Exposed: The Myth That Psychiatry Has Proven That Homosexual Behavior Is Normal

In 1973, The American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-II).

This decision was a significant victory for homosexual activists and they have continued to claim that the APA based their decision on new scientific discoveries that proved that homosexual behavior is normal and should be affirmed in our culture.

This is false and part of numerous homosexual urban legends that have infiltrated every aspect of our culture. The removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder has given homosexual activists credibility in the culture, and they have demanded that their sexual behavior be affirmed in society.

Numerous psychiatrists over the past decades have described what forces were really at work both inside and outside of the American Psychiatric Association---and what led to the removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder.

Dr. Ronald Bayer, a pro-homosexual psychiatrist has described what actually occured in his book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses. (1981)

In Chapter 4, "Diagnostic Politics: Homosexuality and the American Psychiatric Association," Dr. Bayer says that the first attack by homosexual activists against the APA began in 1970 when this organization held its convention in San Francisco. Homosexual activists decided to disrupt the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, homosexual activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kamney grabbed the microphone and yelled, "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a decleration of war against you."

Homosexuals forged APA credentials and gained access to exhibit areas in the conference. They threatened anyone who claimed that homosexuals needed to be cured.

Kamney had found an ally inside of the APA named Kent Robinson who helped the homosexual activist present his demand that homosexualiy be removed from the DSM. At the 1972 convntion, homosexual activists were permitted to set up a display booth, entitled "Gay, Proud, and Healthy."

Kameny was then permitted to be part of a panel of psychiatrists who were to discuss homosexuality. The effort to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM was the result of power politics, threats, and intimidation, not scientific discoveries.

Prior to the APA's 1973 convention, several psychiatrists attempted to organize opposition to the efforts of homosexuals to remove homosexual behavior from the DSM. Organizing this effort were Drs. Irving Bieber and Charles Socarides who formed the Ad Hoc Committee Against the Deletion of Homosexuality from the Dsm-II.

The DSM-II listed homosexuality as an abnormal behavior under section "302. Sexual Deviations." It was the first deviation listed.

After much political pressure, a committee of the APA met behind closed doors in 1973 and voted to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM-II. Opponents were given 15 minutes to protest this change, according to Dr. Jeffery Satinover, in Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Satinover writes that after this vote was taken, the decision was to be voted on by the entire APA membership. The National Gay Task Force purchased the APA's mailing list and sent out a letter to the APA members urging them to vote to remove homosexuality as a disorder. No APA member was informed that the mailing had been funded by this homosexual activist group.

According to Satinover, "How much the 1973 APA decision was motivated by politics is only becoming clear even now. While attending a conference in England in 1994, I met a man who told me an account that he had told no one else. He had been in the gay life for for years but had left the lifestyle. He recounted how that after the 1973 APA decisiion, he and his lover, along with a certain very highly placed officer of the APA Board of Trustees and his lover, all sat around the officer's apartment celebrating their victory. For among the gay activists placed high in the APA who maneuvered to ensure a victory was this man--suborning from the top what was presented to both the membership and the public as a disinterested search for truth."

Dr. Charles Socarides has set the record straight on how homosexuals inside and outside of the APA forced this organization to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder. This was done without any valid scientific evidence to prove that homosexuiality is not a disordered behavior.

Dr. Socarides, writing in Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic : The Issue of Homosexuality writes: "To declare a condition a 'non-condition,' a group of practitioners had removed it from our list of serious psychosexual disorders. The action was all the more remarkable when one considers that it involved an out-of-hand and peremptory disregard and dismissal not only of hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports, but also a number of other serious studies by groups of psychiatrists, psychologists, and educators over the past seventy years..."

Socarides continued: "For the next 18 years, the APA decision served as a Trojan horse, opening the gates to widespread psychological and social change in sexual customs and mores. The decision was to be used on numerous occasions for numerous purposes with the goal of normalizing homosexuality and elevating it to an esteemed status."

"To some American psychiatrists, this action remains a chilling reminder that if scientific principles are not fought for, they can be lost--a disillusioning warning that unless we make no exceptions to science, we are subject to the snares of political factionalism and the propogation of untruths to an unsuspecting and uninformed public, to the rest of the medical profession, and to the behavioral sciences." Dr. Socarides' report is available from the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality: www.narth.com.

The DSM(Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) is the most widely used disgnostic reference book utilized by mental health professionals in the United States.

It's a manual by which all diagnostic codes are derived for diagnosis and treatment - every single physician (an estimated 850,000*) in the United States refers to this book in order to code for a diagnoses. In plain English, what does this mean? It means that for over 30 years physicians have been prevented from properly diagnosing homosexuality as an aberrant behavior and thus, cannot, recomend a treatment for these individuals.

