Homosexuals and APA seek to make Pedophilia "normal" - remove from DSM
KDavis
By Lawrence Morahan
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
June 11, 2003
(CNSNews.com) - In a step critics charge could result in
decriminalizing sexual contact between adults and children, the
American Psychiatric Association (APA) recently sponsored a symposium
in which participants discussed the removal of pedophilia from an
upcoming edition of the psychiatric manual of mental disorders.
Psychiatrists attending an annual APA convention May 19 in San
Francisco proposed removing several long-recognized categories of
mental illness - including pedophilia, exhibitionism, fetishism,
transvestism, voyeurism and sadomasochism - from the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).
Most of the mental illnesses being considered for removal are known as
"paraphilias."
Psychiatrist Charles Moser of San Francisco's Institute for the
Advanced Study of Human Sexuality and co-author Peggy Kleinplatz of
the University of Ottawa presented conferees with a paper entitled
"DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal."
People whose sexual interests are atypical, culturally forbidden or
religiously proscribed should not necessarily be labeled mentally ill,
they argued.
Different societies stigmatize different sexual behaviors, and since
the existing research could not distinguish people with paraphilias
from so-called "normophilics," there is no reason to diagnose
paraphilics as either a distinct group or psychologically unhealthy,
Moser and Kleinplatz stated.
Participants also debated gender-identity disorder, a condition in
which a person feels discomfort with his or her biological sex.
Homosexual activists have long argued that gender identity disorder
should not be assumed to be abnormal.
"The situation of the paraphilias at present parallels that of
homosexuality in the early 1970s. Without the support or political
astuteness of those who fought for the removal of homosexuality, the
paraphilias continue to be listed in the DSM," Moser and Kleinplatz
wrote.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200306\CUL20030611c.html
Just as homosexuals pressured the APA to remove homosexuality from the
DSM -- they are now pressuring them to remove pedophilia. Science?
Nope -- the politics of sexual deviancy, which are now concentrating
on the sexualization and rape of children by homosexual and lesbian
adults.
I hope Steve Loather and other homophile apologists are happy that
they have supported the homosexuals in their quest to gain these new
rights.
-Red Davis
€R.L. Measures
kdavi...@hotmail.com (KDavis) wrote:
> Psychiatric Association Debates Lifting Pedophilia Taboo
> By Lawrence Morahan
> CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
> June 11, 2003
>
> (CNSNews.com) - In a step critics charge could result in
> decriminalizing sexual contact between adults and children, the
> American Psychiatric Association (APA) recently sponsored a symposium
> in which participants discussed the removal of pedophilia from an
> upcoming edition of the psychiatric manual of mental disorders.
>
> Psychiatrists attending an annual APA convention May 19 in San
> Francisco proposed removing several long-recognized categories of
> mental illness - including pedophilia, exhibitionism, fetishism,
> transvestism, voyeurism ...
** does this include Mormon guys who fantacize they are boning 16-yr old
Fannie Alger in the barn whilst they are copulating their old lady.?
--
Rich, AG6K, 805 386 3734, www.vcnet.com/measures
remove ^ from e-mail address
Fool Speck
> Just as homosexuals pressured the APA to remove homosexuality from the
> DSM -- they are now pressuring them to remove pedophilia. Science?
> Nope -- the politics of sexual deviancy, which are now concentrating
> on the sexualization and rape of children by homosexual and lesbian
> adults.
>
> I hope Steve Loather and other homophile apologists are happy that
> they have supported the homosexuals in their quest to gain these new
> rights.
>
> -Red Davis
It seems to me, Red, that what those who are arguing for its removal
from the list of mental illnesses are simply saying is that it is not
an illness. In other words, it is something that cannot be helped or
cured with psychotherapy.
This is not saying that the conduct should not be illegal. They are
arguing that it is a matter of social behavior, just like murder, or
robbery, or rape. Social pathologies are more appropriately dealt
with in the justice system.
So on the contrary, people who hold your views who want to call it an
illness are providing an avenue to a possible mental illness defense
for these criminals. I personally do not want such predatory
behaviors protected by mental illness definitions, do you?
Really, you should stop and think about it before making knee-jerk
accusations.
Steve Lowther
Val
> from the list of mental illnesses are simply saying is that it is not
> an illness. In other words, it is something that cannot be helped or
> cured with psychotherapy.
>
> This is not saying that the conduct should not be illegal. They are
> arguing that it is a matter of social behavior, just like murder, or
> robbery, or rape. Social pathologies are more appropriately dealt
> with in the justice system.
>
> So on the contrary, people who hold your views who want to call it an
> illness are providing an avenue to a possible mental illness defense
> for these criminals. I personally do not want such predatory
> behaviors protected by mental illness definitions, do you?
>
> Really, you should stop and think about it before making knee-jerk
> accusations.
>
>
> Steve Lowther
Pedophilia, Homosexuality, Beastiality, and Necrophilia are all forms of
addiction to sexual fetishes. The Gay Community has been extremely
successful at changing public opinion towards their chosen type of
sexual addiction. Perceptive people watched the public opinion gradually
change from considering homosexuality to be deviant, wrong, bad behavior
to becoming equally as valid as heterosexual behavior. Apparently
Pedophilia is next on the list for legitimization. After that you can
expect beastiality and necrophilia to follow and eventually society will
come to accept nudism and public sex everywhere. Make no mistake, that's
the type of path that people are choosing for society when they go along
with pervert agendas. It's interesting to watch the world on the path to
Gomorah. It's extremely sad and unfortunate to watch for those who know
what lies at the end of the path. I once openly questioned how my
society could devolve into open depravity as prophesied in the scripture
(scripture means Bible, not JS copyrighted fiction novels). I just
didn't think it could happen - I could see no path leading to that. What
is interesting is to see the prophesy happen in 3-D like a play with the
world as a stage. It's breathtaking to see it all coming together like
the mechanical operation of a Swiss watch.
Who could have predicted that perverts would form into groups and
gain vast political power? Who could have predicted that society would
eventually mandate that pleasure and gratification are the highest and
most majestic of ideals - that they should overrule all other
considerations. Who could have predicted that the perverts would utterly
confuse the masses with the concept of natural born perversions (God
made me this way, and so I'm proud!). Wow. It's just amazing to see.
Val
KDavis
> kdavi...@hotmail.com (KDavis) wrote in message news:<fe6e030e.03061...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Just as homosexuals pressured the APA to remove homosexuality from the
> > DSM -- they are now pressuring them to remove pedophilia. Science?
> > Nope -- the politics of sexual deviancy, which are now concentrating
> > on the sexualization and rape of children by homosexual and lesbian
> > adults.
> >
> > I hope Steve Loather and other homophile apologists are happy that
> > they have supported the homosexuals in their quest to gain these new
> > rights.
> >
> > -Red Davis
>
> It seems to me, Red, that what those who are arguing for its removal
> from the list of mental illnesses are simply saying is that it is not
> an illness. In other words, it is something that cannot be helped or
> cured with psychotherapy.
A couple of counter-points:
1. So, any disease that can't be cured should simply be re-labeled as
"not a disease"?
2. The APA has not been able to "cure" a *single* mental illness. Not
one. Does this mean we should simply burn the DSM? Or, could it
possibly mean that the field of Psychology, generally speaking, should
be categorized as modern-day alchemists, and dismissed out of hand for
being utterly ineffective?
3. If someone "enjoys" certain thoughts or behaviors -- no matter the
consequences of those thoughts or behaviors -- such enjoyment is the
singular criteria as to whether or not the thought or behavior is
normal?
4. Why is it that Dr. Charles Socarides, Dr. Joseph Nicolsi, Drs.
Masters and Johnson have *all* had huge successes over the past
decades "curing" homosexuals and pedophiles? Is it because they deem
the behavior as abnormal, understand that it is mutable, treat the
root causes, and heal their patients based on a true understanding
that humans can indeed change -- if the right approach is taken?
>
> This is not saying that the conduct should not be illegal. They are
> arguing that it is a matter of social behavior, just like murder, or
> robbery, or rape. Social pathologies are more appropriately dealt
> with in the justice system.
What potato truck did you fall off of? Did you miss the part where I
said the APA is taking the exact same road they did with homosexual
behavior? When homosexual behavior was removed (by threats of
terrorism) from the DSM in the early 1970's -- homosexual behavior was
illegal in almost every state. The vast majority of Americans (I'd
say well over 90%) believed homosexual behavior to be immoral and
sick. Now, not only is homosexual behavior legal in every state --
most public schools are forced to teach that homosexual behavior is
normal, and "questioning youth" (a gay right's phrase to describe
their juvenile targets) are encouraged to engage in homosexual
intercourse. If the homosexual agenda is successful in this country
-- the issue of adults having sex with children will be tolerated a
few years from now -- and not only were you there for it -- you will
be one of the people responsible for children being raped.
>
> So on the contrary, people who hold your views who want to call it an
> illness are providing an avenue to a possible mental illness defense
> for these criminals. I personally do not want such predatory
> behaviors protected by mental illness definitions, do you?
Mental illness has never been a successful defense against a crime.
Mental illness is not "insanity". A person who is mentally ill
certainly can understand right and wrong, make informed choices, and
be held accountable for their behavior. In fact, my observation has
been that most mental illnesses are brought about by a slippery slope
of bad decision making where a person loses their moral compass therby
changing how they think. Choosing sin certainly has consequences --
mentally, spiritually, emotionally, and physically. There are those
who are mentally ill that suffer from physical malfunctions or
chemical imbalances. Yet, even these people still know right from
wrong -- save in the case of severe mental retardation.
>
> Really, you should stop and think about it before making knee-jerk
> accusations.
Surely we can all tell that you thought your position out well before
you responded. It truly shows. Just click your heels together and
keep denying reality.
-Red Davis
>
>
> Steve Lowther
€R.L. Measures
> > It seems to me, Red, that what those who are arguing for its removal
> > from the list of mental illnesses are simply saying is that it is not
> > an illness. In other words, it is something that cannot be helped or
> > cured with psychotherapy.
> >
> > This is not saying that the conduct should not be illegal. They are
> > arguing that it is a matter of social behavior, just like murder, or
> > robbery, or rape. Social pathologies are more appropriately dealt
> > with in the justice system.
> >
> > So on the contrary, people who hold your views who want to call it an
> > illness are providing an avenue to a possible mental illness defense
> > for these criminals. I personally do not want such predatory
> > behaviors protected by mental illness definitions, do you?
> >
> > Really, you should stop and think about it before making knee-jerk
> > accusations.
> >
> >
> > Steve Lowther
>
> Pedophilia, Homosexuality, Beastiality, and Necrophilia
** So what's hell's wrong with necrophilia?
>are all forms of
> addiction to sexual fetishes. The Gay Community has been extremely
> successful at changing public opinion towards their chosen type of
> sexual addiction. Perceptive people watched the public opinion gradually
> change from considering homosexuality to be deviant, wrong, bad behavior
> to becoming equally as valid as heterosexual behavior. Apparently
> Pedophilia is next on the list for legitimization. After that you can
> expect beastiality and necrophilia to follow and eventually society will
> come to accept nudism and public sex everywhere. ...
** Well at least.including barns. According to Book of Mormon witness
Oliver Cowdery, Prophet Joseph Smith, Junior had coitus with Emma Smith's
16-yr old maid, Fannie Alger as Cowdery, Emma, and the prophet's other
secretary, Warren Parrish watched through a crack in the wall of the
Smith's barn. [ref: O. Cowdery letter in Huntington Library and Museum,
San Marino, CA]
John Manning
Can anyone here think of the word 'homophobia' without thinking of Red
Davis?
Classic examples are embodied in his apparent obsession with this topic.
He kind of reminds me of the decorated military officer in the movie
"American Beauty" who obsessively hated 'homos' and was really secretly
gay himself - and killed the guy that knew his secret.
Such is the "Christian" love from Red Davis.
John Manning
€R.L. Measures
Fool Speck
> SRLo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote in message news:<9dcdb6ed.03061...@posting.google.com>...
> > from the list of mental illnesses are simply saying is that it is not
> > an illness. In other words, it is something that cannot be helped or
> > cured with psychotherapy.
>
> A couple of counter-points:
> 1. So, any disease that can't be cured should simply be re-labeled as
> "not a disease"?
No. The question is whether or not it is actually a mental disease or
defect. Not whether it is self-destructive or predatory behavior.
> 2. The APA has not been able to "cure" a *single* mental illness. Not
> one. Does this mean we should simply burn the DSM? Or, could it
> possibly mean that the field of Psychology, generally speaking, should
> be categorized as modern-day alchemists, and dismissed out of hand for
> being utterly ineffective?
The APA has never attempted to cure any diseases. It is a
professional organization. I will assume, however, you are talking
about the individual practioners in the organization.
I don't know if I *totally* agree with you, but I do for the most
part. I don't know of any mental illness that has been "cured"
either. But I am open to change my mind if the evidence is good
enough.
I'll go out on a limb here, because I haven't done the research to
back up my supposition: It seems to me that psychiatry is more
involved in mental diseases, organic causes, and their cures (albeit
attempted cures). Psychology on the other hand deals not so much with
mental diseases, but maladjusted behaviors. Anyway, this much I know:
psychiatrists are Medical Doctors, psychologists are not.
The field of psychiatry "successes" have mainly to do with the
abatement of symptoms. Like you, I know of no cures they have
affected.
> 3. If someone "enjoys" certain thoughts or behaviors -- no matter the
> consequences of those thoughts or behaviors -- such enjoyment is the
> singular criteria as to whether or not the thought or behavior is
> normal?
No.
> 4. Why is it that Dr. Charles Socarides, Dr. Joseph Nicolsi, Drs.
> Masters and Johnson have *all* had huge successes over the past
> decades "curing" homosexuals and pedophiles? Is it because they deem
> the behavior as abnormal, understand that it is mutable, treat the
> root causes, and heal their patients based on a true understanding
> that humans can indeed change -- if the right approach is taken?
You just contradicted yourself. You claimed in #2 above that "APA
[practioners have] not been able to 'cure' a *single* mental illness.
Not one." Or are you saying that these named people can cure mental
illnesses but if you are a member of the APA that you can't?
However, you still won't be able to back up your claim of these people
"curing" homosexuality. You simply pulled these "huge successes" out
of thin air.
There are indeed homosexuals who wish they were not homosexual. For
these people, it would be a very positive thing if they could be
"cured" into becoming heterosexual. However, as much as the doctors
in the LDS Social Services have in past years been involved with
motivated subjects, their cure rate as been abysmal, if not completely
non-existent. Today, they don't even try.
There was one poster a few years back who was an active, devout LDS
member. He was also homosexual. You may remember him. He was
married to a woman who he said was his best friend. He indicated he
does not practice homosexuality, but strongly feels same sex
attraction. I asked him about his "coming out". He said he did not
come "out"; rather that he came "forward". If anybody was motivated
to be "cured", it was he. He essentially thru himself at the mercy of
his fellow religionists. He was troubled and miserable about his
homosexuality. As I recall, members of his ward treated him pretty
well. Yet he remained a homosexual, but not from lack of wanting to
be hetero.
You seem to think that homosexuality can be converted to
heterosexuality like a smoker can become a non-smoker, or a heroin
addict can come clean. This is simply not true. Do I think that
homosexuality is innate and immutable? I don't know about every
single case; nobody does. But I suspect it is, and you have made
claims but have never offered convincing evidence to the contrary.
My wife is a teacher in a charter school whose director is a bishop,
whose administrators and nearly all of the staff are LDS. Well over
90% of the students are LDS.
There was one young man who was extrememly effeminate, who more than
likely was not heterosexual. He grew very close to one of the
teachers. As his friend, she coached him in modifying his effeminate
mannerisms to help him become someone who could more easily fit in
with his peer group. As motivated as he was, he could not become less
effeminate. It simply was not who he was.
Let's say he was not gay, as his orientation is not really relevant.
Let's ask ourselves if his effeminate nature was innate and immutable.
I can't see how it could be anything else considering he comes from a
large "normal" LDS family with quite "normal" parents and siblings.
He acknowledged his effeminate mannerisms were a handicap to his
social acceptance, yet he could not control these mannerisms except
very superficially. Immutable and innate? I don't know how anybody
could make that determination quantitatively. But if even the
superficial characteristics of gender mannerisms cannot be controlled
in this case, how can more deeply rooted elements of one's personal
identity be changed?
Yes, this is only one case. It is simply an anecdote. However, I
think we all know effeminate males, homosexual or not, who have had to
live with peer abuse simply because they were not able to master the
norm for masculine behavior.
> > This is not saying that the conduct should not be illegal. They are
> > arguing that it is a matter of social behavior, just like murder, or
> > robbery, or rape. Social pathologies are more appropriately dealt
> > with in the justice system.
>
> What potato truck did you fall off of? Did you miss the part where I
> said the APA is taking the exact same road they did with homosexual
> behavior? When homosexual behavior was removed (by threats of
> terrorism) from the DSM in the early 1970's -- homosexual behavior was
> illegal in almost every state. The vast majority of Americans (I'd
> say well over 90%) believed homosexual behavior to be immoral and
> sick. Now, not only is homosexual behavior legal in every state --
> most public schools are forced to teach that homosexual behavior is
> normal, and "questioning youth" (a gay right's phrase to describe
> their juvenile targets) are encouraged to engage in homosexual
> intercourse. If the homosexual agenda is successful in this country
> -- the issue of adults having sex with children will be tolerated a
> few years from now -- and not only were you there for it -- you will
> be one of the people responsible for children being raped.
First of all, it was a turnip truck I fell off. :-)
You imply by removing homosexuality from the DSM, that it precipitated
a domino effect legalizing homosexuality in all states. I doubt that
is the case; you certainly cannot support it with data. The rest of
your statement is more unsupported homophobic rhetoric ("threats of
terrorism", "encouraged to engage in homosexual intercourse") You
seem oblivious to how this rhetoric dilutes the credibility of your
position. Extreme accusations require extremely good evidence. You
offer no evidence, and this is your modus operandi.
So why does the APA's action coincide with states decriminalizing
homosexuality? It seems apparent that society's attitude had become
more tolerant as more homosexuals "came out" about their sexuality.
People everywhere found they had family members and trusted friends
who were gay and did not deserve to be persecuted (or prosecuted) for
it.
As to our society accepting predatory behavior to our children? It
simply will not happen, anymore than rape itself will ever be
legalized or remotely tolerated. In fact, in recent years these
behaviors have become less tolerated and more actively prosecuted.
This is definitely a good thing as long as innocent people are not
caught up in the net.
It is the nature of your personality, Red, (it is immutable and
innate, I suppose) to react extremely and vociferously to what you
perceive as antisocial behavior. You do this in order to effect a
counterweight to the social balance.
The problem with this type of behavior, is that it, itself, approaches
antisocial fringe behavior. Part of that behavior is rhetoric which
invariably accuses those with a more moderate, tolerant stance of
edging over to your opposite extreme. I remember once your accusing
me of "writing pro-gay all day, all night, for the past two years."
The hatred is so abhorent that people recoil and pull away from you.
Your rage then increases and becomes directed at these more moderate
people. You become distressed, your anger increases, and you feign an
"I don't care what people think" attitude, and display the bravado
using arrogance, often including passages telling us how smart you
are. In this way you effect just the opposite of your intentions as
people react in disgust to your extreme behavior.
> > So on the contrary, people who hold your views who want to call it an
> > illness are providing an avenue to a possible mental illness defense
> > for these criminals. I personally do not want such predatory
> > behaviors protected by mental illness definitions, do you?
>
> Mental illness has never been a successful defense against a crime.
This is patently absurd.
> Mental illness is not "insanity". A person who is mentally ill
> certainly can understand right and wrong, make informed choices, and
> be held accountable for their behavior.
If insanity is not mental illness, then what is it?
An encyclopedia article on http://public.onelook.com states "The
insanity and incomptence defenses refer to possible defenses by
excuse; via which, a defendant may argue that they should not be held
criminally liable for breaking the law, as they were MENTALLY ILL or
mentally incompetent at the time of their allegedly 'criminal'
actions." (emphasis mine)
> In fact, my observation has
> been that most mental illnesses are brought about by a slippery slope
> of bad decision making where a person loses their moral compass therby
> changing how they think. Choosing sin certainly has consequences --
> mentally, spiritually, emotionally, and physically. There are those
> who are mentally ill that suffer from physical malfunctions or
> chemical imbalances. Yet, even these people still know right from
> wrong -- save in the case of severe mental retardation.
Well, you have some part truths in there. In fact I will agree that
there are mental illnesses that can be and have been precipitated by
wrong choices. Wrong choices (and sometimes even difficult, noble
choices) bring stress into a person's life that results in varying
degrees of mental illness, and a person will suffer "mentally,
spiritually, emotionally, and physically." In fact I see your
constant state of anger, bashing, and hatred as a form of mental
illness. An angry, hating person is simply not a happy person, Red.
Steve Lowther
Taiki
> A couple of counter-points:
> 1. So, any disease that can't be cured should simply be re-labeled as
> "not a disease"?
Not exactly. The APA is saying that pedophilia is not a disease to itself,
it MAY be a symptom, but it is not a disease unto itself.
> 2. The APA has not been able to "cure" a *single* mental illness. Not
> one. Does this mean we should simply burn the DSM? Or, could it
> possibly mean that the field of Psychology, generally speaking, should
> be categorized as modern-day alchemists, and dismissed out of hand for
> being utterly ineffective?
APA hasn't. But the doctors who practice as members of the APA cure mental
illnesses all the time. It's those NARTH people I'm really wondering about.
They make baseless claims, no evidence, or any documentable procedure to
"cure" homosexuality.
> 3. If someone "enjoys" certain thoughts or behaviors -- no matter the
> consequences of those thoughts or behaviors -- such enjoyment is the
> singular criteria as to whether or not the thought or behavior is
> normal?
No. Look at addiction. If there is a negative impact to the individual or
others, then we have a problem.
The idea
> 4. Why is it that Dr. Charles Socarides, Dr. Joseph Nicolsi, Drs.
> Masters and Johnson have *all* had huge successes over the past
> decades "curing" homosexuals and pedophiles? Is it because they deem
> the behavior as abnormal, understand that it is mutable, treat the
> root causes, and heal their patients based on a true understanding
> that humans can indeed change -- if the right approach is taken?
>
Actually, thier website, NARTH, show nothing of the sort. Furthermore, the
NARTH website causes my machine to slow down. I think this is the first
time it's actually reacted in disgust. :)
-taiki
KDavis
> > It seems to me, Red, that what those who are arguing for its removal
> > from the list of mental illnesses are simply saying is that it is not
> > an illness. In other words, it is something that cannot be helped or
> > cured with psychotherapy.
> >
> > This is not saying that the conduct should not be illegal. They are
> > arguing that it is a matter of social behavior, just like murder, or
> > robbery, or rape. Social pathologies are more appropriately dealt
> > with in the justice system.
> >
> > So on the contrary, people who hold your views who want to call it an
> > illness are providing an avenue to a possible mental illness defense
> > for these criminals. I personally do not want such predatory
> > behaviors protected by mental illness definitions, do you?
