Defeating Gay Arguments with Simple Logic

Any sexual behavior outside of heterosexual behavior is disordered.

Yes...but there is also plenty of heterosexual behavior that it also disordered.

It is biologically wrong as procreation cannot result.

There is plenty of sexual activity that doesn't result in procreation that is not biologically wrong, unnatural or immoral.

Clint N. Suhks, in particular, reminds me of your brief tenure at CG. He hits the nail rather hard. But he does hit it squarely on the head.

johnb838 and burnettp1, on the other hand, are simply extremely rude and crude. They are not a credit to this website, and exemplify everything about FR that the extreme Lefties at CG and DU describe as "typical redneck Freepers."

Particularly when dealing with homosexuals, we do have to put our best and most scholarly foot forward. The fact is that both science and the Constitution are on our side. We only need to establish that fact, without rancorous personal attacks, and people like Born in a Rage and madg are revealed for what they are.

They are, as the screen name so accurately puts it, born in a rage. If the law isn't on their side, it must change. If science isn't on their side, it's somehow wrong. They're simply unwilling to recognize any opposition as legitimate. Notice how the demonization of Cameron is now being extended to Riesman, and to any other honest mental health professional who dares to tell the truth about homosexuals.

Well, the folks in here that are citing DSMII are essentially arguing that “Prohibition is still in force because that’s how the Constitution read 75 years ago.” They don’t like the fact that the “amendment” was “repealed” because it conflicts with their personal opinions, so they ignore that part (or, more correctly, attack the manner in which it was “repealed”).

DSM-II was the last version of the DSM that addressed homosexuality in an entirely scientific way. Homosexuality was removed from the list of mental disorders in 1973, starting with DSM-III. Normally, when such a step is taken, it's done in response to a landmark new study, or series of studies, published in respected, peer-reviewed scientific journals such as the American Journal of Psychiatry.

There was no such new study of homosexuality in 1973. It was done in response to political pressure, and political pressure alone. To be perfectly candid, I think that there was a very self-centered greed motive involved as well. The psychiatric profession was being viewed as "the enemy" by homosexuals. But the prevalence of other pathologies among homosexuals -- alcoholism, drug addiction, paranoia, depression, anxiety and so forth -- was higher than among the general population.

By legitimizing their homosexuality, psychiatrists stood to make a great deal of money from them. It brought the homosexuals in from the cold, so to speak, making them more willing to obtain treatment for their other pathologies, to the substantial enrichment of the psychiatric profession.

To complete my response to your Prohibition analogy, there is a prescribed method for amending the Constitution, and a prescribed method for amending the DSM. Both methods are very demanding, as they should be. Neither of these should be changed on a whim. Both should be amended only after a suitable period of careful deliberation, and after hearing from all that would be affected. In particular, changing the DSM should be attended by diligent scientific inquiry.

An amendment is not ratified, and therefore is not law, until passed by both houses of Congress and ratified by the legislatures of at least 38 states. What if the repeal of Prohibition had occurred through a simple voice vote in the Senate? Would it then be considered the law?

Similarly, suppose there were absolutely no new studies being published suggesting that schizophrenia is a normal state for some humans, or that some of us were "born that way," but hordes of schizophrenics descended upon the APA's annual convention, disrupting the proceedings and applying pressure upon convention delegates in every way imaginable, to legitimize schizophrenia.

Under those circumstances, should an APA vote to remove schizophrenia from the list of mental disorders in the DSM be considered legitimate?

You know what? You and few other people obviously have an agenda regarding this issue. I've seen posts with a few of the people who are posting everything they can on this one subject and they are blatantly in colussion to SPAM this forum.....trying to get FReepers to make it an issue for you (and whatever your 'cause' is) by using 'scare tactics' and blasting 'links' on the threads - trying to 'demonize' good people like myself and others with your constant twisting of facts and 'jabs' at us.

Take a Hike and take your little facist SWAT team with you. I'm not playing your little game anymore, Mister. Nobody is falling for it. This is AMERICA and people have rights here. If you don't like it, you best move to Cuba if that's not where you are already. Get a life.

Bryan knows we are not the same person posting with different screennames. I'm a 'her' and I've posting on FR for about 4 years - he and others want to keep drrrrrragging out my screenname with their little insults. It really is so pathetic....lol

Scanning back over the original article for this thread (Defeating Gay Arguments), I find it rather ironic who's using which tactics in the post-Essay By Bryan discussion.

This isn't about Cameron, or Reisman, much as you'd like it to be. It not about you, or me. It's about the tremendous mosaic of research work that had to be patched together in order to illustrate that the APA decision to normalize homosexuality was based on politics, not science.

It's about Masters & Johnson. It's about Bell & Weinberg, senior research fellows at the Kinsey Institute, who stated their sympathy for the homosexual rights agenda in the foreword to their book -- just before they started ripping your position to shreds with their research data. It's about Gebhard & Johnson, who laboriously reviewed all of the Kinsey data and republished the portion that was methodologically sound.