Prior to that time, homosexuality had been treated as a mental disorder under section "302. Sexual Deviations" in the DSM-II. Section 302 said, in part: "This category is for individuals whose sexual interests are directed primarily towards objects other than people of the opposite sex, toward sexual acts...performed under bizarre circumstances...Even though many find their practices distasteful, they remain unable to substitue normal sexual behavior for them." Homosexuality was listed as the first sexual deviation under 302. Once that diagnostic code for homosexuality was removed, physicians, including psychiatrists, have been prevented from diagnosing homosexuality as a mental disorder for more than three decades.

for the alcoholism bit, check with the author of post number 9. the person i cited. Then you have met a very small cross section of the homosexual/bisexual community. Not all that have "chosen" that lifestyle have rape/suicidal issues. errrnt, wrong. i can name 13 people who are homosexual that i know very well. this was from a class of 993 people. that makes it 1.31% (just shy of the reported "true" number) ALL of them have confided in me deep seated issues with either family, friends, or rape. (some combinations) i will also inclue myself, having been in that phase as well. that makes 14 out of 993. this is not an attack, nor is it me hating anyone. im simply stating my observatons. i am concerned for the mental health of a person who denies these truths. furthermore, when did i tell you i was Christian? or did you simply assume? oh well, the truth is out... im a Jesus Freak. btw, God commands us men to "not lie with man as we would with woman" He commands the same of women in turn. they shall not lie with woman as they do with man. this isnt just a "Christian" deal, its Jewish and Muslim as well. furthermore, these commandments were not put in place "simply because" they were put in place to protect us. circumcision is demanded of by God. it has recently come to light that this practice reduces the risks of cancer and other diseases. Kosher foods are typically healthier as well. stopping the practice of homosexuality is for our benefit, not for our oppression. it is a mental illness that needs to be cured. (not to mention the rampant spread of AIDS and other STDs through the homosexual community by an overwhelming number vs the general populace) Personally, I challenge someone to tell me what sex the emotion of love is. love is has as much to do with sex as it does with age and species. would you approve of somebody getting married to a dog? (obviously not) how aout a 40 year old man getting married to an 8 year old girl? (i should hope not) this is the arguement that people will use (and have precedence for to back them up) "its ok for a man to marry a man, why shouldnt a man marry a boy? it's just as based in love as two grown men. why not? By saying that the alternative sexual orientations are a byproduct of "issues", you say that being heterosexual is also result of "issues". thats like saying "if 'death' is a result of a bullet in the head, then 'life' is a reslut of a bullet somewhere else." This country is not a country of true freedom, it is a country of freedoms based on the interpretation of an unstable religious system. this is a country of freedoms. you arent free to kill someone though. you also cant molest a horse. the presence of freedom does not mean an absence of laws. it also does not mean that a man who happens to want another man for a while should buck societal responsiblities (partake in a union that provides the people with more workforce and an environment to raise said workforce) and i do not suggest that gays raising kids will turn them gay, but i do tell you that someone who is not wired to want to produce offspring shouldnt raise offsrping. it would be like telling an accountant to play football. they may be able to perform some of the requirements, but put them around it all the time (with pros) and they would get killed. it isnt for them. and by the way, i am very tolerant. i also happen to not be ignorant of the facts presented before me. this is an illness. i like the people just fine. like i said, i have several friends who are. that does not sway my view or change the facts though. Depending on your belief system, souls have no sex either. but our bodies do. and im sorry, but by science (a neutral observer in faith IMHO) there is a VAST difference between the sexes. it isnt just based in a penis or vagina either. its in the mind, the body, and even the life styles and longevity! its in the DNA, the very code God made us with. the evidence is before you. just open your eyes. it isnt hatred, it is concern for the wellbeing of your fellow man. if you saw someone willing to kill themselves (their own personal choice) would you try to stop them? keep in mind, as you said, its their choice to stay that way. but you can try to help them.

and does the freaking thing HAVE to join all the lines simply from my sing italics?!?!?!?

for the alcoholism bit, check with the author of post number 9. the person i cited. Then you have met a very small cross section of the homosexual/bisexual community.