> >
> > Really, you should stop and think about it before making knee-jerk
> > accusations.
> >
> >
> > Steve Lowther
>
> Pedophilia, Homosexuality, Beastiality, and Necrophilia are all forms of
> addiction to sexual fetishes. The Gay Community has been extremely
> successful at changing public opinion towards their chosen type of
> sexual addiction. Perceptive people watched the public opinion gradually
> change from considering homosexuality to be deviant, wrong, bad behavior
> to becoming equally as valid as heterosexual behavior. Apparently
> Pedophilia is next on the list for legitimization. After that you can
> expect beastiality and necrophilia to follow and eventually society will
> come to accept nudism and public sex everywhere.
Val,
In my abnormal psychology class in college (a 400 level course) - we
were taught that the APA's official stance on rape is that it is *not*
abnormal behavior *if* the rapist feels good about it.
I kid you not.
You are correct: Homosexuality put our society on the slipper slope
where all deviant behavior will be normalized -- lead by the perverts
who now control the APA.
BTW, my psychology professor at college? A lesbian "vampire" who
drinks animal blood - and human blood if she can find a donor. This
is the type or person that now makes up the rank and file of the APA.
-Red Davis
Mike W
> news:fe6e030e.03061...@posting.google.com...
> BTW, my psychology professor at college? A lesbian "vampire" who
> drinks animal blood - and human blood if she can find a donor. This
> is the type or person that now makes up the rank and file of the APA.
>
> -Red Davis
So that's why there are so many whack-jobs out there. They're all afraid of
psychologists, assuming you reflect the average bloke's experience. I'm not
so sure about that.
Remember the intellectual left and how it fell apart when the Soviet system
crashed? The intellectual right prevailed there. Now the intellectual
right is falling apart thanks to Enron and Worldcom. Things change... don't
give up hope.
Mike
John Lemings
> BTW, my psychology professor at college? A lesbian "vampire" who
> drinks animal blood - and human blood if she can find a donor. This
> is the type or person that now makes up the rank and file of the APA.
>
> -Red Davis
I'm not calling into question your ab psych professor's desire for blood
with the following; what university did you attend?
KDavis
> kdavi...@hotmail.com (KDavis) wrote in message news:<fe6e030e.03061...@posting.google.com>...
> > SRLo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote in message news:<9dcdb6ed.03061...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > > It seems to me, Red, that what those who are arguing for its removal
> > > from the list of mental illnesses are simply saying is that it is not
> > > an illness. In other words, it is something that cannot be helped or
> > > cured with psychotherapy.
> >
> > A couple of counter-points:
> > 1. So, any disease that can't be cured should simply be re-labeled as
> > "not a disease"?
>
> No. The question is whether or not it is actually a mental disease or
> defect. Not whether it is self-destructive or predatory behavior.
Are you mad? I mean -- crazy? The consequence of thought or
behavior should *not* be taken into account as to whether or not it
should be described as normal and acceptable thought or behavior? You
must be daft.
As to the question of defect -- are you asserting that thoughts of and
adult having sex with children is *not* a sympton of mental defect?
What next?
Is it not true that those who are engaged in pedophilia can be
described as being obssessed by it? And do not these people become
addicted to pornography, stalking children, seeking to be around them
at all times? Are they not compelled to act on their thoughts? And
are not such obsessions and compulsions text book examples of mental
illnesses?
Yes - they are. *Text book* examples -- save the way the perverts who
lead and make up the psychological community are seeking to rewrite
them for the future.
"The APA's classifications of sexual deviancy gradually have shifted
from an objective description of aberrant behavior to the subjective
perception of the individual. Thus, according to DSM IV, if a person
feels no desire to change, there is no need to seek therapy."
>
> > 2. The APA has not been able to "cure" a *single* mental illness. Not
> > one. Does this mean we should simply burn the DSM? Or, could it
> > possibly mean that the field of Psychology, generally speaking, should
> > be categorized as modern-day alchemists, and dismissed out of hand for
> > being utterly ineffective?
>
> The APA has never attempted to cure any diseases. It is a
> professional organization. I will assume, however, you are talking
> about the individual practioners in the organization.
Wow, what an assumption. The purpose of the APA is to licence and
direct the effectivenes and legitimacy of their practitioners, and to
define what are billable diagnosis as published in their DSM. They
are responsbile for the condition of psychology today.
>
> I don't know if I *totally* agree with you, but I do for the most
> part. I don't know of any mental illness that has been "cured"
> either. But I am open to change my mind if the evidence is good
> enough.
The answer of how many mental illnesses have been cure is thusly: 0
The answer as to which paradigm in psychology may be effective on
individuals who are mentally ill is: anyone's guess
>
> I'll go out on a limb here, because I haven't done the research to
> back up my supposition: It seems to me that psychiatry is more
> involved in mental diseases, organic causes, and their cures (albeit
> attempted cures). Psychology on the other hand deals not so much with
> mental diseases, but maladjusted behaviors. Anyway, this much I know:
> psychiatrists are Medical Doctors, psychologists are not.
Wow, another astute obeservation. You are giving us your "A" game
today.
Yes, Psychiatrists are M.D.s, where Psychologists are Ph.D.s usually
with undergraduate degress in silliness.
>
> The field of psychiatry "successes" have mainly to do with the
> abatement of symptoms. Like you, I know of no cures they have
> affected.
The field of psychiatry's "successes" come from using chemicals on
mental patients to fry their brains and neuter their thoughts. And
you are correct -- they have not cured anything, though they do use
chemicals to fry the brains of their patients into creamed corn.
>
> > 3. If someone "enjoys" certain thoughts or behaviors -- no matter the
> > consequences of those thoughts or behaviors -- such enjoyment is the
> > singular criteria as to whether or not the thought or behavior is
> > normal?
>
> No.
That is what the APA says. "Abnormal" behavior can only be such if
the thought or behavior causes harmful stress to the subject.
>
> > 4. Why is it that Dr. Charles Socarides, Dr. Joseph Nicolsi, Drs.
> > Masters and Johnson have *all* had huge successes over the past
> > decades "curing" homosexuals and pedophiles? Is it because they deem
> > the behavior as abnormal, understand that it is mutable, treat the
> > root causes, and heal their patients based on a true understanding
> > that humans can indeed change -- if the right approach is taken?
>
> You just contradicted yourself. You claimed in #2 above that "APA
> [practioners have] not been able to 'cure' a *single* mental illness.
> Not one." Or are you saying that these named people can cure mental
> illnesses but if you are a member of the APA that you can't?
The homosexuals tried to have these doctor's licenses pulled two years
ago -- as their practice is considered to be nothing less than hateful
bigotry by the homosexual activists, and the APA leadership agrees.
The APA came within a whisker of pulling their licenses. So, while
these individuals have been successful in their practices -- the APA
has officially turned a blind eye to those facts, and in fact, has
sought every turn to denounce them -- though these are the only
members who can show clinical studies where they have cured their
patients.
>
> However, you still won't be able to back up your claim of these people
> "curing" homosexuality. You simply pulled these "huge successes" out
> of thin air.
Really, go to www.narth.com and do some reading. I think you will
find that you don't have a clue.
>
> There are indeed homosexuals who wish they were not homosexual. For
> these people, it would be a very positive thing if they could be
> "cured" into becoming heterosexual. However, as much as the doctors
> in the LDS Social Services have in past years been involved with
> motivated subjects, their cure rate as been abysmal, if not completely
> non-existent. Today, they don't even try.
The reason they "don't even try" has nothing to do with where science
is in relation to this subject -- it has everything to do with not
having their license pulled by the APA, being the subject of violent
protests by homosexual activists, and being the subject of hate
conduct where activists go after their jobs and families. Just look
what homosexual activists did to Dr. James Dobson (a religion ethics
commentator), or Andy Rooney, or Anita Bryant, or Dr. Laura, or the
APA convention in 1972 where they used violence and terrorism to force
the APA to politcally vote to remove homosexual behavior from DSM II.
>
> There was one poster a few years back who was an active, devout LDS
> member. He was also homosexual. You may remember him. He was
> married to a woman who he said was his best friend. He indicated he
> does not practice homosexuality, but strongly feels same sex
> attraction. I asked him about his "coming out". He said he did not
> come "out"; rather that he came "forward". If anybody was motivated
> to be "cured", it was he. He essentially thru himself at the mercy of
> his fellow religionists. He was troubled and miserable about his
> homosexuality. As I recall, members of his ward treated him pretty
> well. Yet he remained a homosexual, but not from lack of wanting to
> be hetero.
This is where you have your biggest error:
Because you are *tempted* by a sin - does not mean you *are* that sin.
Period.
Chirst was tempted -- was He defined by those temptations -- or by His
resistance to those temptations?
If a person is tempted by thoughts of adultery, are they an adulterer
if they put them out of their mind and don't act upon them?
We, as human beings and children of God, are defined by how we react
to temptation -- not by the temptation itself.
>
> You seem to think that homosexuality can be converted to
> heterosexuality like a smoker can become a non-smoker, or a heroin
> addict can come clean. This is simply not true. Do I think that
This is where you are wrong - again. Almost every study done on the
behavior of homosexual males has found that homosexual males have sex
with *both* men and women all the time. They *choose* to have sex
with men, they *choose* to have sex with women. Indeed, the Kinsey
Scale of 0-6 was developed to measure what frequence homosexuals have
for sexual intercourse with same or different sex partners -- and they
found that very, very, very few "homosexuals" are a "6" - that is,
they exclusively have sex with other males.
I reject the idea that a person cannot choose when and with whom they
have sex with.
Are you next going to make the argument that adultery is genetic and
immutable? That those who commit adultery can't "come clean"?
You argue nothing less then to state that the atonement of Christ is
void to sin.
> homosexuality is innate and immutable? I don't know about every
> single case; nobody does. But I suspect it is, and you have made
> claims but have never offered convincing evidence to the contrary.
BS. I have posted mountains of evidence to the contrary. Let's start
first with you reading the NARTH website, then you can go back and
read the hundreds of posts where I have posted the clinical studies,
research papers, and scientific findings that *all* have concluded
that homosexuality is not innate nor immutable. Are you really
stating you have never read by debunk posts of LeVay and Hammer, two
homosexual militants who tweaked their data in order to alledge they
had found the link showing homosexuality was immutable -- and were
forced upon peer review to admit that their studies were in error, and
indeed, all evidence to the contrary shows that homosexuality *is*
strongly influenced by environment?
Will you next claim the sky is not blue?
>
> My wife is a teacher in a charter school whose director is a bishop,
> whose administrators and nearly all of the staff are LDS. Well over
> 90% of the students are LDS.
>
> There was one young man who was extrememly effeminate, who more than
> likely was not heterosexual. He grew very close to one of the
> teachers. As his friend, she coached him in modifying his effeminate
> mannerisms to help him become someone who could more easily fit in
> with his peer group. As motivated as he was, he could not become less
> effeminate. It simply was not who he was.
Effeminate does not equal homosexual. Though, homosexual activists
who are seeking "questioning youth" would love to get their paws on
this kid and screw up his mind. Quantify for us "effeminate". You
can't.
I have found that kids fit into the peer groups that "accept" them -
and they will do all kinds of stupid things -- including sexual
behavior and drug use -- in order to fit in somewhere, with someone.
>
> Let's say he was not gay, as his orientation is not really relevant.
> Let's ask ourselves if his effeminate nature was innate and immutable.
> I can't see how it could be anything else considering he comes from a
> large "normal" LDS family with quite "normal" parents and siblings.
Has this kid been molested? You don't know that he hasn't. I have
seen kids question their sexual identity who have been molested, I
have seen kids act out various ways to rebel against their parents, I
have seen kids act out in self-destructive behavior due to mental
illness, and I have seen kids behave the way they were expected to
behave -- be it good, bad, or ugly.
> He acknowledged his effeminate mannerisms were a handicap to his
> social acceptance, yet he could not control these mannerisms except
> very superficially. Immutable and innate? I don't know how anybody
> could make that determination quantitatively. But if even the
> superficial characteristics of gender mannerisms cannot be controlled
> in this case, how can more deeply rooted elements of one's personal
> identity be changed?
How? The best way: It's called faith. It's called the Gospel of
Christ. That I have to tell you this tells me you are a person who
does not understand faith because you, yourself, have no faith.
I have seen faith make remarkable changes in people's lives.
>
> Yes, this is only one case. It is simply an anecdote. However, I
> think we all know effeminate males, homosexual or not, who have had to
> live with peer abuse simply because they were not able to master the
> norm for masculine behavior.
They did not master because they did not try hard enough. I have a
hearing and speech defect. I cannot hear the letter "r". I was
teased terribly by children in elementary school because of this. In
the Spelling Bee, I had to get the word "arrow" -- and had to spend
the next three years hearing bullies taunt, "A-ah-ah-oh-w". Yet, I
decided I would get past this behavior -- and I taught myself how to
say "r" when it is called for -- even though I still hear "ah". What
difference did this make in my life? I regularly speak before
national symposiums and audiences -- with never a hint of a hearing or
speech defect.
On the lighter side, are you really going to argue that those potato
heads in Idaho can never unlearn being country bumpkins? ;^)
>
> > > This is not saying that the conduct should not be illegal. They are
> > > arguing that it is a matter of social behavior, just like murder, or
> > > robbery, or rape. Social pathologies are more appropriately dealt
> > > with in the justice system.
> >
> > What potato truck did you fall off of? Did you miss the part where I
> > said the APA is taking the exact same road they did with homosexual
> > behavior? When homosexual behavior was removed (by threats of
> > terrorism) from the DSM in the early 1970's -- homosexual behavior was
> > illegal in almost every state. The vast majority of Americans (I'd
> > say well over 90%) believed homosexual behavior to be immoral and
> > sick. Now, not only is homosexual behavior legal in every state --
> > most public schools are forced to teach that homosexual behavior is
> > normal, and "questioning youth" (a gay right's phrase to describe
> > their juvenile targets) are encouraged to engage in homosexual
> > intercourse. If the homosexual agenda is successful in this country
> > -- the issue of adults having sex with children will be tolerated a
> > few years from now -- and not only were you there for it -- you will
> > be one of the people responsible for children being raped.
>
> First of all, it was a turnip truck I fell off. :-)
>
> You imply by removing homosexuality from the DSM, that it precipitated
> a domino effect legalizing homosexuality in all states. I doubt that
I am not implying anything, I am summarizing history as it occurred.
Homosexual activists repeatedly made the argument, "homosexual
behavior is not a disorder, nor is it abnormal, and that's why the APA
removed it...."
Even though the APA did so without a single *fact* before it to
support their vote, which passed 60%-40% while homosexual activists
literally held a bomb at their head.
Here, people with those little letters behind their names agree:
"Cracks in the floodgates have been appearing regarding pedophilia as
well. Emboldened by the APA's acceptance of homosexuality as a valid
lifestyle, advocates of adult-child sex are making cautious forays
into the scholarly literature. Once again, this move is shrewdly
calculated, with the expectation that society in general will follow
the lead of the "high priests" of the scientific community."
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyPedophilia.htm
> is the case; you certainly cannot support it with data. The rest of
> your statement is more unsupported homophobic rhetoric ("threats of
> terrorism", "encouraged to engage in homosexual intercourse") You
> seem oblivious to how this rhetoric dilutes the credibility of your
> position. Extreme accusations require extremely good evidence. You
> offer no evidence, and this is your modus operandi.
Nope. Those are some facts. Though this site is associate with
Regent University's Law Review, it has some great source material for
you that documents the actions of homosexual activists and their
attacks on the APA:
http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/lawreview/articles/14_2Rondeau.PDF
>
> So why does the APA's action coincide with states decriminalizing
> homosexuality? It seems apparent that society's attitude had become
> more tolerant as more homosexuals "came out" about their sexuality.
> People everywhere found they had family members and trusted friends
> who were gay and did not deserve to be persecuted (or prosecuted) for
> it.
The APA's action came first - then the states followed. Both were
hounded by homosexual protestors and politicians were flooded with $3
bills to finance their campaigns if they sided with the gay activists
-- and protests and attacks if they opposed the activists. When was
the last time you heard a homosxual protestor call someone a "bigot"
or "hateful" or "intolerance" who opposed their agenda? Oh, yea,
that's right -- you do it *all* the time.
>
> As to our society accepting predatory behavior to our children? It
> simply will not happen, anymore than rape itself will ever be
> legalized or remotely tolerated. In fact, in recent years these
> behaviors have become less tolerated and more actively prosecuted.
> This is definitely a good thing as long as innocent people are not
> caught up in the net.
That's probably what Rome and Greece said. They rose to power and
influence, then homosexuality became common place - then pedophilia -
then each society collapsed. Why do you think that collapsed? I
think it was for this simple reason: a society that cannot draw a
distinction between right and wrong and protect its children cannot
sustain order within itself, and collapses under its own wickedness.
>
> It is the nature of your personality, Red, (it is immutable and
> innate, I suppose) to react extremely and vociferously to what you
> perceive as antisocial behavior. You do this in order to effect a
> counterweight to the social balance.
It is the nature of my personality to research, form an opinion, and
defend it vigorously.
>
> The problem with this type of behavior, is that it, itself, approaches
> antisocial fringe behavior. Part of that behavior is rhetoric which
> invariably accuses those with a more moderate, tolerant stance of
> edging over to your opposite extreme. I remember once your accusing
> me of "writing pro-gay all day, all night, for the past two years."
Here you are, writing pro-gay. Sequitur.
>
> The hatred is so abhorent that people recoil and pull away from you.
> Your rage then increases and becomes directed at these more moderate
> people. You become distressed, your anger increases, and you feign an
> "I don't care what people think" attitude, and display the bravado
> using arrogance, often including passages telling us how smart you
> are. In this way you effect just the opposite of your intentions as
> people react in disgust to your extreme behavior.
A "moderate" is what a liberal calls someone who caves into their
demands and shouts of "intolerance" and "bigotry" or of "starving the
children".
I do not cave. I could chare less whether you call me distressed,
angered, an extremist, or any other ad hominem.
I will simply kick back in my chair, swig another Dr. Pepper, and
hunker up to the keyboard and post what I know to be true. If you
have something to trade me up with -- some research that supports your
point of view -- I will surely consider it and change my views based
on facts accordingly.
However, when you merely sit there and fail to do your homework (you
admit having done no research, and being ignorant on this subject) and
argue from utter stupidity - please pardon me while I dismiss your
conjecture as what it is.
>
> > > So on the contrary, people who hold your views who want to call it an
> > > illness are providing an avenue to a possible mental illness defense
> > > for these criminals. I personally do not want such predatory
> > > behaviors protected by mental illness definitions, do you?
> >
> > Mental illness has never been a successful defense against a crime.
>
> This is patently absurd.
Nope. Mentally ill are locked up all over the place -- cept those who
are begging at the local traffic signal.
>
> > Mental illness is not "insanity". A person who is mentally ill
> > certainly can understand right and wrong, make informed choices, and
> > be held accountable for their behavior.
>
> If insanity is not mental illness, then what is it?
Insanity is a condition which implies the inability to know right and
wrong or make legitimate decisions. There are literally millions of
people who are mentally ill -- who are not insane.
>
> An encyclopedia article on http://public.onelook.com states "The
> insanity and incomptence defenses refer to possible defenses by
> excuse; via which, a defendant may argue that they should not be held
> criminally liable for breaking the law, as they were MENTALLY ILL or
> mentally incompetent at the time of their allegedly 'criminal'
> actions." (emphasis mine)
Go read WestLaw cases. It's not that simple. They do not simply
argue that they were simply mentally ill - but that such mental
illness diminshed their capacity to the point they did not know right
from wrong.
>
> > In fact, my observation has
> > been that most mental illnesses are brought about by a slippery slope
> > of bad decision making where a person loses their moral compass therby
> > changing how they think. Choosing sin certainly has consequences --
> > mentally, spiritually, emotionally, and physically. There are those
> > who are mentally ill that suffer from physical malfunctions or
> > chemical imbalances. Yet, even these people still know right from
> > wrong -- save in the case of severe mental retardation.
>
> Well, you have some part truths in there. In fact I will agree that
> there are mental illnesses that can be and have been precipitated by
> wrong choices. Wrong choices (and sometimes even difficult, noble
> choices) bring stress into a person's life that results in varying
> degrees of mental illness, and a person will suffer "mentally,
> spiritually, emotionally, and physically." In fact I see your
> constant state of anger, bashing, and hatred as a form of mental
> illness. An angry, hating person is simply not a happy person, Red.
There you go again. I am not angry, I do not hate, but I certainly
call homosexuality for what it is: a perversion.
A perversion that is now being used to open the door for the wholesale
rape of our children.
-Red Davis
>
>
> Steve Lowther
Nathan Packer
My goodness, you mean I missed this from Red. How did Red surmise all
this? But then this is Red.
Red's thinking:
The rumor is that my psychology professor was a lesbian and drank
blood
Psychologists make up the APA
Therefore, the APA is made up of lesbian vampires.
Red claims to have graduated from Texas A&M and says that it is a top
university. Hey with lesbian vampire professors, it sounds like an
interesting skool to attend.
Maybe someone should inform the dean of the school of engineering that
Red is displaying some third rate thinking and is besmearching the
good school's reputation.
KDavis
Texas A&M University. That's right. The most conservative public
university in the nation. She even gave us Halloween off as it was
her "holiday". One day we had a substitute -- and the substitute was
even more weird. Definitely the patients are in charge in the
psychology arena.
Some things she took pleasure in forcing us to study: The "Brothers
of Pain" in Houston, Texas who liked to "mummyfy" a member and abuse
them -- said she, such behavior is "normal" as long as all involved
feel good about it. Our text book seconded that notion. "Golden
showers" (urination on others), and how refereshing they can be - and
such is normal as long as all involved feel good about it. I already
told you about rape being normal. She also went into S&M -and how
that is normal. Again - the APA has embraced and is emphasizing the
notion that "normal" is simply defined as to whether or not it makes
you feel good when you engage in such thoughts or behavior.
BTW, she almost always wore all black, and wore this pendant with a
weird symbol on it most of the time. She also got into witchcraft.
Again, this is the rank and file of the APA today.
My experience has been that whenever you find one freak like this --
it took a committee of freaks to hire them, and you have a whole nest
of freaks to contend with. Look at any psychology departemnt on any
campus (even BYUs) and you will find that they are nuts. No wonder
they can't find a cure.
-Red Davis
Taiki
> Texas A&M University. That's right. The most conservative public
> university in the nation. She even gave us Halloween off as it was
> her "holiday". One day we had a substitute -- and the substitute was
> even more weird. Definitely the patients are in charge in the
> psychology arena.
>
Can you provide a name and year in which you attended?
-taiki
Lee Paulson
> Val,
> In my abnormal psychology class in college (a 400 level course) -
Gee, Red, they must have changed the Texas A&M psychology courses since you
were there. Now there are no 400 level abnormal psych classes.
we
> were taught that the APA's official stance on rape is that it is *not*
> abnormal behavior *if* the rapist feels good about it.