It's about Spitzer, the Columbia psychiatrist who led the charge to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders in the DSM in 1973 -- a quarter-century before he interviewed dozens of ex-homosexuals, and reached the conclusion that homosexuality isn't an immutable characteristic after all. With friends like these, you don't need enemies.

It's about Bieber, Abel, Siedman & Rieder, Bergler, Jay & Young, Remafedi, Saghir & Robins, Schofield, Marshall, McWhirter & Mattison, Wassermann, Freund, Bradford, O'Carroll, Swigert, Harlow, Bachman, Forman, Lipscomb, and all the others whose credibility you can't touch. Each one of them is another brick in the wall of scientific research data that has absolutely nothing to do with either Cameron or Reisman,

I've never relied on any research by Cameron. But in each and every one of your posts, there's your Standard Issue Response #1 cut-and-pasted from your queer resources directory website:

disgraced researcher and notorious prevaricator Cameron

THIS ISN't ABOUT CAMERON.

It's about the tremendous mosaic of research results that he started to compile from the work of dozens of other licensed mental health professionals. All of which you're trying to dismiss with a wave of your hand and a chant: disgraced researcher and notorious prevaricator Cameron.

Similarly, suppose there were absolutely no new studies being published suggesting that schizophrenia is a normal state for some humans, or that some of us were "born that way," but hordes of schizophrenics descended upon the APA's annual convention, disrupting the proceedings and applying pressure upon convention delegates in every way imaginable, to legitimize schizophrenia.

Under those circumstances, should an APA vote to remove schizophrenia from the list of mental disorders in the DSM be considered legitimate?

Best post IMHO. Even worse, if we insert 'trans-sexual' in the above quote or 'bi-sexuals'.... Our sympathy must be extended to those like B-I-A-R who are ill even -unfortunately- to the extent that they close their minds to others that try to advise they are indeed a victim of mental dysfunction. Sad, but a completely understandable symptom, as is the tendency to have a short temper.

Like you say, I'd like to read the scientific research paper presented to the APA to compel them to do a 180° and delete the SSAD disorder -- and will they deny reality and eventually accord with lobby groups to delete bi-sexuality and paedophilia as mental disorders too? What an grand outfit of scientific/medical integrity.

The APA and its DSM111+ is set of suits worthy of a Monty Python Ministry of Silly Walks Award.

You have a few holes in your mosaic.

Quite a few.

You still haven't addressed your mish-mash nondefinition of homosexuality.

I suspect madg's hang-up with Cameron is that you've done the exact same thing -- you've taken amalgam of data, which may or may not be accurate for the circumstances in which it was gathered, and applied it however it would best justify your position.

Bell & Weinberg, for example, was a study of volunteers, not a random sample, gathered from sex-clubs, bars, bathouses, and public-parks frequented for sex in San Francisco in the 1970s. It's hardly applicable to "homosexuals" (still waiting on that definition) across America in the year 2003. It wasn't even applicable to homosexuals across America in the 1970s.

It's about Spitzer, ... reached the conclusion that homosexuality isn't an immutable characteristic after all.

Spitzer, for example, found nothing of the sort. He found that SOME people can change from homosexual to straight. Considering that 66% of his subjects were referrals from ex-gay ministries and NARTH (who consider celibacy a success), it's even farther removed from certainty that it isn't "an immutable characteristic". Even Kinsey found that sexual-orientation can change spontaneously, so I'm not sure what you think you're proving with Spitzer.

It's very much about Cameron because you're doing the exact same thing that got him "disgraced" in the first, second, and third places.

You've seen it. And you dismiss it with a wave of your hand:

disgraced researcher and notorious prevaricator Cameron

Lancet, 21/28 Dec 1985, stated that prostitutes "whose clients used condoms during anal intercourse noted that condoms split more often (up to 50%) than they did during vaginal intercourse. This is an important observation in the light of recommendations that condoms be used by homosexual men during anal intercourse."

Paul Cameron was not the author.

British Medical Journal, 11 Sept 1987, reported on a controlled study of Dutch homosexual couples: "of 200 trials, there were 21 ruptures and 30 'slips' for a failure rate of 26%."

Once again, Paul Cameron was not the author.

Male homosexuals have a life expectancy eight to 20 years shorter than male heterosexuals. Homosexuals tend to be far more promiscuous, and therefore they are many times more likely to become infected with HIV, hepatitis, and other sexually transmitted diseases.

Due to indulgence in anal sex, they are also more likely to become infected with shigellosis, amebiasis and other diseases associated with fecal exposure. Physicians are now trained in medical school to routinely check their gay and bisexual patients for 15 different diseases that are common among homosexuals, but extremely rare among heterosexuals.

As we have already seen, homosexuals are many times more likely to engage in sexual relations with persons under the legal age of consent. I cited abundant scientific studies that were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Paul Cameron wasn't the author of those, either.

Homosexuals are more likely to attempt suicide. They are more likely to become alcoholics and drug addicts. They are more likely to commit domestic battery and other violent crimes. They are more likely to exhibit symptoms of classic emotional disorders, such as anxiety, depression and paranoia.