Not all that have "chosen" that lifestyle have rape/suicidal issues.

errrnt, wrong. i can name 13 people who are homosexual that i know very well. this was from a class of 993 people. that makes it 1.31% (just shy of the reported "true" number) ALL of them have confided in me deep seated issues with either family, friends, or rape. (some combinations) i will also inclue myself, having been in that phase as well. that makes 14 out of 993. this is not an attack, nor is it me hating anyone. im simply stating my observatons.

i am concerned for the mental health of a person who denies these truths. furthermore, when did i tell you i was Christian? or did you simply assume? oh well, the truth is out... im a Jesus Freak.

btw, God commands us men to "not lie with man as we would with woman" He commands the same of women in turn. they shall not lie with woman as they do with man.

this isnt just a "Christian" deal, its Jewish and Muslim as well.

furthermore, these commands were not put in place "simply because" they were put in place to protect us.

circumcision is demanded of by God. it has recently come to light that this practice reduces the risks of cancer and other diseases. Kosher foods are typically healthier as well. stopping the practice of homosexuality is for our benefit, not for our oppression. it is a mental illness that needs to be cured. (not to mention the rampant spread of AIDS and other STDs through the homosexual community by an overwhelming number vs the general populace)

Personally, I challenge someone to tell me what sex the emotion of love is.

love has as much to do with sex as it does with age and species. would you approve of somebody getting married to a dog? (obviously not) how aout a 40 year old man getting married to an 8 year old girl? (i should hope not)

this is the arguement that people will use (and would have precedence for to back them up) "its ok for a man to marry a man, why shouldnt a man marry a boy? it's just as based in love as two grown men. why not? (dont believe me? check NAMBLA.)

By saying that the alternative sexual orientations are a byproduct of "issues", you say that being heterosexual is also result of "issues".

thats like saying "if 'death' is a result of a bullet in the head, then 'life' is a reslut of a bullet somewhere else."

This country is not a country of true freedom, it is a country of freedoms based on the interpretation of an unstable religious system. this is a country of freedoms. you arent free to kill someone though. you also cant molest a horse. the presence of freedom does not mean an absence of laws.

it also does not mean that a man who happens to want another man for a while should buck societal responsiblities (partake in a union that provides the people with more workforce and an environment to raise said workforce) and i do not suggest that gays raising kids will turn them gay, but i do tell you that someone who is not wired to want to produce offspring shouldnt raise offsrping.

it would be like telling an accountant to play football. they may be able to perform some of the requirements, but put them around it all the time (with pros) and they would get killed. it isnt for them.

and by the way, i am very tolerant. i also happen to not be ignorant of the facts presented before me. this is an illness. i like the people just fine. like i said, i have several friends who are. that does not sway my view or change the facts though.

Depending on your belief system, souls have no sex either.

but our bodies do. and im sorry, but by science (a neutral observer in faith IMHO) there is a VAST difference between the sexes. it isnt just based in a penis or vagina either. its in the mind, the body, and even the life styles and longevity! its in the DNA, the very code God made us with.

the evidence is before you. just open your eyes.

it isnt hatred, it is concern for the wellbeing of your fellow man. if you saw someone willing to kill themselves (their own personal choice) would you try to stop them? keep in mind, as you said, its their choice to stay that way. but you can try to help them.

The 13 people you know do not represent a community of millions of people. Sexual predators are predominately heterosexual, we don't compare this with all heterosexuals.
As for the ridiculous correlation to bestiality, animals cannot consent to marriage, therefore it is moot. I find it offensive to compare same sex relationships to those who pursue cross SPECIES sex. That is vile. The same goes for pedophiles, the child has no way to responsibly agree to marriage or sex. The comparison is insulting.
The Bible also says not to eat cloven hoofed animals or shellfish. It says not to work on the Sabbath. It says a great many things. What gives you the ability to assume which one God means now, and which was just to help the Israelites to survive?
How does a gay marriage "buck social responsibilities"? We can't employ all the people on this continent as it is. What of those that can't be fed? Or clothed, or educated, or medically cared for? Why push the social responsibility of overpopulation and neglect?
As for the "wiring", tell all of the sterile men and women out there that can't produce children that since they aren't "wired" for children, they can't raise them. I would love to be the fly on the wall when that person told you where to put your "wiring".
Bodies are transient. You can become the other sex by an operation. There are thousands of people that truly believe that they were born in the wrong bodies. To base something purely emotional ,like love, on something seriously shallow ,like physical appearance, is wrong. There are so many other reasons to fall in love. Would you deny love of any kind to those who do not have the physical specifications of the stereotypical relationship? Those who are paralyzed, those who are horribly disfigured, those who are missing limbs or sensational faculties? Should they be denied love because you are too shallow to get past a physical form that is only alive for a short while here on earth, but alive for eternity in the hereafter??
Suicide is purely selfish. Expressing love in whatever form WITHIN the adult human species is not.

Sexual predators are predominately heterosexual, we don't compare this with all heterosexuals.

irrelevant. noone said or claimed that homosexuals are the only people with a mental illness.

"I find it offensive to compare same sex relationships to those who pursue cross SPECIES sex. That is vile. The same goes for pedophiles, the child has no way to responsibly agree to marriage or sex."

i feel the same about homosexuality. whats an opinion offer? the point i was making is that legally, this would open the doors for those arguements.

a child can say "yes" or "no"

some sickos feel a cat can too (by not leaving the master after something like that happens)

"The Bible also says not to eat cloven hoofed animals or shellfish. It says not to work on the Sabbath. It says a great many things. What gives you the ability to assume which one God means now, and which was just to help the Israelites to survive"?

clove hoofed animals and shellfish are also said to be less healthy even today. taking a day off once in a while proves to provide a more efficient workforce. i say they still apply. God didnt say things "for now" He says them "for all."

"How does a gay marriage "buck social responsibilities"? We can't employ all the people on this continent as it is. What of those that can't be fed? Or clothed, or educated, or medically cared for? Why push the social responsibility of overpopulation and neglect?"

you're right, lets limit the number of births per family, same as china. see how that rolls over.

government mandated support of gay marriage "bucks social responsibilites" by not only forcing acceptance on others, but by overruling the religious aspect of marriage.

also, if a family will not (not cannot, but will not, as in by choice) provide a means for spreading its name and property (i.e. children) it is willfully not contributing to the society. it thus becomes dead-weight because no offspring will ever come around that can support future societies. you end hope (just like abortion).

we have something to the tune of 10% of the worlds harvestable land, and we produce 25% of the worlds food. we are a nation that has fat poor people. dont give me that "cant be fed" stuff.

and before you mention gay-adoption, im going to say this. yes, children need to be adopted. no, gays will not make kids gay. but also, a person who willfully refuses to have children, should be deemed unfit to raise children.

there are plenty of families out there waiting to give kids a loving home, its just more than a little difficult to adopt. so dont give me "so many kids arent getting adopted anyway." this is not something gay adoption will solve.

"As for the "wiring", tell all of the sterile men and women out there that can't produce children that since they aren't "wired" for children, they can't raise them. I would love to be the fly on the wall when that person told you where to put your "wiring"."

perhaps you missed the constext clues. "wiring" refers to mental choice, not biological happenings.

"To base something purely emotional ,like love, on something seriously shallow ,like physical appearance, is wrong. There are so many other reasons to fall in love. Would you deny love of any kind to those who do not have the physical specifications of the stereotypical relationship?"

you're right, love based on looks is wrong. tell me, are you attracted to your significant other? where you ever? you mean to tell me that you can love someone and not be attracted to them? wow, thats a load. of bull.

i dont care what they look like, i promise if you love (boyfriend/girlfriend wise) someone, you want them in a sexual way. you are physically attracted to them.

i agree, being attracted to someone PURELY based on their inside is very noble and good. i doubt however, that either of us is willing in this state of our lives to produce offspring with that someone, unless our individual current someone's become paralyzed or deformed. but then, we've already developed an emotional bond.

i was wondering whee you went though. things ok? its been a while since you last talked.

What an amazing pile of dribble. I don't even know where to start. You spout platitudes that have very little to do with each other. I certainly hope to God that you don't actually believe all that crap you posted.

That you would actually bring an argument for pedophilia floors me. It was an extremest point to make for a conservative point of view.

As for the "religious aspect of marriage" that should have NEVER been a constitutional organization. There is supposed to be a seperation of church and state. Not everyone wishes to live by the Christian standards, and the very foundation of this country should not force them to. There should be equal rights for consenting adultS (and I do mean plural) when it comes to wishing to spend the rest of your life with that person. This is a country that is supposed to be based on freedoms. But in reality, it is not. It is free for those that can afford it, or those that agree with a certain Puritanical point of view. You can quote numbers and reasons against homosexual sex, and I can do the exact same thing towards heterosexual sex. What every argument about the safety of sex fails to remember is that everything in life kills. We are all dying. We can do things that attempt to prolong our lives, but we cannot change the time in which we are meant to go. To live your life in complete fear of anything that might make you ill or kill you is a very bad way to exist. Meat has fat and cholesterol, automobiles produce polution, not working out allows your metabolism to slow down making your body to store fat, working out wears and tears on your musculature and bones, it increases certain hormones that are harmful to your body in large amounts, not eating the proper amount of vegetables lowers your body's ability to fight disease, but eating vegetables increases your risk of certain illnesses caused by the pesticides used. Nothing in life is safe.

"also, if a family will not (not cannot, but will not, as in by choice) provide a means for spreading its name and property (i.e. children) it is willfully not contributing to the society. it thus becomes dead-weight because no offspring will ever come around that can support future societies. you end hope (just like abortion)."
The point of society is not to procreate. Whatever gave you that idea? That we are on this planet to breed ourselves into oblivion? There should be limits imposed on those that cannot limit themselves. What of the "wellfare babies", those that get extra money from our government for every child they produce. Do you think that money actually goes to the children?? Mothers that have eight or ten children and several fathers. We shouldn't limit the sorrow that those people are forcing on those children that they can't or won't take care of?

The day off, or Sabbath, had absolutely nothing to do with an efficient workforce. It was a holy day. They were allowed to do no work so that they would spend the day in worship and contemplation of God. And none of those laws are enforced on the populace of our country, why is the "sin" of homosexuality so laboured against? If all sin is the same in the Eyes of God, why isn't pork banned?

As for "gay adoption", I'm not for it, or against it. Until there is a more tolerant philosophy towards the gay community, I don't think you should force a child to have to deal with that stigma until he/she is old enough to understand it. It was much the same with interracial marriages 30 years ago. The children are the ones that suffered the most from the hatred.

As for my wife, yes I am physically attracted to her. But this did not happen until after I met her. We were pen pals thru the USO for years before we were actually able to meet. By that time, I knew enough of her insides that her outsides did not matter. That she is attractive is a bonus, not a qualifying merit. It may be that I am just an enigma in the grand order of sexual attraction. But I feel that the physical form should be the last thing that you base a relationship on. The body grows old, falls apart, becomes diseased, and is altogether fragile. Love should surpass all of that. I know it does for me. My vow of "in sickness and in health" is very serious. I also have homosexual friends that hold that vow as seriously as I do.

My posts take awhile becuase I am usually at work when I can find the time. It is a busy, busy world out there.

nice to see you've taken the "dejected defensive" approach. it now means you're fair game.

and for the third time. i did NOT say i would back up the other perversions. i said that by your laws and logic, it would allow them. deny it up and down, its a fact.

"You can quote numbers and reasons against homosexual sex, and I can do the exact same thing towards heterosexual sex."

please. quote numbers against heterosexual sex. this i gotta see. just because you can't get past your brainwashed views, doesnt mean you are right. it makes you simply ignorant.

This is a country that is supposed to be based on freedoms. But in reality, it is not.

then by all means, move to Norway, where homosexuality is embraced. btw, enjoy the taxes, your lack of a sidearm, and the fact that homosexuals there act as they do here. (higher drinking percentage, drugs and suicidal tendencies.) it is NOT society attacking them, it is them suffering. period.

"What every argument about the safety of sex fails to remember is that everything in life kills."

i guess doctors simply kill slower by that logic... fair enough.

why would we consider a man who feels "im going to die anyway, i may as well do X" to be sane? why on earth, if we trully simply MUST be self destructive, you are implying that the vast majority, which strives to SURVIVE is NOT sane. yeah, whole lotta sense there. couldnt possibly be the anomoly thats crazy. the whole system must be quacked up, but the anomoly is perfectly legit.

Bull.

"Nothing in life is safe."

that does not mean you make yourself prone to a disease like AIDS on purpose. if it isnt safe, it may as well kill me fast.

"There should be limits imposed on those that cannot limit themselves."

Communist Manifetso anyone? ever heard of free will? a man can have all the sex he wants with another man. that does not concern me. what concerns me is a man and a man making the marriage system that I have FAITH in into an abomination (by the Bible and other religious texts)

what concerns me is two people suffering from a mental illness, taking control over what i can say and think. thats called "oppression" my friend.

"What of the "wellfare babies", those that get extra money from our government for every child they produce. Do you think that money actually goes to the children?"

the problem there, as with most problems: government is handing money to a person. make the person work for money, and you have work. give the person money for having a baby, and you have babies.

this is not "limiting" this is "not being an inhibitor"

which brings me to people who support forcing acceptance of a mental illness. these people, supporting the gays, are simply excusing them. they are NOT helping anyone except those that would use the gays to get power.

"The day off, or Sabbath, had absolutely nothing to do with an efficient workforce. It was a holy day. They were allowed to do no work so that they would spend the day in worship and contemplation of God. And none of those laws are enforced on the populace of our country, why is the "sin" of homosexuality so laboured against? If all sin is the same in the Eyes of God, why isn't pork banned? "

errnt, thanks for playing. the Sabbath is for Man to rest. God did not give this to us simply "because." we arent stopping "because God couldnt work another day."
we stop because it is how God uses us, and how we work. and it does well. it is for us that we stop, not for Him.

as for "no laws in this country" regarding the Sabbath. why the hell do you think our weekends arent on Wednsday and Thursday? Saturday and Sunday happen to be two respected days for Sabbath. the law also requires that you get a certain amount of time off per week. this recognizes that the Sabbath doesnt have to be Sunday, but you still need one. thanks for playing.

"why is the "sin" of homosexuality so laboured against? If all sin is the same in the Eyes of God, why isn't pork banned?"

earlier you claimed that we are being oppressed by religous dogma. now you wonder why we can eat pork in the US. could it possibly be that eating pork and homosexuality are not prevented by law?

again, be gay. nothing in the law against it. God still loves the gays too. He doesnt like the act, but the people are still His.

same with pork. eat it, nothing against it. God may be saddend that we hurt our bodies for worldly pleasures, but hey, He still loves us.

you cant force a jew to accept pork. why would you force a christian to accept gay acts?

"Until there is a more tolerant philosophy towards the gay community, I don't think you should force a child to have to deal with that stigma until he/she is old enough to understand it."

theres that little liberal word i was hoping you would use. "tolerant."

like a breath of fresh farts.

we've been down this road. tolerance has NOTHING to do with the gay psychology (except to allow a self-destructive behaviour to continue) check with Norway (again and again and again). you're wrong.

"That she is attractive is a bonus, not a qualifying merit....But I feel that the physical form should be the last thing that you base a relationship on."

but you still feel it should be based on it. and i agree. physicall attraction is the last bit, but it's still there.

as for the homosexuals taking a vow thing. the government can do what it wishes for the union thing. it cannot take marriage from me religiously though. i also will not accept it taking my rights and bestowing them on a perversion. its like allowing a known criminal to own a gun. that right should be taken from them by merit of their showing a lack of understanding how the world works.

"and for the third time. i did NOT say i would back up the other perversions. i said that by your laws and logic, it would allow them. deny it up and down, its a fact"

It is your logic that lumps them all in the same boat. I tell you that they are completely different. By equating pedophilia and bestiality with homosexuality, you are in effect saying that since we kill and eat chickens, we can kill and eat humans. Homosexual sex, as with all sex, is to be between consenting adults. When you add children or animals, it becomes wrong. Neither of these can deny an adult's advances.

As for the numbers against heterosexuality, let's see. VD is no respecter of sexual orientation, race, religion, or age. It is more prevalent in the homosexual community do to a smaller populace, and a much larger chance of sharing partners. Let's now talk of unwanted pregnancies, abortions and abused children. Don't get that from the gay community. Rape is more prevalent in the heterosexual community that in the gay community, as are pedophiles. It is a myth that the gay people are more apt to be pedophiles. The catholic priest fiasco has nothing to do with being gay. Pedophilia has nothing to do with being gay. It is completely different.

But all this falls on deaf ears. Sometimes a person can be convinced that their hatred is misplaced. But it takes an amazing experience. Just as Saul/Paul after his trip to Damascus. :)

I agree about the so called gay agenda. I do not believe that that has any place in a political forum, but I also believe that marriage should have no place in a political forum. It is an office of the church, it should be maintained by the church. Marriages should not receive special legal privileges just because they are married. That is why the gay community pushes so hard for marriage. The legalities of a civil union and a marriage are not balanced or fair. They seek fairness. This country places such an importance on marriage that gays feel that they need this to be accepted, when in actuality, a balance of the privileges of both unions would suffice. It would leave the church with marriage, and allow secular belief the same laws.

"then by all means, move to Norway, where homosexuality is embraced. BTW, enjoy the taxes, your lack of a sidearm, and the fact that homosexuals there act as they do here. (higher drinking percentage, drugs and suicidal tendencies.) it is NOT society attacking them, it is them suffering. period."

Well, first of all, Norway does not claim to be a free country, we do. If you preach freedom, you cannot be selective in who you give it to. By doing so, you defeat the very definition of freedom. Our forefathers fled here from the church of England for their beliefs, which where considered blasphemous by the country and the church. Where they incorrect in their desire to break from the church? It had been taught for centuries that only a priest could talk to God, Martin Luther changed that. Was he wrong? That is the difficulty and responsibility of progress. To what do we hold, and to what do we label as "outdated"? Sexual intimacy has always been a taboo of the church, of any church. Why is that? We see the disorder that promiscuity promotes. Teach against promiscuity, but leave the hope of a union, be it marriage or otherwise. Teach responsibility, teach duty, teach integrity, but don't teach hatred or intolerance.

"that does not mean you make yourself prone to a disease like AIDS on purpose. if it isn't safe, it may as well kill me fast."

Being gay doesn't make you more susceptible to AIDS, anymore that being male makes you more susceptible to the common cold. They have never definitively proved where AIDS started from, it ran rampant thru a culture that was very promiscuous. It was then named a "gay disease", but in all scientific data, sexual orientation has nothing to do with susceptibility. Although I think you actually mean an increase in the possibility of exposure. This is a problem. But if you teach these people to respect themselves and others, if you teach them that promiscuity of any kind is wrong, you will win the battle against the disease. It makes no difference in sexual orientation.

"earlier you claimed that we are being oppressed by religious dogma. now you wonder why we can eat pork in the US. could it possibly be that eating pork and homosexuality are not prevented by law? "

Well, if you are going to cite laws of a 2000 year old Book as a premise for your views against homosexuals, then you have to use all of the laws of that time. You cannot pick and chose what you feel is right and impose it on others. The Bible wasn't meant to be used piecemeal. If you are going to follow it, then do so. To say that you don't have to follow this law or that law because of the poor living conditions of that time is no different from a gay person saying the same thing about the views against homosexuality.

And you are very wrong about the federal laws about a work week. Read it. It doesn't matter what day it starts or ends. It is require that you are only required to work a certain amount of those 7 days. The reason we allow Saturday and Sunday off is because that is how it has always been done.
(http://webexhibits.org/calendars/week.html#SECTION00610000000000000000)
Jewish worship on Saturday, and Christians Sunday. One is the Sabbath (Saturday) and one is not. The Old Testament lays down the laws for the Sabbath day and keeping it holy. It is one of the several things that the Christian Church decided that it would not follow. They made Sunday the Christian holy day. And you missed my point on my relationship with my wife completely. I do not and did not use physicality. I do not think it should have any weight in a relationship at all. The mind and soul are what is important. That is what is eternal. The body is merely the packaging that the soul comes in. And just like presents at Christmas time, no one pays attention to the wrapping.

"It is your logic that lumps them all in the same boat. I tell you that they are completely different. By equating pedophilia and bestiality with homosexuality, you are in effect saying that since we kill and eat chickens, we can kill and eat humans. Homosexual sex, as with all sex, is to be between consenting adults. When you add children or animals, it becomes wrong. Neither of these can deny an adult's advances."

my logic simply assumes function. it is a biological function to have sex. the purpose of this function is to procreate. to practice as a way of life a manner of sex that denies this purpose is to pervert its function. thus, homosexuality, as beastiality and pedophelia ARE the same.

"As for the numbers against heterosexuality, let's see. VD is no respecter of sexual orientation, race, religion, or age. It is more prevalent in the homosexual community do to a smaller populace, and a much larger chance of sharing partners. "

that last part would assume homosexuals are more likely to have sex outside of a relationship. by your admonition, they are perverts with no respect for sex aside from a means of pleasure. either your logic is flawed or the people you listen to are wrong. and thats from YOUR mouth, not mine.

"Rape is more prevalent in the heterosexual community that in the gay community, as are pedophiles. It is a myth that the gay people are more apt to be pedophiles. "

you already noted i lump them together. a mentally ill sexual pervert is just that. i dont care if they are dendrophelias, they are not using sex the way it is meant.

a "heterosexual pedophile" is simply a pedophile. i dont care about the gender they prefer (hell, aside from when a child is naked, the only way you can tell a boy from a girl is the clothing. id say a pedophile is neither hetero nor homosexual)

even in the animal kingdom, IF/WHEN a homosexual act is witnessed, it is due to a domination, not a way of life of the animal. you will see an animal that has sex (once or twice) at (not with, due to it not being consentual) another memeber of the same sex to express its dominance, not because it's "genetically inclined to do so."

it is not falling on deaf ears, it is falling on ears that has head it all before, and knowns the difference.

"I agree about the so called gay agenda. I do not believe that that has any place in a political forum, but I also believe that marriage should have no place in a political forum."

newsflash: the gay agenda was MADE political by gay activists. ity is here because THEY demanded it.

"The legalities of a civil union and a marriage are not balanced or fair. They seek fairness."

i expressed earlier that marriages should recieve different treatment than civil unions for one big reason: function. a civil union is a government only recognition of a relationship. it has no other true function, and no heir or other legal ties to property.

marriage, however has the benefit of being recognized by the State and the Church. in this union, a person's property is said to now belong to man and wife, so the State must recognize this. in the event that the man and wife cannot take it, the child has rights. after that, only the power of a Last Will can place the property anywhere else except the State. the civil union simply says the person is not MARRIED, so property goes to the state off the bat (unless a Last Will is present)

thats it as far as the government is concerned, and frankly, it works. a government has made its laws, and it shall not make civil unions into marriages, because of the hand the Church has in marriage. Seperation of Church and State.