You were mistaught. According to two psychologists here, there is no such
stance.
snip
>
> BTW, my psychology professor at college? A lesbian "vampire" who
> drinks animal blood - and human blood if she can find a donor. This
> is the type or person that now makes up the rank and file of the APA.
>
What was her name, Red? I'd like to contact her.
--
Regards,
Lee, the James, uM, feminist
"It is undesirable to believe a proposition when
there is no ground whatever for supposing it true."
Bertrand Russell, 1928
Fool Speck
> SRLo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote in message news:<9dcdb6ed.03061...@posting.google.com>...
> > kdavi...@hotmail.com (KDavis) wrote in message news:<fe6e030e.03061...@posting.google.com>...
> > > SRLo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote in message news:<9dcdb6ed.03061...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > > > It seems to me, Red, that what those who are arguing for its removal
> > > > from the list of mental illnesses are simply saying is that it is not
> > > > an illness. In other words, it is something that cannot be helped or
> > > > cured with psychotherapy.
> > >
> > > A couple of counter-points:
> > > 1. So, any disease that can't be cured should simply be re-labeled as
> > > "not a disease"?
> >
> > No. The question is whether or not it is actually a mental disease or
> > defect. Not whether it is self-destructive or predatory behavior.
>
> Are you mad? I mean -- crazy? The consequence of thought or
> behavior should *not* be taken into account as to whether or not it
> should be described as normal and acceptable thought or behavior? You
> must be daft.
No, you are just not thinking. We are not talking about the entire
scope of normal and acceptable thought or behavior. We are talking
about mental illnesses. Not all abnormal or unacceptable thought or
behavior is caused by mental illnesses. Antisocial behavior has other
causes.
> > > 2. The APA has not been able to "cure" a *single* mental illness. Not
> > > one. Does this mean we should simply burn the DSM? Or, could it
> > > possibly mean that the field of Psychology, generally speaking, should
> > > be categorized as modern-day alchemists, and dismissed out of hand for
> > > being utterly ineffective?
> >
> > The APA has never attempted to cure any diseases. It is a
> > professional organization. I will assume, however, you are talking
> > about the individual practioners in the organization.
>
> Wow, what an assumption. The purpose of the APA is to licence and
> direct the effectivenes and legitimacy of their practitioners, and to
> define what are billable diagnosis as published in their DSM. They
> are responsbile for the condition of psychology today.
So what was my assumption? The APA has never attempted to cure any
diseases. It is a professional organization. You said nothing to
contradict in your reply.
> > I'll go out on a limb here, because I haven't done the research to
> > back up my supposition: It seems to me that psychiatry is more
> > involved in mental diseases, organic causes, and their cures (albeit
> > attempted cures). Psychology on the other hand deals not so much with
> > mental diseases, but maladjusted behaviors. Anyway, this much I know:
> > psychiatrists are Medical Doctors, psychologists are not.
>
> Wow, another astute obeservation. You are giving us your "A" game
> today.
> Yes, Psychiatrists are M.D.s, where Psychologists are Ph.D.s usually
> with undergraduate degress in silliness.
Ooops, sorry. I left you an opening for a bit of meanness and of
course you took advantage of it. Sometimes I forget not to tempt your
"predatory" nature.
> > However, you still won't be able to back up your claim of these people
> > "curing" homosexuality. You simply pulled these "huge successes" out
> > of thin air.
>
> Really, go to www.narth.com and do some reading. I think you will
> find that you don't have a clue.
A religious, anti-homosexual website with an obvious agenda is the
best you can do?
> > He acknowledged his effeminate mannerisms were a handicap to his
> > social acceptance, yet he could not control these mannerisms except
> > very superficially. Immutable and innate? I don't know how anybody
> > could make that determination quantitatively. But if even the
> > superficial characteristics of gender mannerisms cannot be controlled
> > in this case, how can more deeply rooted elements of one's personal
> > identity be changed?
>
> How? The best way: It's called faith. It's called the Gospel of
> Christ. That I have to tell you this tells me you are a person who
> does not understand faith because you, yourself, have no faith.
>
> I have seen faith make remarkable changes in people's lives.
Absolutely. The power of the placebo effect should never be
underestimated, nor denegrated. Faith harnessess that very well. But
so do other modalities.
> > Yes, this is only one case. It is simply an anecdote. However, I
> > think we all know effeminate males, homosexual or not, who have had to
> > live with peer abuse simply because they were not able to master the
> > norm for masculine behavior.
>
> They did not master because they did not try hard enough. I have a
> hearing and speech defect. I cannot hear the letter "r". I was
> teased terribly by children in elementary school because of this. In
> the Spelling Bee, I had to get the word "arrow" -- and had to spend
> the next three years hearing bullies taunt, "A-ah-ah-oh-w". Yet, I
> decided I would get past this behavior -- and I taught myself how to
> say "r" when it is called for -- even though I still hear "ah". What
> difference did this make in my life? I regularly speak before
> national symposiums and audiences -- with never a hint of a hearing or
> speech defect.
I am the kid that got beaten up for sticking up for the kid with the
speech impediment. I am a sucker for underdog causes. I guess that
is the liberal bleeding heart in me. Interesting that were
circumstances a little different, that I would have been the one sent
to the office for fighting instead of you.
It is unfortunate that had you lived in another part of the country,
your impediment would have been masked by a regional accent. At least
you would not have been tormented by the bullying.
I respect the fact you have made yourself vulnerable to ridicule here
by revealing that about yourself, so I will not take advantage of it.
However, Red, they are simply nowhere the same.
You are equating your overcoming speech and hearing impediments with
someone who overcame homosexuality. Not being able to distinguish
what other people can and one's feeling of attraction to whichever sex
he is attracted to are apples and orange marmelade.
The very basis of our disagreement is whether or not homosexuality is
innate. You state it is absolutely is not, and I say as far as I can
tell, it probably is, according to the experience that I have had in
talking to people who are homosexual. Of all the homosexuals that I
have talked to, including those who wished they were not, not one of
them has correlated the way you say they feel. I am in the position
of believing the sum total of this experience or you.
It's like deciding who to believe, a paraplegic describing how being
wheel chair bound feels or you.
So who should I believe?
> On the lighter side, are you really going to argue that those potato
> heads in Idaho can never unlearn being country bumpkins? ;^)
Naw. Particularly since ignorance is not something one unlearns
anymore than one can pour out the empty space in a glass. But I
recognize here that you are being facetious. I appreciate the humor.
> > You imply by removing homosexuality from the DSM, that it precipitated
> > a domino effect legalizing homosexuality in all states. I doubt that
>
> I am not implying anything, I am summarizing history as it occurred.
> Homosexual activists repeatedly made the argument, "homosexual
> behavior is not a disorder, nor is it abnormal, and that's why the APA
> removed it...."
>
> Even though the APA did so without a single *fact* before it to
> support their vote, which passed 60%-40% while homosexual activists
> literally held a bomb at their head.
I think you mean "figuratively", not "literally", unless there was an
actual explosive involved. You do have a propensity, Red, for
hyperbole so what you write is suspect. I would like to see what you
say happened written from a neutral perspective.
> The APA's action came first - then the states followed. Both were
> hounded by homosexual protestors and politicians were flooded with $3
> bills to finance their campaigns if they sided with the gay activists
> -- and protests and attacks if they opposed the activists. When was
> the last time you heard a homosxual protestor call someone a "bigot"
> or "hateful" or "intolerance" who opposed their agenda? Oh, yea,
> that's right -- you do it *all* the time.
When the shoe fits, Red. You have displayed an appalling amount of
hatred on ARM. You seem to be the only one not aware of this.
> > It is the nature of your personality, Red, (it is immutable and
> > innate, I suppose) to react extremely and vociferously to what you
> > perceive as antisocial behavior. You do this in order to effect a
> > counterweight to the social balance.
>
> It is the nature of my personality to research, form an opinion, and
> defend it vigorously.
Your opinions are consistently knee-jerk group think. You do not
present a blend of independent thought. Whenever a group of people,
be they conservative or liberal, all agree with little variation, you
can bet very few are doing any independent thinking. To paraphrase
Emerson:
Mindless consistency is the hob-goblin of small minds.
> > The problem with this type of behavior, is that it, itself, approaches
> > antisocial fringe behavior. Part of that behavior is rhetoric which
> > invariably accuses those with a more moderate, tolerant stance of
> > edging over to your opposite extreme. I remember once your accusing
> > me of "writing pro-gay all day, all night, for the past two years."
>
> Here you are, writing pro-gay. Sequitur.
And still you fail to recognize not only your own hyperbole, but my
"I-won't-join-in-your-persecution" stance as being pro-gay. That in
itself speaks volumes.
> > The hatred is so abhorent that people recoil and pull away from you.
> > Your rage then increases and becomes directed at these more moderate
> > people. You become distressed, your anger increases, and you feign an
> > "I don't care what people think" attitude, and display the bravado
> > using arrogance, often including passages telling us how smart you
> > are. In this way you effect just the opposite of your intentions as
> > people react in disgust to your extreme behavior.
>
> A "moderate" is what a liberal calls someone who caves into their
> demands and shouts of "intolerance" and "bigotry" or of "starving the
> children".
Seig Heil!
> I do not cave. I could chare less whether you call me distressed,
> angered, an extremist, or any other ad hominem.
<sigh> Time to look up "ad hominem", Red.
"In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a
really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would
actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from
them
again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should,
because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it
happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that
happened in politics or religion." -Carl Sagan
> I will simply kick back in my chair, swig another Dr. Pepper, and
> hunker up to the keyboard and post what I know to be true. If you
> have something to trade me up with -- some research that supports your
> point of view -- I will surely consider it and change my views based
> on facts accordingly.
Of course, Red.
> However, when you merely sit there and fail to do your homework (you
> admit having done no research, and being ignorant on this subject) and
> argue from utter stupidity - please pardon me while I dismiss your
> conjecture as what it is.
So you go from a smug statement of posting what you "know to be true"
to a blatant misrepresentation, "(you admit having done no research,
and being ignorant on this subject)". This speaks more eloquently to
the truth than all your claims of implied infallibility.
> > > > So on the contrary, people who hold your views who want to call it an
> > > > illness are providing an avenue to a possible mental illness defense
> > > > for these criminals. I personally do not want such predatory
> > > > behaviors protected by mental illness definitions, do you?
> > >
> > > Mental illness has never been a successful defense against a crime.
> >
> > This is patently absurd.
>
> Nope. Mentally ill are locked up all over the place -- cept those who
> are begging at the local traffic signal.
You seem to delight shooting yourself in the foot with these inane
statements, Red.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which
cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance--that principle
is
contempt prior to investigation." - Herbert Spencer, British
philosopher
Steve Lowther
"It is a fool's prerogative to utter truths that no one else will
speak."
- Shakespeare
cham
> By Lawrence Morahan
> CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
> June 11, 2003
>
> (CNSNews.com) - In a step critics charge could result in
> decriminalizing sexual contact between adults and children, the
> American Psychiatric Association (APA) recently sponsored a symposium
> in which participants discussed the removal of pedophilia from an
> upcoming edition of the psychiatric manual of mental disorders.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200306\CUL20030611c.html
A quote apropos of these assertions from the American Psychiatric
Association itself mentioned in the "CNS" piece"
"In a fact sheet on pedophilia, the APA calls the behavior "criminal
and immoral."
"An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a
criminal and immoral act that never can be considered normal or
socially acceptable behavior," the APA said."
and then this-which makes the news non-news: "Dr. Darrel A. Regier,
director of research for the APA, said there were 'no plans and there
is no process set up that would lead to the removal of the paraphilias
(n.b. where pedophilia is classed) from their consideration as
legitimate mental disorders.'"
However most of the CNS article is anti-APA filled with thunder and
lightining by Drs. Soccarides, Nicolosi, and A. Dean Byrd, vice
president of the National Association for Research and Therapy of
Homosexuality (NARTH) and a clinical professor of medicine at the
University of Utah, (he condemned the debate).
And that perhaps is what this is all about--
chuck
cham
> By Lawrence Morahan
> CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
> June 11, 2003
>
> (CNSNews.com) - In a step critics charge could result in
> decriminalizing sexual contact between adults and children, the
> American Psychiatric Association (APA) recently sponsored a symposium
> in which participants discussed the removal of pedophilia from an
> upcoming edition of the psychiatric manual of mental disorders.
>
> Psychiatrists attending an annual APA convention May 19 in San
> Francisco proposed removing several long-recognized categories of
> mental illness - including pedophilia, exhibitionism, fetishism,
> transvestism, voyeurism and sadomasochism - from the Diagnostic and
> Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).
>
> Most of the mental illnesses being considered for removal are known as
> "paraphilias."
Part of what isn't included in this quote is about the APA's actual
position on this issue:
"'In a fact sheet on pedophilia, the APA calls the behavior "criminal
and immoral."(http://www.psych.org/public_info/pedfacts2.pdf for the
fact sheet)
"An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a
criminal and immoral act that never can be considered normal or
socially acceptable behavior," the APA said.'"
and this which sort of puts the rest of the opinions on their head:
"Dr. Darrel A. Regier, director of research for the APA, said there
were "no plans and there is no process set up that would lead to the
removal of the paraphilias from their consideration as legitimate
mental disorders..."
Other experts quoted about the possibility of APA action include
Soccarides,& Nicossi. "A. Dean Byrd, vice president of the National
Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) and a
clinical professor of medicine at the University of Utah, condemned
the debate. Taking the paraphilias out of the DSM without research
would have negative consequences, he said."
So is APA really doing what these folks said they were going to do,
i.e. removing the parphilias.
Not according to APA's director. 'Tis APA's most vocal critics who
made the claim, as near as I can tell. No queers in the closet- in
fact the article from a news service that has gone out of its way to
attack APA that indicates it is the lack of queer voices that makes it
highly unlikely. Chuck
concernedmd
This story demonstrates the lack of journalistic standards in the
far-right press. The story is a fiction, composed by a reporter who
did not attend the APA session. The reporter constructed the story by
talking with others who also did not attend the session, but have an
agenda to discredit the APA. The quotes attributed to one symposium
panelist were not from the session, but rather selectively quoted from
an unpublished draft of a paper, not yet edited nor peer-reviewed,
without the consent of the author.
The actual agenda of the APA symposium was a discussion of the
diagnostic criteria of a larger chapter of the DSM, of which
pedophilia is one of many disorders. Pedophilia was mentioned only
briefly in the 3 hour session, by one non-psychiatrist critic of the
paraphilia diagnoses; that speaker supported strong criminal penalties
for pedophilia but pointed out that rapists (of adults) are not
presumed to be mentally ill. The two psychiatrists on the panel who
addressed pedophilia both strongly supported its retention as a mental
disorder.
The APA has not yet begun to write the next version of the DSM, and is
not considering altering the diagnosis of pedophilia.
cham
> caha...@yahoo.com (cham) wrote in message news:<88e74498.0306...@posting.google.com>...
> > kdavi...@hotmail.com (KDavis) wrote in message news:<fe6e030e.03061...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > they have supported the homosexuals in their quest to gain these new
> > > rights.
> > >
> > > -Red Davis
>
>
> This story demonstrates the lack of journalistic standards in the
> far-right press. The story is a fiction, composed by a reporter who
> did not attend the APA session. The reporter constructed the story by
> talking with others who also did not attend the session, but have an
> agenda to discredit the APA. The quotes attributed to one symposium
> panelist were not from the session, but rather selectively quoted from
> an unpublished draft of a paper, not yet edited nor peer-reviewed,
> without the consent of the author.
>
> The actual agenda of the APA symposium was a discussion of the
> diagnostic criteria of a larger chapter of the DSM, of which
> pedophilia is one of many disorders. Pedophilia was mentioned only
> briefly in the 3 hour session, by one non-psychiatrist critic of the
> paraphilia diagnoses; that speaker supported strong criminal penalties
> for pedophilia but pointed out that rapists (of adults) are not
> presumed to be mentally ill. The two psychiatrists on the panel who
> addressed pedophilia both strongly supported its retention as a mental
> disorder.
>
> The APA has not yet begun to write the next version of the DSM, and is
> not considering altering the diagnosis of pedophilia.
thanks for the clarification. The article did include a brief opposing
view (a nod to journalism?) but mostly looked like a non-story. I
didn't realize it was a complete propaganda piece. sorta slow of me
-duh.
Chuck
KDavis
> "KDavis" <kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fe6e030e.03061...@posting.google.com...
> > Val <v...@zkfs.com> wrote in message news:<3EE8E3EF...@zkfs.com>...
> > > > It seems to me, Red, that what those who are arguing for its snip
>
> > Val,
> > In my abnormal psychology class in college (a 400 level course) -
>
> Gee, Red, they must have changed the Texas A&M psychology courses since you
> were there. Now there are no 400 level abnormal psych classes.
My mistake, I went back and reviewed my transcript - and it was a 300
level class, Psych 306.
>
>
>
> we
> > were taught that the APA's official stance on rape is that it is *not*
> > abnormal behavior *if* the rapist feels good about it.
>
> You were mistaught. According to two psychologists here, there is no such
> stance.
Really? Well, according to the rest of the world of psychology:
"The APA's classifications of sexual deviancy gradually have shifted
from an objective description of aberrant behavior to the subjective
perception of the individual. Thus, according to DSM IV, if a person
feels no desire to change, there is no need to seek therapy."
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyPedophilia.htm
You do have access to the DSM IV, yes?
>
>
> snip
>
> >
> > BTW, my psychology professor at college? A lesbian "vampire" who
> > drinks animal blood - and human blood if she can find a donor. This
> > is the type or person that now makes up the rank and file of the APA.
> >
>
> What was her name, Red? I'd like to contact her.
I have no idea, I can only remember a few professors names -- mostly
the ones who taught me several classes, or for whom I did research.
But I will desribe her for you:
About medium height, long black hair, about mid-30's, always wore
black clothes, wore glasses - one big nut. As I thought back to those
days -- I remembered these details:
A. She opened the semester with a discussion about the Salem Witch
Trials - go figure.
B. She was *always* late to class
C. She was a strong believer in Freud - again, go figure.
-Red Davis
Lee Paulson
As a matter of fact, I do. You are not citing the APA above, you are
quoting a right-wing religious interpretation of what the APA says. Why not
go to the source? Perhaps because you will be roundly boxed about the ears.
>
> >
> >
> > snip
> >
> > >
> > > BTW, my psychology professor at college? A lesbian "vampire" who
> > > drinks animal blood - and human blood if she can find a donor. This
> > > is the type or person that now makes up the rank and file of the APA.
> > >
> >
> > What was her name, Red? I'd like to contact her.
>
> I have no idea, I can only remember a few professors names -- mostly
> the ones who taught me several classes, or for whom I did research.
Great. Another invisible Red reference. I don't believe you one bit. Find
me a name and I will contact the person and ask. Otherwise, you're once
again a laughingstock.
snip description of plenty of women walking the streets.
KDavis
[snip]
> > > > were taught that the APA's official stance on rape is that it is *not*
> > > > abnormal behavior *if* the rapist feels good about it.
> > >
> > > You were mistaught. According to two psychologists here, there is no
> such
> > > stance.
> >
> > Really? Well, according to the rest of the world of psychology:
> >
> > "The APA's classifications of sexual deviancy gradually have shifted
> > from an objective description of aberrant behavior to the subjective
> > perception of the individual. Thus, according to DSM IV, if a person
> > feels no desire to change, there is no need to seek therapy."
> > http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyPedophilia.htm
> >
> > You do have access to the DSM IV, yes?
>
> As a matter of fact, I do. You are not citing the APA above, you are
> quoting a right-wing religious interpretation of what the APA says. Why not
> go to the source? Perhaps because you will be roundly boxed about the ears.
Well, then get out your gloves, reference the DSM IV - and box my
ears. I did notice you laid claim to having the DSM-IV handy -- yet
not boxin was forth coming. Why? Well, it's because you must have
read it and noted you were wrong.
Funny thing on the way to reality -- I sat in an abnormal psyshology
class and I was taught straight out of the textbook that whether or
not a behavior was abnormal depended upon the feelings of the
individual engaging in the behavior. That if they felt good about it
-- it was normal, if they felt bad about it - it was abnormal -- and
that there were *no* abolutes to normality. That "rape was normal" if
the rapist didn't feel distressed about his/her actions, etc.,
Everything that I have read ever since has confirmed that this is the
official APA view -- save what you have posted - which is merely your
uneducated opinion and some casual comments by supposed psychologists
(perhaps even phantom persons you made up).
Do you mind if I school you?
"It is exceedingly difficult to find The definition for what
constitutes sexual deviation. There is nothing absolute about what is
appropriate sexually.....[as to abnormal behavior and homosexuality] A
person with persistent and marked distress about his/her sexual
orientation could be placed in this category."
(Lecutre 21, Sexual Disorders, Abnormal Psychology course)
http://ub-counseling.buffalo.edu/Abpsy/lecture21.html
"DSM-IV....Defines a mental disorder as behavioral or psychological
sysfunction that's associated with personal distress or impairment in
functioning or a significantly increased risk of suffering death,
pain, disability, or an important loss of freeedom *and* it's not just
an expected and culturally appropriate response to as particular
event, statistically deviant, or a conflict between the individual and
society."
(Introduction to Abnormal Psychology, Psych 3604)
http://www.psych.umn.edu/psycourses/BurtA/psy3604/Psych3604/lec1outline.pdf
So, how many college courses in abnormal psychology do I need to quote
from before you learn? Are you a slow learner and I need to quote
more?
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > snip
> > >
> > > >
> > > > BTW, my psychology professor at college? A lesbian "vampire" who
> > > > drinks animal blood - and human blood if she can find a donor. This
> > > > is the type or person that now makes up the rank and file of the APA.
> > > >
> > >
> > > What was her name, Red? I'd like to contact her.
> >
> > I have no idea, I can only remember a few professors names -- mostly
> > the ones who taught me several classes, or for whom I did research.
>
> Great. Another invisible Red reference. I don't believe you one bit. Find
> me a name and I will contact the person and ask. Otherwise, you're once
> again a laughingstock.
Quick, name all of your professors from college right here in the
white space provided below. If you fail to name each and everyone of
them -- I won't believe you one bit. I had over 80 professors in
college, and I remember a handful of their names -- most of them I did
research for, took several classes from, or have kept in professional
contact.
BTW, this is what I posted about the class on March 29, 1999:
"What I did learn in my psychology classes is that psychology can't
cure
anything. That they diagnose illnesses in fads. One decade multiple
personalities is the fad (though such has been documented almost
exclusively
one one single psychologist), the next decade its ADS. One decade
they use
what is populary called "electric shock treatment", the next decade
they
use reversion therapy.
Another thing that I learned is that psychologists, as a rule (with
some few
exceptions) are pretty *weird* people. I think that it is a classic
case
of the nuts in control of the nut house. My abnormal psycho professor
was
a "vampire". I kid you not. She dressed in all black, dyed her hair
deep
black, went to vampire socials, and particpated in vampire rituals.
The girl
who set in front of me turned to me and my friend and said, "She's a
vampire"
about the second week of class. I said, "Yes, I have heard that she
grades
very, very hard". She said, "No, I mean a real vampire". and
explained about
some things that had went on the previous semester. I am never one
for
spreading rumor, so I raised my hand and asked, "Are you a vampire?
What does
it mean to you, the description "vampire""? (Such would also give the
prof
a chance to end such rumors if they were untrue). She said, "Yes, I
am a
vampire...." and explained some of her beliefs."
Hmmm. Either I am a liar with an exceptional memory -- or I am
telling the truth. :-O
-Red Davis
KDavis
> kdavi...@hotmail.com (KDavis) wrote in message news:<fe6e030e.03061...@posting.google.com>...
> > Psychiatric Association Debates Lifting Pedophilia Taboo
> > By Lawrence Morahan
> > CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
> > June 11, 2003
> >
> > (CNSNews.com) - In a step critics charge could result in
> > decriminalizing sexual contact between adults and children, the
> > American Psychiatric Association (APA) recently sponsored a symposium
> > in which participants discussed the removal of pedophilia from an
> > upcoming edition of the psychiatric manual of mental disorders.
>
> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200306\CUL20030611c.html
>
> A quote apropos of these assertions from the American Psychiatric
> Association itself mentioned in the "CNS" piece"
>
> "In a fact sheet on pedophilia, the APA calls the behavior "criminal
> and immoral."
>
> "An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a
> criminal and immoral act that never can be considered normal or
> socially acceptable behavior," the APA said."
Except for the fact that the APA *is* discussing considering whether
it is a normal behavior. And this is not the first time. In previous
years the APA has dicussed whether or not pedophilia should be
formally recognized as a "sexual orientation" [now think of all those
laws that protect 'sexual orientation' that are on the books], they
have publised the papers by researchers in the Netherlands that found
that kids are not "harmed" by having sex with adults - and even went
further to state that such were positive experiences -- thus the taboo
should be removed.
Here, a review:
Letter by David A Mrazek, MD in response to Bauserman concerning
the Sandfort/Netherland study.
"Bauserman has reviewed my critique of the work of Theo Sandfort as
well as a
critique by Finkelhor and one by Masters and Johnson.
Unfortunately, his review is based more on emotion than reason.
Sandfort's
study is methodologically weak based on inherent sample bias, demand
characteristics of the questions, and unchecked bias of the
interviewers.
While generalizability of these results is acknowledged to be
completely
unwarranted, such generalizations are made despite the author's stated
disclaimer. Sandfort reported that selected young boys did describe
enjoying
sex with adult men, but such an assertion could have been made based
on a
series of self reports. In some ways, this is a good way to describe
this
'study' which is the compilation of solicited testimonials. These
points
were all made succinctly in my original one page review of Sandfort's
book
and remain valid criticisms.
The ethical problems of this study are particularly disturbing.
The basic question is whether appropriate human subject safeguards
were a part
of this research. This question must be addressed concretely in
proposing any
research in the U.S. Research involving children requires particularly
scrupulous attention to human subject concerns.
In this study, the researchers joined with the members of the National
Pedophile Workshops to 'study' the boys who were the sexual 'partners'
of its
members. Both this study and the National Pedophile Workshops were
financially supported by the Netherlands Association for Sexual
Reform. There
is no evidence that human subject safeguards were a paramount concern.
However, there is ample evidence that the study was politically
motivated to
'reform' legislation. Specific risks that are not even acknowledged in
the
book include contracting sexually transmitted diseases, legal
prosecution,
and breached confidentiality leading to peer discrimination and family
disruptions. These researchers knowingly colluded with the
perpetuation of
secret illegal activity. External review of their activities was
minimal.
Possible negative consequences of their course of action were
minimized
despite the reality that some of these boys were as young as eleven
years of
age. In this majority of cases, these boys' parents were unaware of
these
sexual activities with adult men, and the researchers contributed to
this
deception by their actions. These ethical concerns lead to the crux of
the
matter. Even if this study was methodologically sound, which it
certainly is
not, on moral grounds alone such 'research' cannot be sanctioned.
Children are not developmentally prepared to enter into sexual
relationshpis
on an informed and equal basis with adults. It is a basic
responsibility of
society to protect children and foster their development. These
children were
not adequately protected."
>
> and then this-which makes the news non-news: "Dr. Darrel A. Regier,
> director of research for the APA, said there were 'no plans and there
> is no process set up that would lead to the removal of the paraphilias
> (n.b. where pedophilia is classed) from their consideration as
> legitimate mental disorders.'"
>
> However most of the CNS article is anti-APA filled with thunder and
> lightining by Drs. Soccarides, Nicolosi, and A. Dean Byrd, vice
> president of the National Association for Research and Therapy of
> Homosexuality (NARTH) and a clinical professor of medicine at the
> University of Utah, (he condemned the debate).
>
> And that perhaps is what this is all about--
What this is all about is the camel getting its nose under the door to
normalize pedophilia and sex between adults and children.
No legitimate group would even discuss this issue. The APA is
concentrating on this issue.
-Red Davis
KDavis
For Lea Paulson:
>
> The actual agenda of the APA symposium was a discussion of the
> diagnostic criteria of a larger chapter of the DSM, of which
> pedophilia is one of many disorders. Pedophilia was mentioned only
> briefly in the 3 hour session, by one non-psychiatrist critic of the
> paraphilia diagnoses; that speaker supported strong criminal penalties
> for pedophilia but pointed out that rapists (of adults) are not
> presumed to be mentally ill. The two psychiatrists on the panel who
> addressed pedophilia both strongly supported its retention as a mental
> disorder.
Please note the part about rapits being normal. I thought you said
that such was not so? Your two friends lied to you.
Question: why are they even discussing whether or not it should be
retained as a mental disorder? Because -- it was suggested at the APA
convention that it be removed as a disorder. Duh!
Wake-up, McFly!
Have you ever seen a more blatant attempt to sweep the truth under the
bed?
-Red Davis
Lee Paulson
Tell me the page on which the quote appears, Red. I'm not so proud I won't
admit error. I happen to know you lifted the quote from a secondary
religious source. So consider yourself boxed.
>
> Funny thing on the way to reality -- I sat in an abnormal psyshology
> class and I was taught straight out of the textbook that whether or
> not a behavior was abnormal depended upon the feelings of the
> individual engaging in the behavior. That if they felt good about it
> -- it was normal, if they felt bad about it - it was abnormal -- and
> that there were *no* abolutes to normality. That "rape was normal" if
> the rapist didn't feel distressed about his/her actions, etc.,
So what? It was the instructor's opinion, I suppose.
>
> Everything that I have read ever since has confirmed that this is the
> official APA view -- save what you have posted - which is merely your
> uneducated opinion and some casual comments by supposed psychologists
> (perhaps even phantom persons you made up).
Like your phantom engineering accolades?
>
> Do you mind if I school you?
I am reasonably sure you can't teach anyone anything. You are so full of
hate and misinformation to buttress your hate that you have made yourself
and the church for which you are a missionary every day look foolish.
>
> > > > > BTW, my psychology professor at college? A lesbian "vampire" who
> > > > > drinks animal blood - and human blood if she can find a donor.
This
> > > > > is the type or person that now makes up the rank and file of the
APA.
snip
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > What was her name, Red? I'd like to contact her.
> > >
> > > I have no idea, I can only remember a few professors names -- mostly
> > > the ones who taught me several classes, or for whom I did research.
> >
> > Great. Another invisible Red reference. I don't believe you one bit.
Find
> > me a name and I will contact the person and ask. Otherwise, you're once
> > again a laughingstock.
>
> Quick, name all of your professors from college right here in the
> white space provided below. If you fail to name each and everyone of
> them -- I won't believe you one bit. I had over 80 professors in
> college, and I remember a handful of their names -- most of them I did
> research for, took several classes from, or have kept in professional
> contact.
The ones who I found exceptional in some form I do in fact remember. Why
don't you call the department and find out her name?
>
> BTW, this is what I posted about the class on March 29, 1999:
So what?
snip
> Hmmm. Either I am a liar with an exceptional memory
-- or I am
> telling the truth. :-O
>
> -Red Davis
Or the third most likely explanation--a homophobic lunatic liar who makes up
stories to substantiate his position.
--
Regards,
Lee, the James, uM, feminist
"It is undesirable to believe a proposition when
there is no ground whatever for supposing it true."
Bertrand Russell, 1928
> >
> >
Lee Paulson
news:<88e74498.03061...@posting.google.com>...
> > kdavi...@hotmail.com (KDavis) wrote in message
news:<fe6e030e.03061...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Psychiatric Association Debates Lifting Pedophilia Taboo
> > > By Lawrence Morahan
> > > CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
> > > June 11, 2003
> > >
>
Oh yes. Christian news. Not too slanted.
Lee Paulson
news:<b1a88caa.03061...@posting.google.com>...
> [snip]
>
> For Lea Paulson:
>
That's Lee
> >
> > The actual agenda of the APA symposium was a discussion of the
> > diagnostic criteria of a larger chapter of the DSM, of which
> > pedophilia is one of many disorders. Pedophilia was mentioned only
> > briefly in the 3 hour session, by one non-psychiatrist critic of the
> > paraphilia diagnoses; that speaker supported strong criminal penalties
> > for pedophilia but pointed out that rapists (of adults) are not
> > presumed to be mentally ill. The two psychiatrists on the panel who
> > addressed pedophilia both strongly supported its retention as a mental
> > disorder.
>
> Please note the part about rapits being normal. I thought you said
> that such was not so? Your two friends lied to you.
>
> Question: why are they even discussing whether or not it should be
> retained as a mental disorder? Because -- it was suggested at the APA
> convention that it be removed as a disorder. Duh!
>
> Wake-up, McFly!
>
> Have you ever seen a more blatant attempt to sweep the truth under the
> bed?
>
> -Red Davis
>
Red, you lie. That is not from the APA, nor from the DSM., and you know it.
dangerous 1
Lee Paulson wrote:
I think one would be on pretty firm ground to NOT believe a single thing Red has
ever claimed about himself, his education, his "daddy" or his standing in the
engineering field. I'm not so sure he is even an adult. He doesn't act like
one.
D1
KDavis
Boxed in? I have supplied references from several sources --
including the DSM IV itself, and other Abnormal Psych courses that
teach such.
What part of the reference to the DSM-IV didn't you understand?
>
>
> >
> > Funny thing on the way to reality -- I sat in an abnormal psyshology
> > class and I was taught straight out of the textbook that whether or
> > not a behavior was abnormal depended upon the feelings of the
> > individual engaging in the behavior. That if they felt good about it
> > -- it was normal, if they felt bad about it - it was abnormal -- and
> > that there were *no* abolutes to normality. That "rape was normal" if
> > the rapist didn't feel distressed about his/her actions, etc.,
>
> So what? It was the instructor's opinion, I suppose.
What part of "straight out of the textbook" didn't you understand?
>
> >
> > Everything that I have read ever since has confirmed that this is the
> > official APA view -- save what you have posted - which is merely your
> > uneducated opinion and some casual comments by supposed psychologists
> > (perhaps even phantom persons you made up).
>
> Like your phantom engineering accolades?
Yes, right, just a figment of my imagination. Given my friends and
family read my posts -- I don't think so.
>
> >
> > Do you mind if I school you?
>
> I am reasonably sure you can't teach anyone anything. You are so full of
> hate and misinformation to buttress your hate that you have made yourself
> and the church for which you are a missionary every day look foolish.
[WARNING: adult content]
Ah, yes, the old and worn out argument that only those who accept as
normal the behavior of a man placing his penis in another man's anus
are caring, loving, and compassionate people. Let's not forge they
also stick their fist up there too.
And not just that, in order to be truly loving and compassionate, a
person must elevate anal intercourse between perverts to be nothing
less then the equal of marriage and family.
But, don't stop there -- we must also be willing to allow these
sexually deviant people to teach our children about their sick
behaviors in the hopes that they can induce "questioning youth" to
experiment with aberrant sexual behavior, to let homosexuals be
Scoutmasters to our young sons and take them on overnight campouts,
and to champion the rights of adult homosexuals to have sex with
children.
Ah, if only Red could be such a loving person and accept homosexual
behavior as normal -- in spite of homosexual behavior's consequences
to the individuals involved and to society as a whole. How hateful
Red must be to remind us that 600,000 Americans have died from
HIV/AIDS who were infected by homosexual behavior. How bigoted Red
must be to remind us that homosexuals founded the North American
Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), that several homosexual/pedophile
groups were members of the International Lesbian and Gay Assocication
(ILGA), and that homosexuals are disproportionately represented within
the known pedophile group by a a number that is 15-20 times greater
than their incidence in the general population.
Can't Red just let 2% of the population completely redefine normalcy,
the family, and acceptable sexual behavior through missinformation,
deceit, and political terrorism? Can't Red see it in his heart to let
the homophiles continue to lie and send out dissinformation that
feigns homosexuals are "born that way", make up "10%" of the
population, and are not any more promiscuious (though a typical
homosexual has over 300 different sexual partners) then others, and
that homosexuals surely are not mentally or emotionally ill (despite
that the overwhelming scientic evidence suggests they are)?
That Red guy, what a homophobic bigot. Can't he see the beauty of
Sodom and Gommarrah? Ancient Rome and Greece? San Francisco's sex
clubs?
Red is one mixed up dude!
:-O
>
> >
> > > > > > BTW, my psychology professor at college? A lesbian "vampire" who
> > > > > > drinks animal blood - and human blood if she can find a donor.
> This
> > > > > > is the type or person that now makes up the rank and file of the
> APA.
>
> snip
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What was her name, Red? I'd like to contact her.
> > > >
> > > > I have no idea, I can only remember a few professors names -- mostly
> > > > the ones who taught me several classes, or for whom I did research.
> > >
> > > Great. Another invisible Red reference. I don't believe you one bit.
> Find
> > > me a name and I will contact the person and ask. Otherwise, you're once
> > > again a laughingstock.
> >
> > Quick, name all of your professors from college right here in the
> > white space provided below. If you fail to name each and everyone of
> > them -- I won't believe you one bit. I had over 80 professors in
> > college, and I remember a handful of their names -- most of them I did
> > research for, took several classes from, or have kept in professional
> > contact.
>
> The ones who I found exceptional in some form I do in fact remember. Why
> don't you call the department and find out her name?
> >
> > BTW, this is what I posted about the class on March 29, 1999:
>
> So what?
Well, 4 years ago I posted the same basic decription, the same basic
facts, describing the same psychology class. Consistent testimony is
a sign of truth. Or, do you think that I went back and refreshed
myself up on that previous post before I posted a description of the
class a few weeks ago - just in case it might be helpful?
>
>
> snip
>
> > Hmmm. Either I am a liar with an exceptional memory
>
> -- or I am
> > telling the truth. :-O
> >
> > -Red Davis
>
>
> Or the third most likely explanation--a homophobic lunatic liar who makes up
> stories to substantiate his position.
Well, given you have not been able to prove anywhere or anything that
I have lied about -- I would say that your judgement above is rather
hateful and bigoted. What would you say?
-Red Davis
KDavis
Hey, Lee, get a reality check. A third person (not me) made the post
above trying to defend the APA's position on normalcy and pedophilia.
What did this third person post was the APA's *official* position on
rape?
Said the *defender* of the APA: "rapists (of adults) are not presumed
to be mentally ill".
Now, what did I explicitly state was taught in my Abnormal Psychology
class, directly from the textbook? That the APA's position is that
"rape" is not an abnormal behavior if the rapist feels good about it!
Now, let me ask you this question: If the definition of "normal" and
"abnormal" is based primarily on how the person engaging in the
behavior views it (i.e., they either feel good about it, or they are
distressed by it) -- please differentiate for us what would be the
difference between a person who rapes an adult - and a person who
rapes a child -- if both rapists feel good about it?
Answer: not one damn thing. And that is exactly why the APA *must*
take the next step and vote that pedophilia is not a mental illness.
The effort to remove pedophilia off the list of disorders dates back
to the mid 1970's. Slowly but surely they are moving in that
direction. They have research (done by homosexuals) that has
determined that pedophilia is a "sexual orientation", they have
research (done by homosexuals) that has reported that children are not
injured by having sex with adults, and now they have research (done by
homosexuals) that pedophilia is not a mental illness.
And the beat of the homosexual drum to rape our children goes on.
-Red Davis
cham
> [snip]
>
> For Lea Paulson:
>
> >
> > The actual agenda of the APA symposium was a discussion of the
> > diagnostic criteria of a larger chapter of the DSM, of which
> > pedophilia is one of many disorders. Pedophilia was mentioned only
> > briefly in the 3 hour session, by one non-psychiatrist critic of the
> > paraphilia diagnoses; that speaker supported strong criminal penalties
> > for pedophilia but pointed out that rapists (of adults) are not
> > presumed to be mentally ill. The two psychiatrists on the panel who
> > addressed pedophilia both strongly supported its retention as a mental
> > disorder.
>
> Please note the part about rapits being normal. I thought you said
> that such was not so? Your two friends lied to you.
>
> Question: why are they even discussing whether or not it should be
> retained as a mental disorder? Because -- it was suggested at the APA
> convention that it be removed as a disorder. Duh!
But Red, your headline on this thread indicates that the APA was
considering removing something different. That, it turns out, is not
true. It's a made up issue, made up by the right wing press. There
isn't a process in place, nor revisions being considered according to
the APA spokesman. The poster concernedMD sounded like an informed,
Edward R. Murrow type of report...It's not clear anyone quoted in the
article (nor the reporter) even attended. except the APA spokesman.
The logic of the CNS article & your comment to Lee Paulson seems to
go something like this-I attend a professional conference and say "I
think we ought to stop publishing research on the QWERTY keyboard,.
I'm on a panel or making a presentation, or maybe just answering a
question, or asserting my opinion from the panel ..that means whatever
group sponsors the conference is "considering" banning such research?
Nope, that's not how organizations work.( I've been involved in a
couple a national orgs. & know something of standards setting ) The
premise of teh article shows an alarmy headline. ( I noticed my
misspellings, but sorta like them)
It looks like someone might have (perhaps in a discussion or question
period? which tends to have people saying all sorts of things-even in
professional meetings) said something about violent sex offenders. But
I wasn't there, so I really don't know.
I'd hate to see some of the things I've said in national and
international panel discussions be considered as policy directons or
actual implementations for the organzations !
There isn't any evidence the spokesperson was lying about the APA
reconsidering parafilia definitions in DSM, just inuenendo and
dissimilation from Nicolosi, Saccarides and the guy from NARTH. thus
the headline and yours.
So the question really is what's the agenda of the article? hmm.
wonder what that could be? Discredit the APA perhaps? I wonder why?
Perhaps because there is no real evidence supporting those outcomes of
reparative therapy which those quoted champion?
Old tactic, paint whomever you consider your enemy with enough garbage
and maybe someone will believe you-I think the previous Bush had
something to do with bringing that tactic to the national stage.
Willie Horton wasn't it?
>
> Wake-up, McFly!
wake up? snore.
>
> Have you ever seen a more blatant attempt to sweep the truth under the
> bed?
Regularly-
>
> -Red Davis
Hey Red-you do keep the old pot a' boilin'. How's the weather in Aggie
land? We are having some wierd stuff in the east.
Lest anyone be in doubt, I am homo (not just a homophile) and over
50. Its no secret I disagree strongly with most of your assumptions,
.. I'll try to be logical and cool answering, but I may get into
hyperbole -Ill try not to. And since you've spent so much time on
gathering your ammo, I may be much slower responding. I've read most
of your posts and will respond to some later.
Didn't you once post a lengthy article on all queers die at 40-or was
that 50?-I must be an anomaly -It was evidence derived from examining
obits in the Advocate if I remember correctly. I hope you know what
the problem was methodologically with that?
Do you know the Christian Reconstructionists?
You might want to look at them if you don't; The movement is the
theological godfather for most of the ideological/political/research
groups, think tanks, etc. coming out of the extreme right on all
things they consider unchristian. but democratic it ain't and the
future they are working toward is pretty terrifying (with some
implications for believing LDS-)
cheers
Chuck-formerly of LSU.
Taiki
> including the DSM IV itself, and other Abnormal Psych courses that
> teach such.
>
> What part of the reference to the DSM-IV didn't you understand?
What refrence? The only refrence here is one made by orthodoxy today, and
orthodoxy today uses a REALLY misleading quote.
"...clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational,
or other important areas of functioning. " Could mean ANYTHING. Either
they're intellectually dishonest, or they made a mistake. Given that I do
not have a copy to review, I can only consider this highly misleading.
Quotes should be able to stand alone. Boxed.
-taiki
cham
Try reading that paragraph again Red:
> > > > Pedophilia was mentioned only
> > > > briefly in the 3 hour session, by one non-psychiatrist critic of the
> > > > paraphilia diagnoses; that speaker supported strong criminal penalties
> > > > for pedophilia but pointed out that rapists (of adults) are not
> > > > presumed to be mentally ill.
This was NOT a psychiatrist speaking.
and then this
The two psychiatrists on the panel who
> > > > addressed pedophilia both strongly supported its retention as a mental
> > > > disorder.
Clear?
you cannot infer from those sentences anything that you did infer.
Neither the newspost you cited at the beginning of this thread nor the
paragaph above supports your position about anything the APA "must"
do. Its fiction. They aren't considering re-defining. they are not
re-writing DSM at the moment. We have that even in the original
post,your post, from the APA spokesperson direct. That's a better
source than what you think or what niccolosi and soccarides opine. you
always consider the source in your posts on mormon history. try it
here.
Many gays are raising children, and would be as angry as you are if
their children were harmed. I would have been ready to kill if that
had happened.
Chuck
> >
> -Red Davis
Lee Paulson
The page number in the DSM, Red. The direct quote from the APA. Come on,
you're world reknowned. You know what a primary source is.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Funny thing on the way to reality -- I sat in an abnormal psyshology
> > > class and I was taught straight out of the textbook that whether or
> > > not a behavior was abnormal depended upon the feelings of the
> > > individual engaging in the behavior. That if they felt good about it
> > > -- it was normal, if they felt bad about it - it was abnormal -- and
> > > that there were *no* abolutes to normality. That "rape was normal" if
> > > the rapist didn't feel distressed about his/her actions, etc.,
> >
> > So what? It was the instructor's opinion, I suppose.
>
> What part of "straight out of the textbook" didn't you understand?
What text, Red? Oh, I know. You can't remember. You had many texts in
college. Hey! Why don't you CALL Texas A&M and ask who taught the course
in 19xx when you were there? Then you'd have the name of the instructor and
you could call and ask for the name of the text.
You do remember how to research a topic, don't you?
Or, if you like, I will be at Texas A&M next month. I could stop in and
ask. Give me the year you took the course, Red.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Everything that I have read ever since has confirmed that this is the
> > > official APA view -- save what you have posted - which is merely your
> > > uneducated opinion and some casual comments by supposed psychologists
> > > (perhaps even phantom persons you made up).
> >
> > Like your phantom engineering accolades?
>
> Yes, right, just a figment of my imagination. Given my friends and
> family read my posts -- I don't think so.
What are they, Red? Those accolades, not your friends and family.
>
> >
h.
snip Red's strawman
> > >
> > > BTW, this is what I posted about the class on March 29, 1999:
> >
> > So what?
>
> Well, 4 years ago I posted the same basic decription, the same basic
> facts, describing the same psychology class. Consistent testimony is
> a sign of truth.
OH MY GOSH! Then all the anti-Mormons are speaking the truth! And Darrick
Evenson speaks the truth! And L. Ron Hubbard spoke the truth!
> >
> > Or the third most likely explanation--a homophobic lunatic liar who
makes up
> > stories to substantiate his position.
>
> Well, given you have not been able to prove anywhere or anything that
> I have lied about -- I would say that your judgement above is rather
> hateful and bigoted. What would you say?
>
You have yet to prove anything you say. You just post your right-wing
public misinformation and refuse to read the actual material or post it.
You are going to be mighty disappointed when your children grow up.
Assuming your children aren't in the same category as your engineernig
accolades, that is.
Lee Paulson
Oh, I see. Now we backtrack from your title of the thread. Now whether I
have a DSM IV at my disposal is irrelevant.
You're a very, very sick man, Red.
snip weaseling.
KDavis
> > > Red, you lie. That is not from the APA, nor from the DSM., and you know
> it.
> >
> > Hey, Lee, get a reality check. A third person (not me) made the post
> > above trying to defend the APA's position on normalcy and pedophilia.
> > What did this third person post was the APA's *official* position on
> > rape?
> >
>
> Oh, I see. Now we backtrack from your title of the thread. Now whether I
> have a DSM IV at my disposal is irrelevant.
Why do you persist in cutting my posts in order to build straw men for
you to argue against?
I stated originally, and I have stated such in each of my posts in
this thread, and I state it now: the APA is seeking to modify and
remove pedophilia from its list of disorders.
The "third person" mentioned above is a person who posted in an
attempt to defend the APA that admitted that this body of lunatics
defines the act of rape as "normal" if the rapist is not distressed by
their behavior.
The APA does not seek to address nor understand what abnormal thoughts
and processes would lead a person to commit such a heinous act of
violence on another person. Instead, they have stated as
psychological fact, that the thought process that lead the person to
commit the rape are normal -- as long as they were happy thoughts.
The fact that the act of rape is a violent act recognized as criminal
behavior has nothing to do with defining thoughts or behavior as
normal -- according to the APA.
Now, I will post once again (only for you to ignore and clip out)
other course material from Abnormal Psychology classes that tow the
APA line that "normal" is defined by the perception of the patient --
not the finding of the doctor.
"It is exceedingly difficult to find The definition for what
constitutes sexual deviation. There is nothing absolute about what is
appropriate sexually.....[as to abnormal behavior and homosexuality] A
person with persistent and marked distress about his/her sexual
orientation could be placed in this category."
(Lecutre 21, Sexual Disorders, Abnormal Psychology course)
http://ub-counseling.buffalo.edu/Abpsy/lecture21.html
"DSM-IV....Defines a mental disorder as behavioral or psychological
sysfunction that's associated with personal distress or impairment in
functioning or a significantly increased risk of suffering death,
pain, disability, or an important loss of freeedom *and* it's not just
an expected and culturally appropriate response to as particular
event, statistically deviant, or a conflict between the individual and
society."
(Introduction to Abnormal Psychology, Psych 3604)
http://www.psych.umn.edu/psycourses/BurtA/psy3604/Psych3604/lec1outline.pdf
Are you claiming that my college textbook lied about what the APA
teaches? That these two courses lie?
>
> You're a very, very sick man, Red.
Typical ad hominem coupled with straw men. The only response liberals
know: pound the table and personally attack those who disagree with
you when the facts are not on your side.
You have done a lot of table pounding and engaged in a lot of hate
speech during this "discussion". My, how intolerant the "tolerant"
are.
Now, back to the American Pervert Association (APA)'s decision to open
the door to removing pedophilia from their list of disorders. Let's
recount their history:
1. They removed homosexual behavior from their list of disorders as
written in DSM-II based on political reaction in the face of violent
protests by homosexual activists. Not a single study or research
paper was presented in order to suppor the vote, that went 60%-40% to
remove homosexuality from the list of disorders.
2. In conjunction with that direction of thought - that homosexual
behavior is not abnormal, they have redefined normal as any behavior
which the person engaging in the behavior feels good about, and does
not present an immediate threat of life or danger to their health (the
health of the individual engaging in the behavior).
3. To embrace their new definition of normal -- they have defined the
act of rape as "normal" if the rapist feels good about it.
Now:
Homosexuals claim they are "born that way" - pedophiles also claim
they are "born that way".
Homosexuals claim their behavior is a "sexual orientation" --
pedophiles also claim their condition is a "sexual orientation".
Homosexuals claim their behavior makes them feel good -- pedophiles
also make the claim.
What is the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia with
respect to the APA's definition of "normal"?
Answer: not one damn thing. Thus, they are either going to have to
throw homosexuality back on the DSM-IV as a disorder, or they are
going to have to remove pedophilia. The momentum and the push is to
remove pedophilia.
As I have stated -- they have already accepted and reviewed studies
conducted by homosexuals that asserted that children are not harmed by
sex with adults, that pedophilia is an orientation -- and now -- that
pedophilia should be removed from the list of disorders as it is
nothing more than a twin of homosexuality.
>
> snip weaseling.
Now, respond with some facts, can you?
-Red Davis
Nathan Packer
You never did take an Abnormal Psychology class. You are just making
this up. Give us the textbook name and ISBN. Tell us the name of the
teacher.
>
>Now, let me ask you this question: If the definition of "normal" and
>"abnormal" is based primarily on how the person engaging in the
>behavior views it (i.e., they either feel good about it, or they are
>distressed by it) -- please differentiate for us what would be the
>difference between a person who rapes an adult - and a person who
>rapes a child -- if both rapists feel good about it?
>
>Answer: not one damn thing. And that is exactly why the APA *must*
>take the next step and vote that pedophilia is not a mental illness.
>The effort to remove pedophilia off the list of disorders dates back
>to the mid 1970's. Slowly but surely they are moving in that
>direction. They have research (done by homosexuals) that has
>determined that pedophilia is a "sexual orientation", they have
>research (done by homosexuals) that has reported that children are not
>injured by having sex with adults, and now they have research (done by
>homosexuals) that pedophilia is not a mental illness.
>
>And the beat of the homosexual drum to rape our children goes on.
The beat of Red's anal drum goes on, and Red is fixated on rape and
anal intercouse, and anal intercourse, and anal intercourse and
"Warning Adult Content" and anal intercourse, and HIV and HIV and
pedophilia, and on and on and on. He is fixated. Anal intercourse
consumes him. Child rape is in his head constantly. He will tell us
how it consumes him. Again, and Again. Anal, Anal, Anal...
Messing with your mind Red. Another large company just awarded
benefits to a domestic partner. Ahhhhhh. The voices, the pain. Now,
tell us again....
Nathan Packer
>"Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<bcuvd5$nb737$1...@ID-146277.news.dfncis.de>...
>> "KDavis" <kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>[snip]
>> > > Red, you lie. That is not from the APA, nor from the DSM., and you know
>> it.
>> >
>> > Hey, Lee, get a reality check. A third person (not me) made the post
>> > above trying to defend the APA's position on normalcy and pedophilia.
>> > What did this third person post was the APA's *official* position on
>> > rape?
>> >
>>
>> Oh, I see. Now we backtrack from your title of the thread. Now whether I
>> have a DSM IV at my disposal is irrelevant.
>
>Why do you persist in cutting my posts in order to build straw men for
>you to argue against?
Your drivel is so easy to cut. If we missed anything (missed
anything?) we could always pick up your tirade in another post.
>
>I stated originally, and I have stated such in each of my posts in
>this thread, and I state it now: the APA is seeking to modify and
>remove pedophilia from its list of disorders.
And you can state in again and again - anally intercoursed, of course
>
[snip, snip, snip]
>
>Now, I will post once again (only for you to ignore and clip out)
>other course material from Abnormal Psychology classes that tow the
>APA line that "normal" is defined by the perception of the patient --
>not the finding of the doctor.
Neither of your quoted material says that normal is defined by the
perception of the patient. Red you liar.
>
>"It is exceedingly difficult to find The definition for what
>constitutes sexual deviation. There is nothing absolute about what is
>appropriate sexually.....[as to abnormal behavior and homosexuality] A
>person with persistent and marked distress about his/her sexual
>orientation could be placed in this category."
>(Lecutre 21, Sexual Disorders, Abnormal Psychology course)
>http://ub-counseling.buffalo.edu/Abpsy/lecture21.html
If you are going to quote, you really should do it properly. I would
think that a mighty engineer could quote without using ellipsis to
change the meaning and intent of the lecture notes
I thought you took the abnormal psych course at that august
institution in Texas. But, you really didn't take a course did you.
>
>"DSM-IV....Defines a mental disorder as behavioral or psychological
>sysfunction that's associated with personal distress or impairment in
>functioning or a significantly increased risk of suffering death,
>pain, disability, or an important loss of freeedom *and* it's not just
>an expected and culturally appropriate response to as particular
>event, statistically deviant, or a conflict between the individual and
>society."
>(Introduction to Abnormal Psychology, Psych 3604)
>http://www.psych.umn.edu/psycourses/BurtA/psy3604/Psych3604/lec1outline.pdf
>
OK little man. Just how does this quote get you worked up?
>Are you claiming that my college textbook lied about what the APA
>teaches? That these two courses lie?
Why no Red. We don't know from lying textbook or what the APA teaches.
All we know for absolute surety is that YOU lie.
>
>>
>> You're a very, very sick man, Red.
>
>Typical ad hominem coupled with straw men. The only response liberals
>know: pound the table and personally attack those who disagree with
>you when the facts are not on your side.
There you go again. Nobody has to pound the table to work themselves
up to show you to be a liar. See I called you a prevaricator and never
once pounded on the table. It is just to easy.
>
>You have done a lot of table pounding and engaged in a lot of hate
>speech during this "discussion". My, how intolerant the "tolerant"
>are.
[snip] I snipped the remainder of your rant, Red. I saw no need to
retain this drivel when almost every post or yours has the same.
cham
> "Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<bcuvd5$nb737$1...@ID-146277.news.dfncis.de>...
> > "KDavis" <kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> [snip]
> > > > Red, you lie. That is not from the APA, nor from the DSM., and you know
> it.
> > >
> > > Hey, Lee, get a reality check. A third person (not me) made the post
> > > above trying to defend the APA's position on normalcy and pedophilia.
> > > What did this third person post was the APA's *official* position on
> > > rape?
> > >
> >
> > Oh, I see. Now we backtrack from your title of the thread. Now whether I
> > have a DSM IV at my disposal is irrelevant.
"logic" cut-creating a strawman and attacking it..
> Why do you persist in cutting my posts in order to build straw men for
> you to argue against?
>>
> >
> > snip weaseling.
>
> Now, respond with some facts, can you?
Red asks for facts. How about one of the poster boys of the extreme
religious right on the solution to the homosexual problem, Paul
Cameron (you all remember his "studies" ?
"'Unless we get medically lucky, in three or four years,
one of the options discussed will be the extermination of
homosexuals."
Dr. Paul Cameron, a "scientist" often quoted by religious right groups
(see below),speaking at the 1985 Conservative Political Action
Conference according to an interview with former Surgeon General C.
Everett Koop. (in about as many places on the web as some of the
anti-gay stuff)--must be true huh?? I've yet to figure out where this
was actually written down, I haven't been able to find the Koop
interview. If anyone has a solid source, I'd like to see it-- but,
like I said, must be true--its all over the web.
So what's the agenda in extreme right circles and the endless attempt
to take what people didn't say and create a straw-man position to
attack, as the original "news" report did on this thread? (sort of
like the debating stance taken above)...the post on what the APA might
be -surely IS up to, is typical of right wing logic ala Cameron. Take
this example :
"It was on May 3, 1982, that he (Paul Cameron) really hit stride,
telling an audience at the University of Nebraska Lutheran Chapel:
"Right now, here in Lincoln, there is a four-year-old boy who has had
his genitals almost severed from his body at Gateway [mall] in a
restroom with a homosexual act."
Cameron's statement prompted an uproar in the city; police, however,
had no record of such an incident. Cameron finally acknowledged that
it was only a rumor, but he argued it "could have happened." The
Lincoln Star blasted Cameron as irresponsible but noted that the
damage to the gay-rights movement was done, saying, "The seed is
planted, recantation to the contrary."
http://www.10percent.org/facts_cameron_smile1.html-apparently
originally published in the NY times (has NY Times copyright on the
posted article) If someone really really wants, they can check NYTIMES
site search engine for date of original.
the original source of many of the inflamatory claims about gays
seems to be this same Paul Cameron (he is dead, but his son carries on
the good work)
Cameron claimed variously:
Out of all the mass-murders in the US over the past seventeen years,
homosexuals killed at least 68% of the victims.
Homosexuals perpetrate between a third and a half of all recorded
child molestations.
37% of homosexuals engage in sado-masochism.
29% of homosexuals urinate on their partners.
17% ingest human feces.
The average life span of a homosexual is 39 years; fewer than 2%
survive to the age of 65.
the source of this list is a queer web source
http://www.geocities.com/ninure/cameron.html
but you've all seen most of these claims here on ARM. I could cite
similar posts here-though they don't always trace the source.
Cameron was one of the founders of the FRI so called Family Research
Insitute, which is still alive, promoting hatred and rage. This stuff
has been discredited repeatedly. (and answered repeatedly on ARM)
for real help in addressing the problem of child molestation, one of
the books often recommended is "Identifying Child Molesters:
Preventing Child Sexual Abuse by Recognizing the Patterns of the
Offenders"by Carla van Dam, PhD Clinical and Forensic Psychologist,
State of Washington. Oprah Winfrey has recommended it. Its published
by Haworth press.
"The first book of its kind, this book PROVIDES READERS WITH A
DETAILED UNDERSTANDING of the history and impact of child sexual
abuse. . . . Dr. van Dam provides a glimpse into our failure to
confront child abuse in an effective manner and does an excellent job
of helping lay people understand the 組rooming' tactics that offenders
use on children and adults. . . . OFFERS PRACTICAL STRATEGIES TO
IDENTIFY AND CONFRONT CHILD MOLESTERS." The Oprah Show Web Site
http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/tows_2002/tows_past_20020426_g.jhtml
Exceprts from the first 20 pages or so are available at:
http://www.haworthpressinc.com/store/SampleText/2082.pdf
Chuck
Lest we forget:
"Of course, not all homosexuals are pedophiles,indeed the majority are
not."
Red Davis
From: smar...@my-dejanews.com
Subject: Re: There is life on the Red Planet
Date: 1999/04/12
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7es696%242ae%241%40nnrp1.dejanews.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
> -Red Davis
Bob
<kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<bcuvd5$nb737$1...@ID-146277.news.dfncis.de>...
> > "KDavis" <kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> [snip]
> > > > Red, you lie. That is not from the APA, nor from the DSM., and you know
> > it.
> > >
> > > Hey, Lee, get a reality check. A third person (not me) made the post
> > > above trying to defend the APA's position on normalcy and pedophilia.
> > > What did this third person post was the APA's *official* position on
> > > rape?
> > >
> >
> > Oh, I see. Now we backtrack from your title of the thread. Now whether I
> > have a DSM IV at my disposal is irrelevant.
>
Gosh Kevin, I come back and find you up to old tricks again.
> Why do you persist in cutting my posts in order to build straw men for
> you to argue against?
My,.. pot kettle black. Your messages have been masterpieces of
'selective response' for years.
>
> I stated originally, and I have stated such in each of my posts in
> this thread, and I state it now: the APA is seeking to modify and
> remove pedophilia from its list of disorders.
And you have provided no proof that this is indeed the case. In fact,
all evidence indicates they are doing no such thing.
>
> The "third person" mentioned above is a person who posted in an
> attempt to defend the APA that admitted that this body of lunatics
> defines the act of rape as "normal" if the rapist is not distressed by
> their behavior.
"normal"? You mean not a psychological pathology?
Real slow Kevin, criminal activity can exist without there necessarily
being psychological pathology associated with it. It actually seems
odd to me that you are supporting such a contention, what with your
history.
>
> The APA does not seek to address nor understand what abnormal thoughts
> and processes would lead a person to commit such a heinous act of
> violence on another person. Instead, they have stated as
> psychological fact, that the thought process that lead the person to
> commit the rape are normal -- as long as they were happy thoughts.
Show of hands here that think this is about 20 rounds of 'telegraph'
way from what the APA really does contend?
> The fact that the act of rape is a violent act recognized as criminal
> behavior has nothing to do with defining thoughts or behavior as
> normal -- according to the APA.
You state the obvious Kevin. You again seem to be saying that criminal
activity MUST be the result of psychological pathology. Is this really
what you think? You really can't think of a situation where someone
without psychological pathology could commit a nonconsenual sex act
with someone else?
Again, the notion that all criminal activity is based on 'illness'
seems to be 180 degrees away from the POV I'd have thought you'd
support.
>
> Now, I will post once again (only for you to ignore and clip out)
> other course material from Abnormal Psychology classes that tow the
> APA line that "normal" is defined by the perception of the patient --
> not the finding of the doctor.
>
> "It is exceedingly difficult to find The definition for what
> constitutes sexual deviation. There is nothing absolute about what is
> appropriate sexually.....[as to abnormal behavior and homosexuality] A
> person with persistent and marked distress about his/her sexual
> orientation could be placed in this category."
> (Lecutre 21, Sexual Disorders, Abnormal Psychology course)
> http://ub-counseling.buffalo.edu/Abpsy/lecture21.html
>
> "DSM-IV....Defines a mental disorder as behavioral or psychological
> sysfunction that's associated with personal distress or impairment in
> functioning or a significantly increased risk of suffering death,
> pain, disability, or an important loss of freeedom *and* it's not just
> an expected and culturally appropriate response to as particular
> event, statistically deviant, or a conflict between the individual and
> society."
> (Introduction to Abnormal Psychology, Psych 3604)
> http://www.psych.umn.edu/psycourses/BurtA/psy3604/Psych3604/lec1outline.pdf
>
> Are you claiming that my college textbook lied about what the APA
> teaches? That these two courses lie?
No it just seems that you are still confusing lack of mental disorder
with 'legal', ethical' and 'moral'. All areas that the psychological
sciences don't deal with.
> > You're a very, very sick man, Red.
>
> Typical ad hominem coupled with straw men. The only response liberals
> know: pound the table and personally attack those who disagree with
> you when the facts are not on your side.
Oh Kevin, you personally attack so many people it is again difficult to
understand your complaints when its turned around. And in this
situation YOU are the liberal - at least in your seeming support for
the idea that all criminal activity is the result of psychological
pathology.
>
> You have done a lot of table pounding and engaged in a lot of hate
> speech during this "discussion". My, how intolerant the "tolerant"
> are.
<yawn> so you are all equally intolerant. Level playing field, next...
>
> Now, back to the American Pervert
Gosh, really working at having an adult conversation here, aren't you
Kevin?
> Association (APA)'s decision to open
> the door to removing pedophilia from their list of disorders. Let's
> recount their history:
>
> 1. They removed homosexual behavior from their list of disorders as
> written in DSM-II based on political reaction in the face of violent
> protests by homosexual activists.
Not true - they did so on the studies that showed there was no
intrinsic pathology associated with homosexuality.
> Not a single study or research
> paper was presented in order to suppor the vote, that went 60%-40% to
> remove homosexuality from the list of disorders.
Is that the way APA votes work Kevin? No? You knew that? Typical
misdirection on your part. There were though many studies that showed
that there was no intrinsic mental pathology associated with
homosexuality. You aren't trying imply this body was unaware of these
studies, are you?
> 2. In conjunction with that direction of thought
i.e., as I now try and lead you down the primrose path....
> - that homosexual
> behavior is not abnormal, they have redefined normal as any behavior
> which the person engaging in the behavior feels good about, and does
> not present an immediate threat of life or danger to their health (the
> health of the individual engaging in the behavior).
Ergo, to whit, end of proof. Of course your interpretation of what is
happening has no correlation with reality, but that's never stopped you
in the past, has it?
> 3. To embrace their new definition of normal -- they have defined the
> act of rape as "normal" if the rapist feels good about it.
>
> Now:
>
> Homosexuals claim they are "born that way" - pedophiles also claim
> they are "born that way".
>
> Homosexuals claim their behavior is a "sexual orientation" --
> pedophiles also claim their condition is a "sexual orientation".
>
> Homosexuals claim their behavior makes them feel good -- pedophiles
> also make the claim.
>
> What is the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia with
> respect to the APA's definition of "normal"?
You realize you could substitute the word 'heterosexual' for
'homosexual' and be asking the very same question, yes?
Kevin, how can you not recognize your statements as transparent
demagoguery?
>
> Answer: not one damn thing. Thus, they are either going to have to
> throw homosexuality back on the DSM-IV as a disorder, or they are
> going to have to remove pedophilia. The momentum and the push is to
> remove pedophilia.
>
> As I have stated -- they have already accepted and reviewed studies
> conducted by homosexuals that asserted that children are not harmed by
> sex with adults
Yes, you are sure all sex researchers are homosexual. We all know that
<sigh>
Of course you misrepresent what the studies did find - that not ALL
children are psychologically harmed by sex with adults. i.e. is every
child who has sex with an adult been traumatized and damaged by this
contact? All the study found was that not all were, that's it.
This is hardly a shock - not all victims of other criminal acts are
psychologically harmed either. That doesn't make the criminal act any
more ethical, or moral, or legal. But it does mean that psychological
workers evaluating the victims of such activities need to determine
both qualitatively and quantitatively the extent of the injury.
> , that pedophilia is an orientation -- and now -- that
> pedophilia should be removed from the list of disorders as it is
> nothing more than a twin of homosexuality.
And heterosexuality. Or just about any other activity you would care
to mention. Your primrose path is way too wide Kevin, it could be used
to make ANYTHING a 'slippery slope' to embracing pedophilia.
That you chooses to only paint homosexuality with this broadbrush is
more telling about your 'mental order' than anything else. As usual.
I guess in this particular instance its NOT nice to know that
somethings never change.
€R.L. Measures
> In article <fe6e030e.03062...@posting.google.com>, KDavis
> <kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:<bcuvd5$nb737$1...@ID-146277.news.dfncis.de>...
> > > "KDavis" <kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > [snip]
> > > > > Red, you lie. That is not from the APA, nor from the DSM., and
you know
> > > it.
> > > >
> > > > Hey, Lee, get a reality check. A third person (not me) made the post
> > > > above trying to defend the APA's position on normalcy and pedophilia.
> > > > What did this third person post was the APA's *official* position on
> > > > rape?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Oh, I see. Now we backtrack from your title of the thread. Now whether I
> > > have a DSM IV at my disposal is irrelevant.
> >
>
> Gosh Kevin, I come back and find you up to old tricks again.
>
> > Why do you persist in cutting my posts in order to build straw men for
> > you to argue against?
>
> My,.. pot kettle black. Your messages have been masterpieces of
> 'selective response' for years.
>
€ for Red, this is SOP.
--
Rich, AG6K, 805 386 3734, www.vcnet.com/measures
remove ^ from e-mail address
KDavis
> > Association (APA)'s decision to open
> > the door to removing pedophilia from their list of disorders. Let's
> > recount their history:
> >
> > 1. They removed homosexual behavior from their list of disorders as
> > written in DSM-II based on political reaction in the face of violent
> > protests by homosexual activists.
>
> Not true - they did so on the studies that showed there was no
> intrinsic pathology associated with homosexuality.
Bob,
Why don't you post those "studies" right here in this white space:
Whitespace for Bob to post these mythical "studies" that were used by
the APA to base their 60%-40% vote to remove homosexuality from their
list of disorders:
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
Now, Bob, given not even the APA makes such a claim that they had
reviewed such studies, how can you make such a claim? The only study
on the subject completed prior to 1972 was one entitled something
like, "The Well Adjusted Homosexual Male" - and it was resoundly
rejected by the scientific community on peer review.
So, where are all of these studies?
>
> > Not a single study or research
> > paper was presented in order to suppor the vote, that went 60%-40% to
> > remove homosexuality from the list of disorders.
>
> Is that the way APA votes work Kevin? No? You knew that? Typical
> misdirection on your part. There were though many studies that showed
> that there was no intrinsic mental pathology associated with
> homosexuality. You aren't trying imply this body was unaware of these
> studies, are you?
Please, post away these studies. The leading researcher at the time
of the APA vote was Dr. Charles W. Socarides. *All* of his research
had found that homosexuality was an abormal mental condition. Other
leading researchers were Masters and Johnson. They had also found
that homosexuality was a disorder. The fourth one was Dr Schwartz -
again, he found a number of pathologies and mental disorders directly
associated with homosexuality.
Now, all we need is you to post all of these studies you say were used
by the APA in which to base their political vote. BTW, why did a full
40% of the APA vote that homosexuality *was* a disorder?
Just the facts.
-Red Davis
Bob
<kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Bob <nos...@4me.com> wrote in message
> news:<bd380d$t8f$0...@216.39.173.68>... > In article
> <fe6e030e.03062...@posting.google.com>, KDavis >
> <kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote: [nip] > > Association (APA)'s
> decision to open > the door to removing pedophilia from their list of
> disorders. Let's > > recount their history:
> > >
> > > 1. They removed homosexual behavior from their list of disorders
> > > as written in DSM-II based on political reaction in the face of
> > > violent protests by homosexual activists.
> >
> > Not true - they did so on the studies that showed there was no
> > intrinsic pathology associated with homosexuality.
>
> Bob, Why don't you post those "studies" right here in this white
> space:
>
> Whitespace for Bob to post these mythical "studies" that were used by
> the APA to base their 60%-40% vote to remove homosexuality from their
> list of disorders:
Evelyn Hooker "The adjustment of the male overt homosxual," Journal of
projective Techniques 21: 18-13 (1957)
Evelyn Hooker "Male homosexuality in the rorshach," Journal of
Projective Techniques 22:33-54 (1958)
J. Chang and J. Boock, "A study of indenfitcation in male
homosexuaols," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 24:307-310
(1960)
T.S. Szasz, The Myth of Mental Illness: Founcations of a Theory of
personal Conduct (1961)
R.B. Dean and H. Richardson, "Analysis of MMPI profiles of 40
college-educated overt male homosexuals," Journal of consulting and
Clinical Pyschology 28:483-486 (1964)
J. N. DeLuca, "Performace of overt male homosexuals and contrls on the
Blacky Test," Journal of Clinical Psychology 23:497 (1967)
M. Siegelman, "Adjustment of homosexual and heterosexual women,"
British Journal of Psychiatry 120:"477-481 (1972)
Richard Green, "Homosexuality as a mental illness," International
Journal of Psychiatry 10 (1):77-98 (1972)
J. Marmor, "Homosexuality - Mental illness or moral dilemma?"
International Journal of Psychiatry 10(1): 114-117 (1972)
> Now, Bob, given not even the APA makes such a claim that they had
> reviewed such studies, how can you make such a claim?
Gee because there is no such person as the APA - it is comprised of
health professionals who's job it is to keep abreast of such findings
and reports. As you can see - there were a great many reports presented
in the most common of the profession's journals. It is just downright
silly of you to try and say they were unaware of these reports.
> The only study on the subject completed prior to 1972 was one
> entitled something like, "The Well Adjusted Homosexual Male" - and it
> was resoundly rejected by the scientific community on peer review.
Gosh, now you are the one who seems out of the loop here - there were
many studies of which I've published references to some of them.
>
> So, where are all of these studies?
Hmmm, in the references I cited. :)
> > > Not a single study or research paper was presented in order to
> > > suppor the vote, that went 60%-40% to remove homosexuality from
> > > the list of disorders.
Why would they have to? They had been in the psych literature for over
a decade.
> > > Is that the way APA votes work Kevin? No? You knew that?
> > > Typical > misdirection on your part. There were though many
> > > studies that showed > that there was no intrinsic mental
> > > pathology associated with > homosexuality. You aren't trying
> > > imply this body was unaware of these > studies, are you?
>
> Please, post away these studies.
Been there, done that.
> The leading researcher at the time of the APA vote was Dr. Charles W.
> Socarides. *All* of his research had found that homosexuality was an
> abormal mental condition.
Actually he wasn't a researcher as much as he was merely opinionated.
And you will be hard pressed to find many considering him the 'leading
researcher' of his times ;) Vocal? Yes. Well known? Yes. But leading?
Well you will read in a bit how he also overestimated his 'leadership'.
;)
His opinion of 1968 that claimed gay men had ego dysfunction was
soundly refuted by M. Siegelman's empirically based work that showed in
nonclinical populations many gay men scored as high or higher than
hterosexuals on test of ego strength or sense of identity.
Interestingly the vote on whether homosexuality could be retained as an
innate pathology in the DSM came up to a vote of the full membership
*BECAUSE* of Socraides political shinanagens. He must have bgeen very
disappointed with the 58% 37% results, eh?
> Other leading researchers were Masters and Johnson. They had also
> found that homosexuality was a disorder.
Really? Your turn for cites now I would supposed ;) Masters and
Johnsons have usually been more catalogers and empirical evaluators of
sexual behavior - it would be odd for them to claim virtually any
behavior was intrinsically a 'disorder'. But be glad to see you prove
me wrong....
Cite please.
> The fourth one was Dr Schwartz - again, he found a number of
> pathologies and mental disorders directly associated with
> homosexuality.
Gosh earliest reference I can find to David M. Schwartz's views is 1973
and then only as a co-contributor to an article trying to attribute
male homosexuality to father estrangement.
. Cites to other relevant references would be more than welcome.
> Now, all we need is you to post all of these studies you say were
> used by the APA in which to base their political vote. BTW, why did
> a full 40% of the APA vote that homosexuality *was* a disorder?
>
> Just the facts.
There's always a few loonies in every bin Kevin, and also the
Freudian's were very entrenched with an erroneous rationale for
classifying homosexuality as a pathology. I have a good friend who is
a Freudian and we've actually had several discussions about this - he
said it took some time before his collegues came to the understanding
that it was their assumptions that were in error along with the
diagnosis.
You don't seem very well versed on your topic of discussion though
Kevin - how could you have missed all these relevant studies,
especially the flurry of them just before the critical 1974 vote of the
membership?
(I do find it satisfying that the only thing you could find to even
post about in my note was this, as ineffective as it was)
Nathan Packer
Somebody filled Red's little white space. Oh darn. Now Red will have
to tuck his tail and do the Red fade. He will be back though with the
same drivel. Just save this response and drop it on him when he
returns.
Bob
<npa...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> Somebody filled Red's little white space. Oh darn. Now Red will have
> to tuck his tail and do the Red fade. He will be back though with the
> same drivel. Just save this response and drop it on him when he
> returns.
yeah, what do you think Kevin's motivations really are? I mean they
obviously aren't truth because he either misstates, or tries to misuse
statistics to try and lump widely different groups together...
What is at the root of this hateful obsession with gay people that
motivates him to lie and mislead at every opportunity in obvious
attempts to demonize them as a monolithic group?
Lee Paulson
"Bob" <nos...@4me.com> wrote in message news:bdoctm$crl$0...@216.39.173.68...
It is truly dreadful and awfully offensive. I think he does it because it's
just his personality to be that way.
--
Regards,
Lee the James, uM, feminist
**Orohippus, Mesohippus, Miohippus, Protohippus,
Pliohippus, Equus. Evolution is just a theory.
So is gravity.**
cham
> Bob <nos...@4me.com> wrote in message news:<bd380d$t8f$0...@216.39.173.68>...
> > In article <fe6e030e.03062...@posting.google.com>, KDavis
> > <kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [nip]
> Now, Bob, given not even the APA makes such a claim that they had
> reviewed such studies, how can you make such a claim? The only study
> on the subject completed prior to 1972 was one entitled something
> like, "The Well Adjusted Homosexual Male" - and it was resoundly
> rejected by the scientific community on peer review.
>
> So, where are all of these studies?
>
.
>
> Now, all we need is you to post all of these studies you say were used
> by the APA in which to base their political vote. BTW, why did a full
> 40% of the APA vote that homosexuality *was* a disorder?
"These tactics continued in the same manner at the APA's 1972 national
meeting. It was against this backdrop that the association's trustees
finally made its controversial 1973 decision. When a referendum on
this was sent out to all 25,000 APA members, only a quarter of them
returned their ballots. The final tally was 58 percent favoring the
removal of homosexuality from their list of disorders."
"Homosexuality: Fact and Fiction by Joseph P. Gudel from the Christian
Research Institute Journal, Summer 1992, page 30 mostly anti-gay
rhetoric. but it's at:
http://www.mvcf.com/bible/resources/otherbeliefs/cache/cri/crj0107a.html
"In 1977 ten thousand members of the APA were polled at random,
asking them their opinion on this. In an article entitled "Sick
Again?" Time magazine summarized the results of the poll: "Of those
answering, 69% said they believed 'homosexuality is usually a
pathological adaptation, as opposed to a normal variation,' 18%
disagreed and 13% were uncertain. Similarly, sizable majorities said
that homosexuals are generally less happy than heterosexuals (73%) and
less capable of mature, loving relationships (60%). A total of 70%
said that homosexuals' problems have more to do with their own inner
conflicts than with stigmatization by society at large."" cited in
Gudel above apparently from a Time magazine article "Sick Again?
Psychiatrists Vote on Gays," Time, 20 February 1978, 102.
more recent studies seem to support a shift in the profession:
" in a recent survey of psychoanalysts (n=82; Friedman) they found
that "no respondents strongly endorsed the type of pathological model
proposed by Socarides" (p. 84), and that "the responses of the group
as a whole were more towards a health than illness model."
R Friedman-1996; Journal of Homosexuality 32: 79-89
this is of course important because it is from Freudian pscyhoanalysis
that theoretical basis for the antagonism of the pscyhiatric
profession derives.
"In another recent study, it was reported that 47.3% of psychiatric
training directors (n=198) view homosexuality as normal or somewhat
normal, 51.2% view homosexuality as neutral, and 1.5% view it as
somewhat pathological or pathological. "
Townsend-1995, Academic Psychiatry 19:213-218"
both stuidies cited on the web at:
http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gayhealth.html which debunks most of the
socarides myths fairly well and explains a lot of the issues in
reading Socarides' research. a pro-gay site.
Red, I assume you are using Soccarides book: Homosexuality: a Freedom
to Far or articles from journal of psychohistory and the NARTh
website? for your sources: In his book-
"Among other things, Dr. Socarides discusses the history (p. 39-62)
and ideology (p. 63-85) of the homosexual movement, the origins (p.
87-114) and treatment (p. 115-155) of homosexuality, the APA's
decision remove homosexuality from its list of disorders (p. 157-182),
AIDS (p. 190-195, 205-240) and the impact of the homosexual movement
on education (p. 241-275) and society (p. 285-312)."
http://hawebpage.truepath.com/book/more/Socarid1.html
a positive review of his book is available at:
http://www.primalpage.com/homosex.htm
I think the legal and it should even be the moral answer for true
conservatives (I think we lost the last one when Goldwater dies) is
the government does not have the right to enter the bedrooms of
consenting adults for determining whether they are in proper
missionary position heterosexual with a spouse. but ttake a look at
what that bastion of libery Pat Robertson has to say about the
ssupremes-and changing the laws of the land after the director of the
institute 1Robertson founded says-well we could just get a
constitutional ammendent to prohibit same sex marriage--what does
freedom loving Robertson say??
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/030627f.asp
Re the about a constitutional level ban on same sex marriage his
"questioner" proposes one way is to get a constitutional ammendment
banning same sex marriage:
"PAT ROBERTSON: We won't get it. And the other thing is a revolution
that can overthrow this court and people rise up and overthrow their
government and we're not about to do that in a peace-loving America.
So, I mean we're stuck with what we've got because we're law-abiding
citizens and we consider them the highest authority and they have
arrogated power unto themselves that the Constitution never intended
for them to have."
Red --I hope you look at the Christian Reconstructionist. It is their
playbook you are writing to.
Sincerely
Chuck
Chuck
KDavis
> In article <fe6e030e.0306...@posting.google.com>, KDavis
> <kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Bob <nos...@4me.com> wrote in message
> > news:<bd380d$t8f$0...@216.39.173.68>... > In article
> > <fe6e030e.03062...@posting.google.com>, KDavis >
> > <kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote: [nip] > > Association (APA)'s
> > decision to open > the door to removing pedophilia from their list of
> > disorders. Let's > > recount their history:
> > > >
> > > > 1. They removed homosexual behavior from their list of disorders
> > > > as written in DSM-II based on political reaction in the face of
> > > > violent protests by homosexual activists.
> > >
> > > Not true - they did so on the studies that showed there was no
> > > intrinsic pathology associated with homosexuality.
> >
> > Bob, Why don't you post those "studies" right here in this white
> > space:
> >
> > Whitespace for Bob to post these mythical "studies" that were used by
> > the APA to base their 60%-40% vote to remove homosexuality from their
> > list of disorders:
What we have before us is a desperate attempt to provide cover for the
APA by doing a search on any and all studies completed up to 1972.
Questions are: did any of these studies pass peer review and were
accepted by the scientific community? Were all of these studies
actually completed prior to the APA's vote? And, key to it all: did
the APA actually review or cite these studies before they voted?
Finally, were there other researchers who had concluded that
homosexuality was, indeed, an abnormality? Yes, indeed.
We shall see as I review each one of them:
>
> Evelyn Hooker "The adjustment of the male overt homosxual," Journal of
> projective Techniques 21: 18-13 (1957)
>
> Evelyn Hooker "Male homosexuality in the rorshach," Journal of
> Projective Techniques 22:33-54 (1958)
You fell for my trap! Did you know what Hooker's conclusion was from
these two studies? Said Hooker, "homosexuality may be a deviation in
sexual pattern which is within the normal range psychologically".
Now, please notice the use of the words "homosexuality *may* by a
deviation in sexual pattern...." [emphasis mine.]
Do you really think that the APA dismissed over 100 years of research
that had found homosexuality to be a psychological condition based
upon something that "may" be normal when all the other research stated
explicitly that it "is" a psychological disturbance?
So, did the APA dismiss affirmative scientific conclusions that
homosexuality is abnormal and replace it with a tentative *suggestion*
that it may be normal? Nope. They did no such thing. They simply
ignored all data on both sides of the subject and voted politically to
remove homosexuality from the list of disorders in the DSM-II -- as
homosexual activists continued to storm the APA proceedings and commit
acts of violence and terrorism against the delegates.
In conclusion on Hooker's studies: If she didn't conclude that
homosexuality is normal -- how could the APA do so based on her work?
Answer: they didn't.
"With homosexuality the claim is often made that "there is no evidence
of higher rates of emotional instability or psychiatric illness among
homosexuals than among heterosexuals." This claim has been made so
often that it has taken on the status of a truth that "everybody
knows"; however, the factual basis for this assertion is debatable.
The two most frequently cited studies in support of this claim are the
studies by Hooker and by Saghir and Robins. As we discussed earlier,
the study conducted by Hooker proved that a select sample of
homosexuals were no more distressed than (and could not be
distinguished based on psychological testing from) a heterosexual
sample. We also demonstrated that because of the nonrepresentativeness
of her sample, she did not in fact prove the conclusion that Masters
and his colleagues claim.
The Saghir and Robins study has the same limitations as Hooker's.
Their sample was also selected to minimize or exclude psychopathology.
The authors note that their subjects were recruited from "homophile
organizations," and presumably there was some self-selection operating
given the announced objective of the project as the study of
emotionally stable homosexual persons. They explicitly set out to
recruit healthy homosexuals. After volunteering, subjects were further
screened and excluded on the basis of prior psychiatric
hospitalization.
Interestingly, 14% of the male homosexual sample and 7% of the female
homosexual sample were excluded from the study because of prior
psychiatric hospitalizations, yet none of the heterosexuals who
volunteered (the control group sample) were excluded on that basis.
The best estimate we can obtain of lifetime psychiatric
hospitalization comes from Robins, Locke and Regier, who report a
lifetime prevalence of diagnosable mental disorder for women of 30%
and report that on an annual basis only 2.4% of those with a
diagnosable disorder are hospitalized for a psychiatric disorder. If
we double this estimate of hospitalization to be conservative in our
estimate and to compensate for the higher psychiatric hospitalization
rates for women, these findings would suggest that no more than 1.5%
of the American female population is hospitalized for psychiatric
reasons in their lifetime (30% x 5%). This is probably an overestimate
because many of the psychopathologies included in the study by Robins
et al. (e.g., phobias, generalized anxiety, dysthymia) infrequently
result in hospitalization.
So while Saghir and Robins conclude that the homosexual population
experiences no increased incidence of psychopathology, their study
must be interpreted within the context of their having screened out
previously hospitalized individuals that, if included, would suggest a
hospitalization rate for homosexuals approximately 450% higher than
the general population, which in turn would suggest a conclusion
opposite of that stated.
Ironically, then, this study, which is touted as proving that
homosexuals are just as healthy as a group as heterosexuals, actually
provides evidence suggesting higher rates of psychiatric disorder
among homosexuals.
A recent study provides similar evidence. Bradford and her colleagues
reported findings from the "National Lesbian Health Care Survey." They
minimized differences between homosexual and heterosexual women. The
authors argued that the two groups were similar except for elevated
use of alcohol and drugs and elevated use of counseling for lesbians
(77.5% for the lesbian sample). But a closer look at their results
tells a different tale. The data actually suggest that the lesbians
studied experience elevated incidence of a number of significant
problems.
The authors reported that 37% of the lesbians surveyed had experienced
significant depression in their lifetime, that 11% were experiencing
depression at the time of the survey, and that 1% were currently in
treatment for their depression."
http://www.narth.com/docs/mentaldisorder.html
Read on.
>
> J. Chang and J. Boock, "A study of indenfitcation in male
> homosexuaols," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 24:307-310
> (1960)
You do mean "Block" not Boock, right? Did you know that Chang and
Block carefully controlled their homosexual subjects such that only
homosexual males who were in long-term relationship were included?
That, after looking for over 3 years, they only found a handful of
such "couples"? It is well known (and was well know at the time of
their study) that the vast majority of homosexual males do *not* exist
in long-term relationships. Homosexual males live their lives in
fleeting relationships that number in the hundreds.
So, what do you have when the data is hand selected and not
representative of a population? You have a coerced conclusion -- and
that is exactly why the pyschological community never (save
revisionist homosexuals of today) never gave any merit to this
"study".
While yet another study completed before the APA vote - not a study
any person of science could hang their hat on.
>
> T.S. Szasz, The Myth of Mental Illness: Founcations of a Theory of
> personal Conduct (1961)
Ha, ha, ha, ha! You are actually going to quote the work of a man who
states that *all* of modern psycgology/psychiatry is completely
worthless and wrong? Now, don't get me wrong -- I agree with Szasz -
the mental patients are in control over at the APA. But, you surely
cannot quote someone who compeltely dismisses the APA as having
written something that they used to support their political vote on
homosexuality, do you? In my abnormal psych class - they spent almost
20 minutes roasting this guy as a nutcase.
http://www.ftrbooks.net/psych/szasz/myth_mental_illness.htm
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz
Well, let's see how you are doing so far:
In scientific research that was used by the APA as the basis to remove
homosexuality from the list of disorders, you are batting:
0 for 4 (0-4), or .000
Now, that's putting them out of the ballpark, Sluggo!
>
> R.B. Dean and H. Richardson, "Analysis of MMPI profiles of 40
> college-educated overt male homosexuals," Journal of consulting and
> Clinical Pyschology 28:483-486 (1964)
Now you are grasping at straws. Again, the subjects were handpicked
such that an atypical population was used for the 'study'. Anywho:
do you really think the Minnesota Multiphasi Personality Test can
determine whether or not homosexuality per se, is abnormal - when *no*
questions were asked about the sexual behavior of the participants?
You gotta be kidding!
>
> J. N. DeLuca, "Performace of overt male homosexuals and contrls on the
> Blacky Test," Journal of Clinical Psychology 23:497 (1967)
Never even heard of this one. I couldn't even find a single reference
to it anywhere. Gosh, must have been a real winner to fade back into
the complete darkness of the unknown. Again -- I could find no
reference to this "study" at all at any of the APA conferences that
lead up to the DSM-II decision.
>
> M. Siegelman, "Adjustment of homosexual and heterosexual women,"
> British Journal of Psychiatry 120:"477-481 (1972)
So desperate are you -- that you now have to go to the other side of
the world just to fill in space? Absolutely no data avaiable on this
one - and again, not a single reference by any APA committee prior to
the 1974 DSM-II decision.
>
> Richard Green, "Homosexuality as a mental illness," International
> Journal of Psychiatry 10 (1):77-98 (1972)
Ditto.
>
> J. Marmor, "Homosexuality - Mental illness or moral dilemma?"
> International Journal of Psychiatry 10(1): 114-117 (1972)
Ditto.
>
> > Now, Bob, given not even the APA makes such a claim that they had
> > reviewed such studies, how can you make such a claim?
>
> Gee because there is no such person as the APA - it is comprised of
> health professionals who's job it is to keep abreast of such findings
> and reports. As you can see - there were a great many reports presented
> in the most common of the profession's journals. It is just downright
> silly of you to try and say they were unaware of these reports.
The "most common of the profession's journals? You only list
international rags with the exception of one US journal. How
laughable.
You want to know the chronology of how the vote was taken, read this:
"In 1972, during his induction of the national meeting in Dallas, a
vice-president of the American Psychiatric Association took the
occasion to criticize severely any psychiatrist who practiced
psychotherapy that attempted to change homosexuality to
heterosexuality. According to a report in the June 7 issue of
Psychiatric News, he labeled such colleagues cruel, inhuman, and a
"disgrace to the profession." (8)
In early 1973, a group superheaded by several leaders of the A.P.A.,
other psychiatrists, and members of the Gay Activists Alliance, the
Mattachine Society, and the Daughters of Bilitis undertook to
influence the Nomenclature Committee of the A.P.A. at a closed meeting
at Columbia University Psychiatric Institute by requesting deletion of
homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual(9).
By spring 1973 the A.P.A. Committee on Nomenclature and Statistics was
seriously considering the removal of homosexuality from the DSM II
without consultation with the psychiatrists and psychoanalysts who had
long labored in this area of clinical research, and held opposing
views.
A Symposium held in Hawaii on May 9, 1973 was entitled "Should
Homosexuality Be in the A.P.A. Nomenclature?" As a member of this
panel, I presented the conclusions of the eleven-member Task Force on
Homosexuality appointed in 1970 by the New York County District Branch
of the A.P.A., of which I was chairman. (10)
In April 1972, after two years of intensive work, the members of the
Task Force had unanimously agreed upon the following conclusions as
regards male homosexuality:
(1) Homosexuality arises experientially from a faulty family
constellation.
(2) It represents a disordered sexual development not within the range
of normal sexual behavior.
(3) There is a continuity and severity of pathological parent-child
relationships in the background of all homosexuals studied to an
extent not found in the comparison groups.
(4) The majority of the mothers of homosexuals interfered with the
development of their sons' peer group relationships, heterosexual
development, assertiveness, and decision-making. The fathers of
homosexuals were demasculinizing.
The New York County District Branch Task Force on Homosexuality
concurred without question that societal rejection damages those who
are rejected. However, if all criminal discrimination were to stop
today and the punitive laws against homosexuals were repealed
immediately - as indeed our Task Force recommended - the homosexual's
inner anxieties would still not be eliminated.
This latter report was later disavowed by its parent body, whose local
leadership deemed he issue too "controversial." (10)
At this meeting I further stated that current proposals to place
homosexuality in a group of other sexual disorders such as premature
ejaculation, retarded ejaculation and so forth, under the heading of
"sexual dysfunction," would damage scientific knowledge. The sexual
dysfunctions themselves are disturbances in the standard male-female
coital pattern (a separate diagnostic entity both symptomatically and
developmentally). Thus the immutable distinction between the sexual
deviations and the sexual dysfunctions could not be semantically
blurred without incurring formidable scientific chaos.
In addition, the view held by the Nomenclature Committee that in
homosexuality there are no clinical symptoms, no course of
development, and no effective treatment was in direct opposition to
the Task Force's position on this issue, as well as to numerous other
psychiatric and psychoanalytic contributions offered.
By October 1973, the proposed change to eliminate homosexuality from
the DSM II went to the Council on Research and Development, then to
the Assembly, and then to the A.P.A. Reference Committee. It was later
announced that, "minor changes" were made in these committees, e.g.,
"Heterosexual Orientation Disturbance" was to be included along with
homosexuality as a "sexual orientation disturbance" to identify those
people who are "disturbed" at the knowledge that they are
heterosexual! (11) It was decided a few weeks later that this was
perhaps ill-advised, and heterosexuality as a disorder was deleted.
On December 14, 1973 the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric
Association, meeting in Washington, D.C., eliminated homosexuality
from the official Diagnostic and Statistical Manual without presenting
substantive evidence for such a drastic revision of basic concepts of
healthy vs. unhealthy sexual development. It should be noted that the
World Health Organization's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual has not
as yet followed suit.
One of the two reasons for the removal was an official position paper
(12) prepared by Dr. Robert Spitzer (Chairman, Nomenclature Task Force
on Homosexuality, A.P.A.) for the Board prior to its decision.
According to an article in Psychiatric News, "It was essentially upon
the rationale of Dr. Spitzer's presentation that the Board made its
decision."(13) This paper in essence repeated Kinsey's earlier
assertion that homosexuality did not meet the requirements of a
psychiatric disorder since it "does not either regularly cause
subjective distress or [is] regularly associated with some generalized
impairment in social effectiveness or functioning."
The second was the conclusion of Drs. Marcel T. Saghir and Eli Robins
in their volume entitled Male and Female Homosexuality. (14) These
findings were derived from one structured lengthy interview with
homosexuals (recruited through homophile organizations) and "unmarried
heterosexual controls" (solicited by mail and paid for the interview),
and coincided with the position paper above.
The term "sexual orientation disturbance (homosexuality)" was now to
be substituted for homosexuality. It is defined as follows:
This is for individuals whose sexual interests are directed primarily
toward people of the same sex and who are either disturbed by, in
conflict with, or wish to change their sexual orientation. This
diagnostic category is distinguished from homosexuality, which by
itself does not constitute a psychiatric disorder. Homosexuality per
se is one form of sexual behavior, and with other forms of sexual
behavior, which are not by themselves psychiatric disorders, are not
listed in this nomenclature.(15)
In essence and by direct implication, this action officially declared
that homosexuality of the obligatory type was a normal form of sexual
life. Henceforth, the only "disturbed" homosexual is one who is
disturbed that he is homosexual. He is to be considered neurotic only
if unhappy. A referendum was demanded on this issue by 243
psychiatrists, members, and fellows of the A.P.A.
It was a credit to psychiatrists in general that in the referendum
(marred by hidden lobbying by homosexual activists) held months later,
more than 3700 psychiatrists (40% of the bare majority who voted) in
the United States believed that there were no legitimate scientific
reasons for the A.P.A.'s change in fundamental psychiatric theory.
Only a handful, however, have continued to work for the reversal of
this decision.
Aftermath
The removal of homosexuality from the DSM II was all the more
remarkable when one considers that it involved the out-of-hand and
peremptory disregard and dismissal not only of hundreds of psychiatric
and psychoanalytic research papers and reports, but also of a number
of other serious studies by groups of psychologists, psychiatrists,
and educators over the past seventy years (the Group for the
Advancement of Psychiatry Report, 1955; the New York Academy of
Medicine Report, 1964; the Task Force Report of the New York County
District Branch A.P.A. 1970-72). It was a disheartening attack upon
psychiatric research and a blow to many homosexuals who looked to
psychiatry for more help, not less.
The seventh printing of the DSM II, second edition, July 1974,
reflected the changes voted upon. (15) A perusal of this printing
revealed that the sexual deviations themselves were defined similarly
to previous printings. Instead of homosexuality, however, the term
"sexual orientation disturbance" was substituted. The terminological
dilemma facing the Nomenclature Committee was evident in a footnote to
the page on which it first appeared.
This term (sexual orientation disturbance) and its definition are
inconsistent with the change in thinking that led to the substitution
of Sexual Orientation Disturbance for Homosexuality in the list below.
However, since no specific recommendations were made for changing this
category or its definition, this category remains unchanged for the
time being.
It should be noted that the term "sexual orientation disturbance"
disserves not only the concept of disorder, but in addition the basic
concept of orientation as used in psychiatry. It is a corruption of
basic psychiatric terminology so essential in conducting the
psychiatric examination."
http://www.narth.com/docs/annals.html
>
> > The only study on the subject completed prior to 1972 was one
> > entitled something like, "The Well Adjusted Homosexual Male" - and it
> > was resoundly rejected by the scientific community on peer review.
>
> Gosh, now you are the one who seems out of the loop here - there were
> many studies of which I've published references to some of them.
Well, no, actually, you published some misinformation guised as
"studies". The foremost study merely concluded that homosexuality
"may" be normal.
Again, given the 100 years of previous studies, can we qualify the APA
vote in 1974 as based on science, or politics? Where is the body of
science that outweighed literally hundreds of studies that had found
that homosexuality is abnormal? Where? You haven't posted anything
here?
> >
> > So, where are all of these studies?
>
> Hmmm, in the references I cited. :)
Yep. That we agree upon. The references you cited are inclusive of
*all* the information that countered over 100 years of research that
had concluded just the opposite.
Let's see, you quoted on researcher that suggested that homosexuality
"may" be normal, another who thinks all of psycholoyg is nuts, and a
personality study that didn't ask about aberrant sexual behavior.
WOW. You really know how to support your position. :-O
>
> > > > Not a single study or research paper was presented in order to
> > > > suppor the vote, that went 60%-40% to remove homosexuality from
> > > > the list of disorders.
>
> Why would they have to? They had been in the psych literature for over
> a decade.
Only if you click your heels together thrice and keep denying reality.
I have included real research at the end of this post for you to
lookup and read.
>
> > > > Is that the way APA votes work Kevin? No? You knew that?
> > > > Typical > misdirection on your part. There were though many
> > > > studies that showed > that there was no intrinsic mental
> > > > pathology associated with > homosexuality. You aren't trying
> > > > imply this body was unaware of these > studies, are you?
> >
> > Please, post away these studies.
>
> Been there, done that.
Yep, reall winners. I can't stop laughing so hard. There is nothing
worth bringing a hardy laugh then seeing someone who doesn't know what
they don't know toss in the wind.
>
> > The leading researcher at the time of the APA vote was Dr. Charles W.
> > Socarides. *All* of his research had found that homosexuality was an
> > abormal mental condition.
>
> Actually he wasn't a researcher as much as he was merely opinionated.
> And you will be hard pressed to find many considering him the 'leading
> researcher' of his times ;) Vocal? Yes. Well known? Yes. But leading?
> Well you will read in a bit how he also overestimated his 'leadership'.
> ;)
>
> His opinion of 1968 that claimed gay men had ego dysfunction was
> soundly refuted by M. Siegelman's empirically based work that showed in
> nonclinical populations many gay men scored as high or higher than
> hterosexuals on test of ego strength or sense of identity.
Dr. Charles W. Socarides, professor of psychiatry at Albert Einstien
College of Medicine was "refuted" by Siegelman? The *same* M.
Sieglemann who found that homosexuals suffered from an over mother-son
attachment? (Please read "Parental Background of Male Homosexuals and
Heterosexuals", Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1974). Do tell!
Har-de-har-har-har! You haven't a clue, do you? Yep, thos Mamma's
boys are always known to have a great sense of ego and identity!!!
Stop it! I can't stop laughing! You are totally clueless!!!
>
> Interestingly the vote on whether homosexuality could be retained as an
> innate pathology in the DSM came up to a vote of the full membership
> *BECAUSE* of Socraides political shinanagens. He must have bgeen very
> disappointed with the 58% 37% results, eh?
You know, the last time the IEEE decided a matter of scientific fact
-- it voted 58% to 37% to determine what was the truth of the matter!
NOT!! BTW, when a Psychology Journal polled their readers the next
year -- over 60% of the rank and file said the APA's removal of
homosexuality from DSM-II was *wrong*!
>
> > Other leading researchers were Masters and Johnson. They had also
> > found that homosexuality was a disorder.
>
> Really? Your turn for cites now I would supposed ;) Masters and
> Johnsons have usually been more catalogers and empirical evaluators of
> sexual behavior - it would be odd for them to claim virtually any
> behavior was intrinsically a 'disorder'. But be glad to see you prove
> me wrong....
>
> Cite please.
Masters and Johnson. Homosexuality in Perspective (Boston: Little
Brown and Company, 1979
Schwartz, M., Masters, W. (1984) The Masters and Johnson treatment
program for dissatisfied homosexual men. American Journal of
Psychiatry. 141: 173 - 181
>
> > The fourth one was Dr Schwartz - again, he found a number of
> > pathologies and mental disorders directly associated with
> > homosexuality.
>
> Gosh earliest reference I can find to David M. Schwartz's views is 1973
> and then only as a co-contributor to an article trying to attribute
> male homosexuality to father estrangement.
>
> . Cites to other relevant references would be more than welcome.
>
> > Now, all we need is you to post all of these studies you say were
> > used by the APA in which to base their political vote. BTW, why did
> > a full 40% of the APA vote that homosexuality *was* a disorder?
> >
> > Just the facts.
>
> There's always a few loonies in every bin Kevin, and also the
> Freudian's were very entrenched with an erroneous rationale for
> classifying homosexuality as a pathology. I have a good friend who is
> a Freudian and we've actually had several discussions about this - he
> said it took some time before his collegues came to the understanding
> that it was their assumptions that were in error along with the
> diagnosis.
>
> You don't seem very well versed on your topic of discussion though
> Kevin - how could you have missed all these relevant studies,
> especially the flurry of them just before the critical 1974 vote of the
> membership?
Yep, just keep kidding yourself. I think I rather thrashed you and
your "studies". Don't you think?
-Red Davis
>
>
> (I do find it satisfying that the only thing you could find to even
> post about in my note was this, as ineffective as it was)
Studies that oppose these noted here are:
Kolb and Johnson, "Etiology and Therapy of Overt Homosexuality", in
Psychoanalytic Quarterly 24:506-515, 1955
Masserman, "Some Current Concepts of Sexual Behavior", Psychiatry
14:61-62, 1951.
Bychowsky, "The Structure of Homosexual Acting Out", Psychoanalytic
Quarterly 23:48-61, 1954.
Horney, "The Neurotic Personality of Our Time", New York, 1937; Our
Inner Conflicts, New York, 1945.
Silverberg, "Childhood Experiences and Personal Destiny", New York,
1952.
Thompson, "Changing Concepts of Homosexuality in Psychoanalysis",
Psychiatry 10:2-13, 1947.
Ovesey, "The Homosexual Conflict", Psychiatry 17:243-250, 1954.
Ovesey, "The Pseudohomosexual Anxiety", Psychiatry 18:17-25, 1955.
Bauer, "Homosexuality as an Endocrinological, Psychological, and
Genetic Problem", J. Crim. Path. 2:188-197, 1940.
KDavis
> Somebody filled Red's little white space. Oh darn. Now Red will have
> to tuck his tail and do the Red fade. He will be back though with the
> same drivel. Just save this response and drop it on him when he
> returns.
You know, my Daddy taught me, "Son, you can fill a void with manure,
or you can fill it with flowers. A person covered from head to toe in
manure can't tell the difference."
My Daddy was a smart man.
Now, I hope you are kind enough to read my rather long response where
I personally send this kook back to the drawing board -- as his post
was nothing but manure.
-Red Davis
KDavis
> "Bob" <nos...@4me.com> wrote in message news:bdoctm$crl$0...@216.39.173.68...
> > In article <ud3vfvc6aabh4r6qa...@4ax.com>, Nathan Packer
> > <npa...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Somebody filled Red's little white space. Oh darn. Now Red will have
> > > to tuck his tail and do the Red fade. He will be back though with the
> > > same drivel. Just save this response and drop it on him when he
> > > returns.
> >
> > yeah, what do you think Kevin's motivations really are? I mean they
> > obviously aren't truth because he either misstates, or tries to misuse
> > statistics to try and lump widely different groups together...
What is your motivation? I could care less.
I simply researched the facts about homosexuality and post the
results:
Homosexuality is an abnormal and unhealthy lifestyle build upon
perverted behavior.
As to missinformation, what do you call the following gay lies?
The lie that "10%" of the population is homosexual? No study has ever
found that. Over 9 studies conducted since 1980 have found the
incidence of homosexaulity to be about 2%. Why do homophiles lie
about their numbers?
The lie that homosexuals are "born that way"? No scientific study has
ever concluded that homosexuality is innate or immutable. In fact,
every scientific study (even those done by LeVay) have found that
homosexuality is a result of environmental conditioning.
The lie that homosexuals are not immoral. *Every* study ever
completed on the sexual behavior of male homosexuals has found that a
typical homosexual male has had over 300 different sexual partners. A
heterosexual male averages about 7.
The lie that HIV/AIDS is not a gay disease. Some 65% of all HIV/AIDS
cases are homosexual males -- even though they are only 2% of the
population.
The lie that homosexuals are not disproportionately pedophiles.
Again, while they make up only 2% of the population - various studies
have found that 35-60% of pedophiles are men who molest boys. Just
look at the homosexual priests in the Catholic Church who have
molested all those boys as an example of what happens when homosexuals
gain authority in an organization that works with children.
> >
> > What is at the root of this hateful obsession with gay people that
> > motivates him to lie and mislead at every opportunity in obvious
> > attempts to demonize them as a monolithic group?
I don't know. Maybe it is all that monolithic political activism
trying to force homosexuals into the schools and bedrooms of our
children.
Please read this site to catch up on how homosexuals are seeking to
sexualize and molest *your* child without your knowledge:
http://www.narth.com/menus/schools.html
>
> It is truly dreadful and awfully offensive. I think he does it because it's
> just his personality to be that way.
I think I do it because I care about our society, and I recognize how
the acceptance of homosexuality as normal will destroy the fabric of
our society -- the family.
-Red Davis
Clovis Lark
> Nathan Packer <npa...@insightbb.com> wrote in message news:<ud3vfvc6aabh4r6qa...@4ax.com>...
>> On 29 Jun 2003 23:39:41 GMT, Bob <nos...@4me.com> wrote:
>>
> [snip]
>> Somebody filled Red's little white space. Oh darn. Now Red will have
>> to tuck his tail and do the Red fade. He will be back though with the
>> same drivel. Just save this response and drop it on him when he
>> returns.
> You know, my Daddy taught me, "Son, you can fill a void with manure,
> or you can fill it with flowers. A person covered from head to toe in
> manure can't tell the difference."
> My Daddy was a smart man.
One night, he wasn't so smart...
> Now, I hope you are kind enough to read my rather long response where
> I personally send this kook back to the drawing board -- as his post
> was nothing but manure.
Had your daddy known of RU486...
> -Red Davis
Bob
<kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<bdpoo5$vav23$1...@ID-146277.news.dfncis.de>...
> > "Bob" <nos...@4me.com> wrote in message news:bdoctm$crl$0...@216.39.173.68...
> > > In article <ud3vfvc6aabh4r6qa...@4ax.com>, Nathan Packer
> > > <npa...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Somebody filled Red's little white space. Oh darn. Now Red will have
> > > > to tuck his tail and do the Red fade. He will be back though with the
> > > > same drivel. Just save this response and drop it on him when he
> > > > returns.
> > >
> > > yeah, what do you think Kevin's motivations really are? I mean they
> > > obviously aren't truth because he either misstates, or tries to misuse
> > > statistics to try and lump widely different groups together...
>
> What is your motivation? I could care less.
That you aren't a caring person is very obvious Kevin. My motivation
is to keep you honest - to blunt your lies - to test just how far your
obsession will take you.
> I simply researched the facts about homosexuality and post the
> results:
>
> Homosexuality is an abnormal and unhealthy lifestyle build upon
> perverted behavior.
Gosh, and that's untrue or mere opinion in so many ways.
>
> As to missinformation, what do you call the following gay lies?
>
> The lie that "10%" of the population is homosexual? No study has ever
> found that. Over 9 studies conducted since 1980 have found the
> incidence of homosexaulity to be about 2%. Why do homophiles lie
> about their numbers?
Don't know any gay people that say that. I know that the Kinsey study
found that about 10% of men that participated had primarily homosexual
contact for 4 or more years between the ages of 16 and 59. Even in his
report Kinsey only found 4% of men who had been exclusively gay since
age 18.
I know that largest population study done by the University of Chicago
for that in major urban areas about 9% of the men self-identifed as
gay.
Again, please a current reference that the monolithic gay 'liars' are
saying 10% of the entire population is gay?
> The lie that homosexuals are "born that way"? No scientific study has
> ever concluded that homosexuality is innate or immutable. In fact,
> every scientific study (even those done by LeVay) have found that
> homosexuality is a result of environmental conditioning.
No no more 'the result of' than it is the result of mere genetics. All
reasonable people say there are probably both genetic and environmental
factors that stretch as far back as the womb.
>
> The lie that homosexuals are not immoral. *Every* study ever
> completed on the sexual behavior of male homosexuals has found that a
> typical homosexual male has had over 300 different sexual partners. A
> heterosexual male averages about 7.
Well first you would have to show that promiscuity is innately
'immoral'. But regardless, as I have demonstrated to you time and time
again population studies the percentage of promiscuous gay men is about
the same as that of straight men which is remarkable in itself since
most gay people are denied couple stabilizing social institutions such
as marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships
The difference is in the gay men of the opportunity to be VERY
promiscuous. But since we are on the topic of lying, only a liar of
the first degree would average together people with thousands of
contacts and those with a few and call that numerical average
'typical'. Ditto with taking studies done specifically performed in
promiscuous subjects and presenting them as typical of the larger
unevaluated population.
Telling half truths is just as much a violation 'bearing false witness'
as an out and out lie.
> The lie that HIV/AIDS is not a gay disease. Some 65% of all HIV/AIDS
> cases are homosexual males -- even though they are only 2% of the
> population.
No the vast majority of HIV cases are heterosexual world wide. And
again you are talking through out the history of the disease. As it
stands now, a small percentage of the gay male community is HIV+, again
rather remarkable considering the percentages that were just 10-15
years ago.
> The lie that homosexuals are not disproportionately pedophiles.
> Again, while they make up only 2% of the population - various studies
> have found that 35-60% of pedophiles are men who molest boys.
yes but as has been shown to you, they are not homosexuals - most
pedophiles don't care what the sex of their victims are as long as they
are preadolescent children. Homosexuality as an adult sexual
orientation is a world away from pedophilia. Might as well call
someone who buggered rams a homosexual because his victims were male.
:)
Again, presumptive heterosexuals are far more likely to molest children
of all ages rather than out gay people.
> Just
> look at the homosexual priests in the Catholic Church who have
> molested all those boys as an example of what happens when homosexuals
> gain authority in an organization that works with children.
And as a simple google search will show you the under reported story is
about the priests that are molesting girls. (check the boston papers
for a series about same). That they have deliberately deflected the
story to only the male victims is just damage control PR on the
church's part. And I think its more a testimony about the effects of
forcing a true perversion like celibacy on an entire caste of service
workers. The sex drive is like steam in a boiler - its gotta have a
release - never venting it cause lots of negative effects. But that's
another discussion for another time. Out gay men are rarely child
abusers of any ilk - the Washington state department in charge of
foster parents has even said their gay ones are exemplary and they wish
all their foster homes were of as high a caliber.
> > > What is at the root of this hateful obsession with gay people that
> > > motivates him to lie and mislead at every opportunity in obvious
> > > attempts to demonize them as a monolithic group?
>
> I don't know. Maybe it is all that monolithic political activism
> trying to force homosexuals into the schools and bedrooms of our
> children.
Kevin, homosexuals have ALWAYS been in your schools, just as
heterosexuals have.
> Please read this site to catch up on how homosexuals are seeking to
> sexualize and molest *your* child without your knowledge:
>
> http://www.narth.com/menus/schools.html
>
Of course that children are exposed to identical heterosexual
'sexualizing and molestation' doesn't concern you? Acknowledging that
people exist is not sexualizing or molesting.
