Re: POLITICS /Homosexuality/Psychology

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@ Mhysmith:

> You can dissociate sex from reproduction if you want to just as

eating can be dissaciated from food and supplying of nutrients to the

body so that life can sustain itself. I think that a bit silly so I

do not do it. Not only is it silly, neither is it, in reality,

dissociated from the issue.

@@@@@@@@

The appropriate analogy here would be the dissociation of eating from

nutrition. Obviously there's much more to eating than merely

supplying nutrients--very deep cultural, social, aesthetic, economic,

etc dimensions.

<Reproduction, Sex, Sexuality> --->

<Nutrition, Eating, Cuisine + Agriculture>

@@@@@@@@@

Get the DSM-IV, (Diagnostic Statistical Manual of the American

Psychiatric Association) and read it. You will see most every aspect

of humaness being defined as a disorder. And more are constantly

being added as good imaginations can conjure, for no reason other

than to justify the prescribing of particular medications that are

extremely profitable. Homosexuality is not in there because of

politics. Does that bother me? Not at all - the whole thing bothers

me because it is a bunch of muck. Dismiss it? It is nothing but

vodoo medicine. You want to believe it? Be my guest. That is your

right just as it is mine to say no thank you, I am not that naive.

@@@@@@@@

Okay, so now I see you're in a totally different universe here.

Judging the field of psychology by clinical psychiatry is like

judging the field of nutritional biochemistry by the R & D department

of Mc's. To say nothing of the same page, we're not even in

the same book, or even the same section of the library.

@@@@@@@

If psychology were to address natural phenomena as actually being

natural, and was to use scientific methodogy and be theoretically

mature in scientific paradigms, I might be a bit less critical of the

field. But it does not.

@@@@@@

Having studied cognitive science at the graduate level, I can assure

you your desiderata have been well met for many decades. For a good

representation of the field of psychology, you might enjoy perusing

Palmer's " Vision Science " (MIT Press). Let's talk methodology

and theoretical maturity after you get your head out of The

Mc Book of Psychology and into the real thing.

@@@@@@@@@@@

> The brain events being studied are not being done by

psychologists. They are being done by neuroscientists. They are not

the same. Psychologists at this point, are only grabbing from the

other and fighting for their survival as a profession so to continue

bilking money off of people. And I may add - at the expense of

people's " humaness " AND physical well being.

@@@@@@@@

Okay, you totally missed the ontological point about " brain events " --

So geologists don't study crystal lattices then? That's only done by

chemists? And if geologists are making a mess of the business, then

mountain ranges don't exist? But you're using the word " psychology "

to refer to something completely different than the academic

enterprise, so your remarks are moot.

@@@@@@@@@@

> What is human about categorizing people into groups and placing

labels on them? What is human about drumming up reasons to separate

us from each other rather than viewing us as all one and the same?

@@@@@@@@

Uh, maybe because we're, like, NOT all the same??? Have you ever

compared your anatomy or sexuality to a male or a lesbian? I guess

us pro-gay types are just dwelling on irrelevant details of

biological variation; let's just pick one person (maybe an Ivy League

Christian White Male with blond hair and blue eyes) and make the

rules for everybody based on that. People aren't that different

anyway; should work for legal purposes.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania