Are Dr. Judith Reisman's claims about homosexuals and pedophilia phony?

The recent decision of Big Brothers-Big Sisters of America making it mandatory for local chapters to accept homosexual volunteers makes no sense to any thinking adult or concerned parent. I am also very disturbed the Springfield News-Leader is endorsing this decision.

He also notes in disproving Kinsey Maslow's observation that people tend to lie or withhold intimate sexual secrets -- I guess he felt that some portion of heterosexuals would claim to be homosexual, thus skewing the percentages higher? Feel free to disagree, but it's my feeling that if people are going to lie or withhold sexual secrets, it's going to be in favor of the societal norms, not the opposite.

But the most traditional will practice discretion and refuse to participate altogether.

Hi, there. Let me introduce myself. I don't think I've ever made the acquaintance of anyone quite so passionately anti-anti-gay before, unless it was David Ehrenstein in the threads on Salon.

So, you here from GLAAD to do a little werewolfing on Freeper? Good to see you, make yourself at home.

Do you see the great lengths to which you go to defend a "researcher" that any reasonable person would conclude has had a highly questionable career. Why are you doing it?

Mind if I ask that of you? You attack Reisman.....but Reisman quotes extensively, and cites original research by numbers of other researchers. So, are you attacking all of them? Or just Reisman's conclusions?

Why are you attacking Reisman's conclusions? Do you think they are wrong and bad, or are you engaging in a little ad hominem, of the form "anyone who would believe Paul Cameron or Judith Reisman is a bad person/idiot/flamer/fool who cannot be trusted"?

C'mon, madg, talk to us. We're interested in your opinions and would like to know what your bottom line is.

And kind of hard to take seriously a man who has called for the extermination of homosexuals.
No bias there, right?

According to former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, (appointed by Reagan) Paul Cameron advocated as early as 1983 for the extermination of gay men. In an interview with Penthouse Forum magazine he lobbied for the forcible tattooing and quarantine of people with AIDS, then said, "It probably would be a lot cheaper to just exterminate male homosexuals." (See Mark E. Pietrzyk, "Paul Cameron, professional sham," The New Republic, October 3, 1994.)

Hi there, newbie. Nice to have you in.

Your post with quote doesn't substantiate your claim, that Paul Cameron actually advocated extermination of gay men. Could you please provide context to show that this is so?

Pardon my skepticism, but I'm so used to seeing "quotes" about what e.g. Laura Schlessinger supposedly said on her radio program at third hand. Fortunately, one of the gay-rights orgs actually saved quotes and put them up online, so that we could see the original texts (I trust them that far). And often as not, the "quote" turns out to be a paraphrase, or a subordinate clause, or some other inaccurate quotation bobbed for dramatic effect.

So, could we see the rest of the context of that remark, before we burden Cameron with being a neo-Nazi?

I wonder what goes on in pro homosexual affirming seminars?
They make great tea? *G*

Now my memory is coming back to me. You guys do more than brew "great tea"; you try to brainwash people along the guidelines set down by those bright, Harvard educated admen, Kirk and Madsen (from a book called After the Ball).

They took their propagandist techniques from the brainwashing/propaganda practice in Red China: How American went gay (excerpt from link)

"My wife, Clare, who has an unerring aptitude for getting to the heart of things, said one day recently in passing, "I think everybody's being brainwashed." That gave me a start. I know "brainwashing" is a term that has been used and overused. But my wife's casual observation only reminded me of a brilliant tract I had read several years ago and then forgotten. It was called After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990's, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen.

That book turned out to be the blueprint gay activists would use in their campaign to normalize the abnormal through a variety of brainwashing techniques once catalogued by Robert Jay Lifton in his seminal work, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of Brainwashing in China."

[Bryan] It's a bit more difficult than pointing and clicking with your mouse on the "Queer Resources Directory" website, but somehow, I'm sure you can manage if you're interested. I've provided all the information necessary for you to find it ....

[You] Thank Dr. Cameron for me if you happen to see him.

I thought this exchange was interesting. Bryan said he'd supplied cites, and you.......you said what, exactly?

Could it be that you meant to say that, unless Bryan typed in, or cut and pasted, or republished each and every one of the source studies here in this forum, that you are unwilling to believe they exist, and that they are all fabrications and distortions by Paul Cameron?

Is there something further Bryan could have done to satisfy you that the conclusions he posts are valid?

Or are you dismissing inconvenient evidences with a wave of the hand, polemically?

Perhaps you could help clear this up a little.

And while we're at it, perhaps we could get back to your bottom line. I infer from your comments that:

1. There are no ethical studies in the scientific literature that would tend to document complaints in Free Republic against homosex.

2. Any expression of view along those lines must carry a moral incubus on the person expressing the view.

3. You have no responsibility to refute, but only to challenge and accuse, to establish 1. and 2.

So far you've complained about misuse of studies and Paul Cameron and Judith Reisner ad hominem. You've claimed a champion who you say refutes one or both -- but you haven't posted Dixon here, but only incorporated his challenge by reference. So, how is that form of argument different from Bryan's, or Cameron's? Why should we believe your sources? Because a committee of gay psychiatrists on guard-dog duty at APA endorses your man Dixon?

The disparity became so obvious that the ombudsperson for the Washington Post was called upon to write a column explaining why they never reported the Dirkhising case. Her explanation, in sum: it was a local (Arkansas) issue and they saw no reason for their audience (nationwide, Washington metro and international) to be concerned with the story.

Brent Bozell cornered one of the big-name editors, I think it was a WaPo editor, and pressed him about why the Dirkhising story didn't play in the guy's paper. His reply, which you can find in Bozell's Media Research Center column archive, was that "It didn't 'resonate'." Which Bozell rightly skewered as "It didn't fit with our Message."

Interesting. Bryan broadbrushes various "shrew ex-wives" as liars and offers his opinion that a certain man was unjustly accused and convicted of sodomy of a child. Thus he essentially accuses the prosecutors of bearing false witness. ... But, what are your and Bryan's posts if they are not examples of the very kind of "judging" that you condemn? Why do you place yourselves above the rule you invoke to condemn others?

Hello again, Kevin. Long time no see.

The verse you're referring to has been edited out of context by left-wing libertines who want to be able to get away with everything. They want to escape the reproachment of their fellow human beings for their immoral behavior.

"Judge not, lest ye be judged," is at Matthew 7:1. This is probably the most frequently misinterpreted verse in the Holy Scriptures. The next verse, Matthew 7:2 says, "For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the same measure you use, it will be measured back to you." The Scriptures teach us that God's judgment is inevitable. The very idea that we could escape judgment by refusing to make any judgments about others is foolish.

You'll find an excellent article about judging others at the following link:

http://www.dtl.org/ethics/article/judge-not.htm

Thanks for the posts, lentulusgracchus. I think that the best places for madg to begin his education are the Bell & Weinberg book already cited repeatedly (Bell AP & Weinberg MS. Homosexualities: A Study In Diversity Among Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978), and the Bayer book. Bayer, like Bell & Weinberg, expressed support for the gay rights agenda in the foreword to his book; and then, in the text that followed, he revealed the truth that madg wants to conceal:

The history of the APA’s decision to change its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) is worth examining. Homosexual activists used intimidation and deception to force the APA to remove homosexuality as a mental illness from the DSM of psychiatric disorders. For example, in 1970 homosexual activists contacted a prominent and highly-respected member of the APA Board of Trustees, and received a polite letter in return (on his letterhead and bearing his signature), declining to endorse their position. The activists then purchased the APA mailing list, used the letter as a guide to print up the board member's stationery, and forged his signature at the bottom of a letter fully endorsing the homosexual agenda, mailing it to every APA member. (Bayer R. Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis. New York: Basic Books, 1981.)

‘‘The result was not a conclusion based upon an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times.’’ From 1969 to 1971, homosexual activists stormed the annual meetings of the APA, demanding the normalization of homosexual behavior. Scheduling the 1971 annual meeting in San Francisco was an invitation for disaster: homosexual activists invaded the meeting, screaming and kicking, throwing chairs, seizing microphones, and denouncing psychiatry as ‘‘the enemy incarnate.’’ (Ibid.)

For the record, I will similarly criticize ANYONE that distorts the facts in that manner. You will notice that I often use "et al" when mentioning Reisman and/or Cameron.

Like I said: anyone who dares to disagree with you is a hate-filled, lying, bigoted fascist. Tell you what. I'll do what I can to make it easier on you. Obviously it's going to be very, very traumatic for you to learn that Dr. Paul Cameron was telling nothing but the truth when he reported the results of research by Bell & Weinberg. So I'll make it a little easier.

The Bell & Weinberg book is sitting on the shelf of my local public library right now. I'll copy a few relevant tables out of Appendix D and post them here on this thread tomorrow morning. Then you can see for yourself whether Dr. Cameron "misinterpreted" them to suit his "hate-filled anti-gay agenda." Fair enough?

You've been nothing but childish ever since you appeared on this thread. You have employed every form of evasion under the sun. I've directed your attention to credible evidence indicating that the APA sold out to the homosexual lobby, caving in to their pressure tactics and bullying. It is clear that the decision to "normalize" homosexuality in the DSM was political, not scientific.

I've directed your attention to Bell & Weinberg's study. I repeat: they are senior research fellows at the Kinsey Institute for Sex Research, and they have stated their heartfelt support for the militant gay rights agenda in the foreword to their book. But the evidence they present is just as destructive to that agenda as anything published by Dr. Cameron.

The attacks against Dr. Reisman and Dr. Cameron are posted entirely on left-wing gay rights websites, or in journals of the APA, which is a puppet of the gay rights movement. Their summaries of the research done by others remain very accurate, and unblemished by criticisms from anyone who is truly unbiased.

The criticism lodged by the ASA revolves principally around the fact that Dr. Cameron is not a sociologist. But you're the one who pointed out, in your defense of Carol Avedon, that one doesn't need to be a mental health professional to be able to tell that a particular journal didn't publish Dr. Reisman's report. Similarly, one doesn't need to be a sociologist to accurately paraphrase articles and reports by sociologists.

Tomorrow I'll be posting, word for word and without any paraphrasing (let alone "interpretation"), several tables of statistics from Bell & Weinberg's landmark study. You will of course find a way to dismiss them as irrelevant: they're too old, they are limited to only one city, or whatever.

But if you really want to disprove them, it is incumbent upon you to find an alternate study -- perhaps more recent, perhaps involving several cities -- proving, with survey statistics to back it up, that homosexuals are no more dysfunctional as a group than heterosexuals.

I cite scientific sources. You claim they're inaccurate, with one lame excuse after another.

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.