would have a vet do it so I could give blood. I just haven’t done that since my rejection.
I know. But my point is that the current policy in the US, and I believe Canada, is to ban any man who has ever had sex with another man, even once many decades ago, for life. And there is no medical reason for such a blanket lifetime ban.
Yes, if such vaccinations are given regularly, say once per year, then ranchers might well face a lifetime ban… because of an activity they are doing, at frequent intervals, This is a reasonable restriction, as would be a temporary deferment for men who had sex with another man within the past year… which winds up being what amounts to lifetime ban for some men because they engage in such sex at least once per year.
Its the ongoing risky behavior which is problematic.
Hmmm…well, I’m same sex attracted and I don’t see my body as an object of attraction or desire. I see my body as something that is loathesome and disgusting.
Extensive personal experience.
I realize people believe this. At the same time, it was not so very long ago that nobody knew a common form of cervical cancer was caused by a virus contracted some time or other. It is almost certain that no hogs now carry trichinosis, but people are not so trusting as to accept that and few will eat raw pork. Possibly science knows everything there is to know about the HIV virus. Possibly it doesn’t. Possibly that which is published has backers with a social point to make.
I’m banned from giving blood for life due to living in the UK during the mad cow scare. I regret not being able to give blood anymore, but I’d rather that the blood I might receive in a transfusion be as disease free as the people taking it can get it. If that means excluding a whole swath of people based on risk factors (like the entire population of the UK in 1985), I’m all for it. I don’t take it personally.
I’d rather they err on the side of caution if they are going to make any errors at all.
I’ve got a fried who can’t donate for the same reason. They’d just rather have the blood better safe than sorry :shrug:
Exactly. You can call it a part of the precautionary principle.
QUOTE=curlycool89;6684822]Ask the people. There was a blood drive at an (I think Ontario?) University a couple years ago and the Gay/Lesbian/ / / / / /whatever group encouraged people to “act gay” (I guess as a sort of protest). Seems like the aim was to attract attention.
And to heck with the people who need blood, because it’s all about the lesbians. No one else matters.
The remoteness to those who have had genital contact with people of the same gender has to do with the latency of the onset of the disease. It has nothing to do with discrimination due to the lifestyle.
But with these people, it can’t possibly be to protect the innocent, and keep the possibility of infection remote. Who cares about them anyway?
I worked with a gay nursewho did his darndest to bleed on people, I kid you not. What he did not know is that I knew he had AIDS.
This maybe true, but does it matter in the case of giving blood? I do not agree with homosexuals, but I have no problem with them giving blood, which may or may not one day save someone’s life
Yes, much is not known about that disease. So at this point, an indefinite deferment is a very reasonable precaution. Similarly, in the 1980s, when little was known about HIV, an indefinite deferment for men who ever had sex with another man was also very reasonable. However, we have learned much about HIV during the past 25 years and and have a very good understanding now what the risks are.
The latency period is less than three weeks. A one year deferment since the last male-male sex act is more than adequate precaution. The deferment could probably be reduced to three months, but four years ago the major US blood bank organizations proposed a one year deferment, so I will go with that.
However, the current lifetime ban for a man who has ever had sex with another man is medically unjustifiable.
Excuse me? You are incorrect. 8-10 years at least. It may be even longer. Are you thinking of the viruses’ viability outside the body?
Are you telling me it is worth risking infecting a person, even remotely, to satisfy a person’s ego? Because that is what is sounds like. :nope:
No, I am referring to the period of time between when the virus is present in someone’s body and when conventional blood tests will detect the virus.
I believe you are referring to the period of time between becoming infected with HIV, and developing opportunistic infections or other markers of AIDS
(And your time frame is true only if anti-retroviral drugs are not taken.)
IOW, the virus could be present in spite of symptoms not manifesting themselves. And you are willing to expose people to contamination for ego purposes.