"This country places such an importance on marriage that gays feel that they need this to be accepted, when in actuality, a balance of the privileges of both unions would suffice. It would leave the church with marriage, and allow secular belief the same laws."

why should gays "need to feel accepted"? again, you missed a point im making: it is not a proper way of life. may as well ask NAMBLA to "be accepted" as well.

fine, they're gay, whoopity do. im white. dont treat me differntly. dont make new laws that apply only to me. you want the sanctity of marriage? get married.

"Well, first of all, Norway does not claim to be a free country, we do. If you preach freedom, you cannot be selective in who you give it to. By doing so, you defeat the very definition of freedom."

another arguement the likes of NAMBLA would use. "Free the children!"

gays are free to be gay, as i have said, but do not demand society to change for you. we accept you, just dont wave it aruond and act like i owe you something.

btw, we deny "freedom" to illegal immigrants and criminals all the time. does that make us less "free"?
or does that make the liegals and the law-abiding simply free due to a lack of the previous two?

"Our forefathers fled here from the church of England for their beliefs, which where considered blasphemous by the country and the church. Where they incorrect in their desire to break from the church? It had been taught for centuries that only a priest could talk to God, Martin Luther changed that."

very true. Martin Luther taught that men were responsible for their own lives with God, not the Pope. that means the Bible and prayer, not the Catholic Church was the way to have a relationship with God. this is as Jesus taught. this means that as Christians, we are accountable for what we do with the Word.

it also means Church and State are seperate, meaning the Church cannot make laws, but the State cannot change the Church either.

"Well, if you are going to cite laws of a 2000 year old Book as a premise for your views against homosexuals, then you have to use all of the laws of that time. You cannot pick and chose what you feel is right and impose it on others. The Bible wasn't meant to be used piecemeal. If you are going to follow it, then do so. To say that you don't have to follow this law or that law because of the poor living conditions of that time is no different from a gay person saying the same thing about the views against homosexuality."

i was citing the Bible because you were asking for other examples. btw, the parts i cited were more than 3000 years old. Old Testament/ Torah. and i was also showing that the Bible does not disagree with current science (though some scientists will argue otherwise, its simply not true)

if you would like to discuss the other aspects, fine, im game, but this thread is about homosexuality. the points raised are about it, not tattoos and pork.

if you would like to cite more recent sources: psychology pre-politicized (you know, back when it was ok to actually study gays on the basis that they are gay) says it is an illness that medication/therapy CAN fix.

biology: homosexual lifestyles serve no function in the lifecycle, so it is a mutation.

genetics: no evidence supports gays being gay due to a gene.

society: stigma does not make a gay person mentally ill; stigma makes a person mnetally ill, and sometimes becomes gay as a result.

purpose: homosexuality serves no useful purpose to society. it also serves no useful function for the individual. why not treat it? we know we can, we have before and successfully too.

"Being gay doesn't make you more susceptible to AIDS, anymore that being male makes you more susceptible to the common cold."

earlier you admitted that gays have "less chioce in partners, so they are more likely to get STDs" (in a nutshell).... which is it?

"They have never definitively proved where AIDS started from, it ran rampant thru a culture that was very promiscuous."

a man went to Africa, had sex with some women of a tribe. those women had had sex with certain apes as a right of passage. went told of his disease back in the states, he slept with every hooker he could out of angst.

we can prove AIDS comes from a mutated ape-STD that does not harm them (monkeys and apes are immune to AIDS btw)
the outbreak history of AIDS of the mid 70's supports this story.

"This is a problem. But if you teach these people to respect themselves and others, if you teach them that promiscuity of any kind is wrong, you will win the battle against the disease."

the gay activists are busy telling them we owe them something. im willing to bet my voice wouldnt sway them.

i never claimed the workweek had to end on a saturday or anyday. i said we are protected by law to have a certain number of days off. your site does not despute this.

"The Old Testament lays down the laws for the Sabbath day and keeping it holy. It is one of the several things that the Christian Church decided that it would not follow. They made Sunday the Christian holy day."

actually, history shows that the Romans changed the day. this was for a reason: to make conversion more pallateable to the people... they used "the day of the Sun" because of the ever present impact of the Sun on their lives. Cronos was an old God whose time had come in their culture.

also, the teachings of the Torah do not state "Saturday" they state "the 7th day", and by Mesopotamimian converted to the Roman calander (didnt have 7 days until around 300 bc) nomeclature, this could be any day. the lesson either way: take a 7th of your week off every week, and use it to respect God.

and as for your relationship. i say if she was a hype-intellegent desk, you wouldn't have feelings for her, even if she did agree with your soul. she has to fullfill SOMETHING of your human needs to be a viable love of your life. would you have loved her the same way if in one of your first non-personal contacts she had said "im a man?"

i doubt it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.