You're likely to blame all of this on "homophobia." Is there anything bad that ever happened to a homosexual that wasn't the fault of "homophobia"? When the stains won't come out of your shirts, do you blame "homophobia"?

Perhaps the best response to the efforts to blame all of the homosexuals' problems on "homophobia" was a very recent (Jan. 2001) study published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, a respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal (like many others that I've cited). (Volume 58, Number 1, pp. 85-91 for those compiling bibliographies.)

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/issues/v58n1/ffull/yoa9456.html

This study examined the incidence of mental illness and substance abuse among Dutch homosexuals, compared with the general population. I think you'll agree that of all the nations on the planet, the Netherlands is perhaps the most tolerant of homosexuals. And yet the incidence of mental illness and substance abuse among homosexuals was substantially higher than among heterosexuals.

Specifically, the incidence of anxiety disorders and mood disorders was up to seven times higher among homosexual men, and the incidence of substance abuse was about four times higher among lesbians. This, in one of the most "gay-friendly" places on earth.

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/issues/v58n1/fig_tab/yoa9456_t2.html

Paul Cameron didn't write that article, either.

The two of you have buried your heads in the sand.

The extent to which homosexuality is innate is not a matter of logic. It is a matter of science.

Science? Then let us be scientific … Tell us about the scientific test for “gayness” … the test , that if one conducts on Gay_A, will yield the same results no matter / when / where / or / who / conducts the test.
By the way … your test should also prove that GAY_B is also definitively “gay”, and that non-GAY_C is definitively “not-gay”.

If one assumes that there is a continuum in the degree of the preference, finding some ex gays proves nothing.

Are you saying now that gays are defined by “preference” …. Doesn’t ”preference” imply “choice?” You are defeating your own argument.

And then consider "What Homosexuals Say About Homosexuals":

"Let´s look at gay behavior as defined by two gays, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen Ph.D., authors of After the Ball: How America will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90´s (1989).
In Chapter Six, they outline “ten categories of misbehavior,” drawn from their own experiences, wide reading and thousands of hours of conversation with hundreds of other gays. Their contention is that the gay lifestyle, not gay sexuality mind you, “is the pits.” They want gays to improve their image by addressing “what is wrong with a lot of gays.” (276)
What follows are some highlights. As you read this, ask yourself if there is another human community, including the Mafia that could make these generalizations about itself. Ask yourself if we haven´t caught this disease, or at least the sniffles.

• The authors say “a surprisingly high percentage” of pathological liars and con men are gay. This results from a natural habit of self-concealment, and leads to a stubborn self-deception about one´s own gayness and its implications.
• They say gays tend to reject all forms of morality and value judgments. Gay morality boils down to “If it feels good, I´ll do it!” If a gay feels like seducing a trusted friend´s lover, he´ll do it, justifying it as an act of “sexual freedom” and the friend be damned.
• They say gays suffer from a “narcissistic” personality disorder and they give this clinical description: “pathological self absorption, a need for constant attention and admiration, lack of empathy or concern for others, quickly bored, shallow, interested in fads, seductive, overemphasis on appearance, superficially charming, promiscuous, exploitative, preoccupied with remaining youthful, relationships alternate between over idealization and devaluation.”
• As an example of this narcissism, the authors say “a very sizable proportion of gay men” who have been diagnosed HIV positive continue to have unprotected sex.
• They say the majority of gays are extremely promiscuous and self-indulgent. They must continuously up the ante to achieve arousal. This begins with alcohol and drugs and includes such “forbidden” aspects of sex as wallowing in filth (fetishism and coprophilia) and sadomasochism, which involves violence.
• They say many gays indulge in sex in public bathrooms and think it is antigay harassment when it is stopped. Many think they have a right to importune straight males, including children.
• Many gays are “single minded sexual predators” fixated on youth and physical beauty alone. When it comes to the old or ugly, gays are “the real queerbashers.” Disillusioned themselves, they are cynical about love.
• “Relationships between gay men don´t usually last very long.” They quickly tire of their partners and fall victim to temptation. The “cheating ratio of ‘married´ gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%.”
• Even friendships are based on the sexual test and hard to sustain. Unattractive gay men find it nearly impossible to find a friend, let alone a lover.
• The authors say gays tend to deny reality in various ways: wishful thinking, paranoia, illogic, emotionalism and embracing crackpot ideas.

Efforts to Silence NARTH Continue

"...NARTH recently requested the help of the Research Office of the American Psychological Association to obtain names and addresses of A.P.A. psychologists. We need to survey psychotherapists about their therapeutic successes in sexual-conversion therapy, in order to complete our large-scale research project (we currently have 1,000 responses). Such help is routinely provided to other organizations. Yet A.P.A.'s Director of Research, Jessica Kohout, Ph.D., refused NARTH's request.
NARTH Executive Director Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D. replied as follows..." (read the letter written by Dr Nicolosi)