> > It is truly dreadful and awfully offensive. I think he does it because it's
> > just his personality to be that way.
>
> I think I do it because I care about our society, and I recognize how
> the acceptance of homosexuality as normal will destroy the fabric of
> our society -- the family.
Yeah right - what 2% of the population (your figures) does could
destroy the family. More than divorce? More that infidelity? More
than child or spouse abuse? More than being criminals? More than drug
abuse? More than being obsessed with what less than 2% of the
population may or may not do? I don't think so. ;)
More likely persecution of the 2% could cause far more damage to them
and ultimately to society.
>
> -Red Davis
Bob
<kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Bob <nos...@4me.com> wrote in message news:<bdntbt$brp$0...@216.39.173.68>...
> > In article <fe6e030e.0306...@posting.google.com>, KDavis
> > <kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Bob <nos...@4me.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<bd380d$t8f$0...@216.39.173.68>... > In article
> > > <fe6e030e.03062...@posting.google.com>, KDavis >
> > > <kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote: [nip] > > Association (APA)'s
> > > decision to open > the door to removing pedophilia from their list of
> > > disorders. Let's > > recount their history:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. They removed homosexual behavior from their list of disorders
> > > > > as written in DSM-II based on political reaction in the face of
> > > > > violent protests by homosexual activists.
> > > >
> > > > Not true - they did so on the studies that showed there was no
> > > > intrinsic pathology associated with homosexuality.
> > >
> > > Bob, Why don't you post those "studies" right here in this white
> > > space:
> > >
> > > Whitespace for Bob to post these mythical "studies" that were used by
> > > the APA to base their 60%-40% vote to remove homosexuality from their
> > > list of disorders:
>
> What we have before us is a desperate attempt to provide cover for the
> APA by doing a search on any and all studies completed up to 1972.
No what we see here is a desperate attempt to switch the subject when
his request for 'mythic studies' was promptly and specifically
answered.
He lost and now he is backpedaling like there's no tomorrow. ;)
> Questions are: did any of these studies pass peer review and were
> accepted by the scientific community?
They were published in some of the most widely regarded journals of
psychiatric study. That means 'yes'.
> Were all of these studies
> actually completed prior to the APA's vote?
Considering they were all published before 1974, that again would be a
big 'yes'. (the dates are published dates)
> And, key to it all: did
> the APA actually review or cite these studies before they voted?
You really don't know how it works do you? The DSM of the APA is put
together by a committee. They don't cite studies for making a
decision, they have a panel of experts in the field make their
recommendations and then the committee decides. Yes, it can be
assumed that every single member of the committee had read these
reports and probably dozens more before they made their decision. They
also listened to people on both sides present their cases.
The 'vote' was merely to say they agreed or disagreed with the
committee's decision. The vote was only held because Socarides thought
he could embarrass the committee by getting the majority of the members
to disagree with their decision. Unfortunately for him, he was wrong
about what the members thought and just cemented the validity of the
committee's decision.
> Finally, were there other researchers who had concluded that
> homosexuality was, indeed, an abnormality? Yes, indeed.
Sure there were - big deal. They were in the minority even then and
are a laughed at minority now.
>
>
> We shall see as I review each one of them:
>
> >
> > Evelyn Hooker "The adjustment of the male overt homosxual," Journal of
> > projective Techniques 21: 18-13 (1957)
> >
> > Evelyn Hooker "Male homosexuality in the rorshach," Journal of
> > Projective Techniques 22:33-54 (1958)
>
> You fell for my trap! Did you know what Hooker's conclusion was from
> these two studies? Said Hooker, "homosexuality may be a deviation in
> sexual pattern which is within the normal range psychologically".
> Now, please notice the use of the words "homosexuality *may* by a
> deviation in sexual pattern...." [emphasis mine.]
And you once again show your lack of knowledge about psychology. Being
left handed is a 'deviation' of handedness. 'Deviant' might be a
value judgement where come from, but it just means 'different from
average' in medical science. As you quoted she specifically said it
may be within the normal range. That is saying it may be normal and
this was just here first study released in 1958!
>
> Do you really think that the APA dismissed over 100 years of research
> that had found homosexuality to be a psychological condition based
> upon something that "may" be normal when all the other research stated
> explicitly that it "is" a psychological disturbance?
They obviously did - from the 10,000 ballots returned from the
membership the large majority agreed with the decision to remove it
from the DSM/
>
> So, did the APA dismiss affirmative scientific conclusions that
> homosexuality is abnormal and replace it with a tentative *suggestion*
> that it may be normal? Nope. They did no such thing. They simply
> ignored all data on both sides of the subject and voted politically to
> remove homosexuality from the list of disorders in the DSM-II -- as
> homosexual activists continued to storm the APA proceedings and commit
> acts of violence and terrorism against the delegates.
Which has nothing to do with how the DSM is put together - it certainly
doesn't happen at conventions ;) yes, the activism definitely
motivated others to state their opinions, and yes the committee dealt
with the issue because it had become 'topical' but they were hardly
forced to make any decision they didn't want to.
>
> In conclusion on Hooker's studies: If she didn't conclude that
> homosexuality is normal -- how could the APA do so based on her work?
Yes she did - she specificallly said it may be a deviation with is
within the normal range. You just quoted it above. That's saying its
normal. Really Kevin, you aren't that dense.
Silly boy. When you're very sexual orientation qualifies you for
psychotherapy and a diagnosis as 'mentally ill', there would obviously
be no way to clearly differentiate or make a reasonable decision.
Surely you aren't looking to studies from the 50's and 60's to try and
make a claim of innate psychopathology associated with homosexuality?
Again that would be deceptive and obviously 'lame' to even the most
rabid homophobe.
>
> Ironically, then, this study, which is touted as proving that
> homosexuals are just as healthy as a group as heterosexuals, actually
> provides evidence suggesting higher rates of psychiatric disorder
> among homosexuals.
>
> A recent study provides similar evidence. Bradford and her colleagues
> reported findings from the "National Lesbian Health Care Survey." They
> minimized differences between homosexual and heterosexual women. The
> authors argued that the two groups were similar except for elevated
> use of alcohol and drugs and elevated use of counseling for lesbians
> (77.5% for the lesbian sample). But a closer look at their results
> tells a different tale. The data actually suggest that the lesbians
> studied experience elevated incidence of a number of significant
> problems.
>
> The authors reported that 37% of the lesbians surveyed had experienced
> significant depression in their lifetime, that 11% were experiencing
> depression at the time of the survey, and that 1% were currently in
> treatment for their depression."
> http://www.narth.com/docs/mentaldisorder.html
Which then would mean that 63% had never had a significant depression -
as such lesbianism in and of itself can not be the primary etiological
agent of said depression.
> Read on.
>
>
> >
> > J. Chang and J. Boock, "A study of indenfitcation in male
> > homosexuaols," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 24:307-310
> > (1960)
>
> You do mean "Block" not Boock, right?
yeah, I didn't have time to spell check - it was gay pride day and we
were going to out to the all you can eat crab buffet to celebrate with
friends.
> Did you know that Chang and
> Block carefully controlled their homosexual subjects such that only
> homosexual males who were in long-term relationship were included?
> That, after looking for over 3 years, they only found a handful of
> such "couples"? It is well known (and was well know at the time of
> their study) that the vast majority of homosexual males do *not* exist
> in long-term relationships. Homosexual males live their lives in
> fleeting relationships that number in the hundreds.
Actually that's not true but then we've been through that before. As
to not being able to find gay couples in the time period of their study
that is totally reasonable. Where would you find them? Even as late
as the 80's most gay couples just disappear into the woodwork once
they've coupled up. Shoot I had to show 2 friends of mine who've been
together for 36 years now their first copy of the local gay community
paper.
>
> So, what do you have when the data is hand selected and not
> representative of a population? You have a coerced conclusion -- and
> that is exactly why the pyschological community never (save
> revisionist homosexuals of today) never gave any merit to this
> "study".
>
Kevin, if homosexuality is a 'pathology' then there would be no members
of those 'suffering' from it that avoided it. If you can find members
that are well adjusted then the diagnosis is in error. That's the
way psychological diagnosis works. It wasn't supposed to be a study
on the prevalence of mental pathology in the gay community in general -
only that mental pathology was not an innate part of sexual
orientation.
See the difference?
> While yet another study completed before the APA vote - not a study
> any person of science could hang their hat on.
>
> >
> > T.S. Szasz, The Myth of Mental Illness: Founcations of a Theory of
> > personal Conduct (1961)
>
> Ha, ha, ha, ha! You are actually going to quote the work of a man who
> states that *all* of modern psycgology/psychiatry is completely
> worthless and wrong? Now, don't get me wrong -- I agree with Szasz -
> the mental patients are in control over at the APA. But, you surely
> cannot quote someone who compeltely dismisses the APA as having
> written something that they used to support their political vote on
> homosexuality, do you? In my abnormal psych class - they spent almost
> 20 minutes roasting this guy as a nutcase.
>
> http://www.ftrbooks.net/psych/szasz/myth_mental_illness.htm
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz
Yes he is considered a gadfly, but he does get people to examine their
believes, which is what the APA did. He was actively quoted and
discussed before the APA change, your abnormal psych support group not
withstanding ;)
>
> Well, let's see how you are doing so far:
>
> In scientific research that was used by the APA as the basis to remove
> homosexuality from the list of disorders, you are batting:
>
> 0 for 4 (0-4), or .000
>
> Now, that's putting them out of the ballpark, Sluggo!
Silly Kevin, these are the studies that were out there, and as I've
shown you don't have much of an understanding about what they were even
demonstration
3 show that there is no innate pathology associated with homosexuality
and one gets professionals to examine their motives and rationales for
they traditional assumptions.
4 for 0 for my side. You need to learn how to keep score.
>
>
> >
> > R.B. Dean and H. Richardson, "Analysis of MMPI profiles of 40
> > college-educated overt male homosexuals," Journal of consulting and
> > Clinical Pyschology 28:483-486 (1964)
>
> Now you are grasping at straws. Again, the subjects were handpicked
> such that an atypical population was used for the 'study'. Anywho:
> do you really think the Minnesota Multiphasi Personality Test can
> determine whether or not homosexuality per se, is abnormal - when *no*
> questions were asked about the sexual behavior of the participants?
>
> You gotta be kidding!
You really don't know a thing about psychology do you? The MMPI is an
empirical study of totally none psychological questions. They gave the
test to thousands of people with diagnosis of psychological pathology.
They then developed a matrix of answers that were applied to the test.
The result - they found that they could identify psychological
pathology by applying these matrices to tests taken by people without a
psychological diagnosis. That's why its an emprical first line test -
you can reliably weed out those with pathology and those without sans
extensive psycholoanalysis.
The result - there was no indication that homosexuality was innately
related with any psychological pathology any more than heterosexuality.
AGain, imagine that? Again, it doesn't matter if the group was 'hand
picked' of homosexuality was actually a psychological disease it would
have be demonstrable in ALL homosexuals!
>
> >
> > J. N. DeLuca, "Performace of overt male homosexuals and contrls on the
> > Blacky Test," Journal of Clinical Psychology 23:497 (1967)
>
> Never even heard of this one. I couldn't even find a single reference
> to it anywhere. Gosh, must have been a real winner to fade back into
> the complete darkness of the unknown. Again -- I could find no
> reference to this "study" at all at any of the APA conferences that
> lead up to the DSM-II decision.
Why would it be referenced at a conference? It was in the Journal of
Clinical Psychology - one of the major players as far as psych
journals. You aren't of the silly assumption that decisions like this
are made at conferences are you?
> > M. Siegelman, "Adjustment of homosexual and heterosexual women,"
> > British Journal of Psychiatry 120:"477-481 (1972)
>
> So desperate are you -- that you now have to go to the other side of
> the world just to fill in space?
The British Journal of Psychiatry???? You are truly mad! Virtually
ever college library has this on tap.
> Absolutely no data avaiable on this
> one - and again, not a single reference by any APA committee prior to
> the 1974 DSM-II decision.
And who would it be? Again how do you think this works?
> > Richard Green, "Homosexuality as a mental illness," International
> > Journal of Psychiatry 10 (1):77-98 (1972)
>
> Ditto.
You need to get your information from somewhere other than NARTH :)
This was probably one of the primary articles that changed minds, it
was an extensive examination of the 'homosexuality as a mental illness'
paradigm past present and future. Accompanying were pro and con
commentaries by Socarides, Hatterer, Jud Marmor, Martin Hoffman and
others. This Kevin was a 'big deal'. If there was a single article
that changed minds in the APA membership, this was probably it.
> > J. Marmor, "Homosexuality - Mental illness or moral dilemma?"
> > International Journal of Psychiatry 10(1): 114-117 (1972)
>
> Ditto.
Yep poor Dr. Marmor, a humble unknown who just happened to become the
president of the APA in later years.
> > > Now, Bob, given not even the APA makes such a claim that they had
> > > reviewed such studies, how can you make such a claim?
> >
> > Gee because there is no such person as the APA - it is comprised of
> > health professionals who's job it is to keep abreast of such findings
> > and reports. As you can see - there were a great many reports presented
> > in the most common of the profession's journals. It is just downright
> > silly of you to try and say they were unaware of these reports.
>
> The "most common of the profession's journals? You only list
> international rags with the exception of one US journal. How
> laughable.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You are so silly. ;)\
>
> You want to know the chronology of how the vote was taken, read this:
>
> "In 1972, during his induction of the national meeting in Dallas, a
> vice-president of the American Psychiatric Association took the
> occasion to criticize severely any psychiatrist who practiced
> psychotherapy that attempted to change homosexuality to
> heterosexuality. According to a report in the June 7 issue of
> Psychiatric News, he labeled such colleagues cruel, inhuman, and a
> "disgrace to the profession." (8)
yes and this means to you something other than change was in the
wind...?
> In early 1973, a group superheaded by several leaders of the A.P.A.,
> other psychiatrists, and members of the Gay Activists Alliance, the
> Mattachine Society, and the Daughters of Bilitis undertook to
> influence the Nomenclature Committee of the A.P.A. at a closed meeting
> at Columbia University Psychiatric Institute by requesting deletion of
> homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual(9).
Yep, presented by Charles Silverstein. And the committe members were
favorably impressed.
> By spring 1973 the A.P.A. Committee on Nomenclature and Statistics was
> seriously considering the removal of homosexuality from the DSM II
> without consultation with the psychiatrists and psychoanalysts who had
> long labored in this area of clinical research, and held opposing
> views.
Hardly in the months after the february 1973 meeting, many individuals
and organizations put themselves on record as being for or against the
change. Several psychoanalytic organizations urged that homosexuality
be kept in the SMA, while several chapters of the APA voted for its
deletion. Robert Spitzer, the head of the APA's Nomenclature
Committee, sent a position paper to the APA leadership suggesting that
they delete homosexuality and subsititue sexual orientation
disturbance.
> A Symposium held in Hawaii on May 9, 1973 was entitled "Should
> Homosexuality Be in the A.P.A. Nomenclature?" As a member of this
> panel, I presented the conclusions of the eleven-member Task Force on
> Homosexuality appointed in 1970 by the New York County District Branch
> of the A.P.A., of which I was chairman. (10)
Ahhh you are quoting Socarides here....
>
> In April 1972, after two years of intensive work, the members of the
> Task Force had unanimously agreed upon the following conclusions as
> regards male homosexuality:
<snip>
Yes but unfortunately Socarides is from the psychoanalytical camp which
who's viewpoint was soundly thumped in those papers you can't find,
particularly Greene's. Remember there are many views of psychological
science of which the psychoanalytics are a minority AND one that was
starting to fall out of vogue about that time and coming under a
critical eye by others.
> >
> > > The only study on the subject completed prior to 1972 was one
> > > entitled something like, "The Well Adjusted Homosexual Male" - and it
> > > was resoundly rejected by the scientific community on peer review.
> >
> > Gosh, now you are the one who seems out of the loop here - there were
> > many studies of which I've published references to some of them.
>
> Well, no, actually, you published some misinformation guised as
> "studies". The foremost study merely concluded that homosexuality
> "may" be normal.
'Foremost' mean's 'earliest' to you? Odd usage, but then you are a bit
deviant within the normal range yourself. ;)
>
> Again, given the 100 years of previous studies, can we qualify the APA
> vote in 1974 as based on science, or politics? Where is the body of
> science that outweighed literally hundreds of studies that had found
> that homosexuality is abnormal? Where? You haven't posted anything
> here?
Really? Hundreds of studies? I must have missed your posting of
those. And those studies and papers, like it or not, were the some of
the primary ones that did change the mind of the APA. They aren't
mythic, they aren't hard to find, and were published in the premiere
journals that every psychiatric health professional read. You are
floundering here Kevin and you know it.
> > > So, where are all of these studies?
> >
> > Hmmm, in the references I cited. :)
>
> Yep. That we agree upon. The references you cited are inclusive of
> *all* the information that countered over 100 years of research that
> had concluded just the opposite.
Kevin, it doesn't matter if you have a 100 thousand articles that say
something if their basic premise has been shown to be false by the
measures of the day. If homosexuality is in itself a pathological
process then as such these pathologies would be present in all
homosexuals. They aren't. As such the diagnosis as a pathology is
erroneous. This is the logical progression in which the change came
about. The problem is you don't know how to think like a clinician.
> Let's see, you quoted on researcher that suggested that homosexuality
> "may" be normal, another who thinks all of psycholoyg is nuts, and a
> personality study that didn't ask about aberrant sexual behavior.
Please Kevin you're embarrassing yourself. These studies are here to
convince you - they were presented as per your request for the studies
that changed the minds of the APA. I fully understand your mind, such
as it is, is unchangeable. Regardless, these publications were what
caused the APA to consider and ultimately commit to the removal of
homosexuality as a primary psychiatric disease. You can fuss and fume
and stomp your feet all you want but they don't go away.
>
> WOW. You really know how to support your position. :-O
Sure do - I've shown how there was more than enough evidence to support
the removal of homosexuality as a primary psychiatric pathology
diagnosis. That you are unaware of it is more sad for you than
anything else. ;)
>
> >
> > > > > Not a single study or research paper was presented in order to
> > > > > suppor the vote, that went 60%-40% to remove homosexuality from
> > > > > the list of disorders.
> >
> > Why would they have to? They had been in the psych literature for over
> > a decade.
>
> Only if you click your heels together thrice and keep denying reality.
>
> I have included real research at the end of this post for you to
> lookup and read.
To what end? The discussion was about what changed the mind of the APA.
>
> >
> > > > > Is that the way APA votes work Kevin? No? You knew that?
> > > > > Typical > misdirection on your part. There were though many
> > > > > studies that showed > that there was no intrinsic mental
> > > > > pathology associated with > homosexuality. You aren't trying
> > > > > imply this body was unaware of these > studies, are you?
> > >
> > > Please, post away these studies.
> >
> > Been there, done that.
>
> Yep, reall winners. I can't stop laughing so hard. There is nothing
> worth bringing a hardy laugh then seeing someone who doesn't know what
> they don't know toss in the wind.
Kevin, since you have demonstrated your lack of understanding about the
scientific process repeatedly in just this note, I could hope you have
had an epiphany of self-realization and are laughing at yourself...
But that would be hoping too much I suppose.
>
> >
> > > The leading researcher at the time of the APA vote was Dr. Charles W.
> > > Socarides. *All* of his research had found that homosexuality was an
> > > abormal mental condition.
> >
> > Actually he wasn't a researcher as much as he was merely opinionated.
> > And you will be hard pressed to find many considering him the 'leading
> > researcher' of his times ;) Vocal? Yes. Well known? Yes. But leading?
> > Well you will read in a bit how he also overestimated his 'leadership'.
> > ;)
> >
> > His opinion of 1968 that claimed gay men had ego dysfunction was
> > soundly refuted by M. Siegelman's empirically based work that showed in
> > nonclinical populations many gay men scored as high or higher than
> > hterosexuals on test of ego strength or sense of identity.
>
> Dr. Charles W. Socarides, professor of psychiatry at Albert Einstien
> College of Medicine was "refuted" by Siegelman? The *same* M.
> Sieglemann who found that homosexuals suffered from an over mother-son
> attachment? (Please read "Parental Background of Male Homosexuals and
> Heterosexuals", Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1974). Do tell!
Yep the same.
Gosh too bad the conclusion you say it makes came too late for the DSM
;)
>
> Har-de-har-har-har! You haven't a clue, do you? Yep, thos Mamma's
> boys are always known to have a great sense of ego and identity!!!
According to the research of M. Sieglemann in contrast to the mere
opinion of Socarides.
>
> Stop it! I can't stop laughing! You are totally clueless!!!
You really don't understand anything about science and medicine, do
you? Fortunately the other readers have shown more common sense than
you.
> > Interestingly the vote on whether homosexuality could be retained as an
> > innate pathology in the DSM came up to a vote of the full membership
> > *BECAUSE* of Socraides political shinanagens. He must have bgeen very
> > disappointed with the 58% 37% results, eh?
>
> You know, the last time the IEEE decided a matter of scientific fact
> -- it voted 58% to 37% to determine what was the truth of the matter!
> NOT!! BTW, when a Psychology Journal polled their readers the next
> year -- over 60% of the rank and file said the APA's removal of
> homosexuality from DSM-II was *wrong*!
'a psychology journal' some title - probably the NARTH mimograph note ;)
In all seriousness it would most likely be a psychoanalytical journal,
they were the largest body of APA professionals who wanted to retain
the disease status. As Green summed up in his discounting the opinion
of the psychoanalytical camp:
"First, they emanate from patients who are maladaptive to the extent of
seeking extended, expensive psychiatric treatment. Second, they are
reported by clinicians who ascribe to a psychological philosphy that
takes as givens certain universal, instinctual, incestuous drives,
coupled with fear of genital mutilation, and who then interpret patient
behavior in light of that theoretical matrix."
You have to realize Freudian psychoanalytical methods had been a sacred
cow for decades - but people were finally starting to question some of
the core Freudian premises. As such, people who based their diagnosis
of mental illness on them were falling rapidly out of favor in the 60's
and 70's. This wasn't just in relationship to homosexuality but all of
their diagnostic methods. Probably misreading just how far out of
favor they had fallen was part of Socarides miscalcuation on getting
the membership vote - he thought he still had more influence than he
ultimately did.
>
> >
> > > Other leading researchers were Masters and Johnson. They had also
> > > found that homosexuality was a disorder.
> >
> > Really? Your turn for cites now I would supposed ;) Masters and
> > Johnsons have usually been more catalogers and empirical evaluators of
> > sexual behavior - it would be odd for them to claim virtually any
> > behavior was intrinsically a 'disorder'. But be glad to see you prove
> > me wrong....
> >
> > Cite please.
>
> Masters and Johnson. Homosexuality in Perspective (Boston: Little
> Brown and Company, 1979
You cite an entire book? I've read it - Where did they say it was a
disorder?
>
> Schwartz, M., Masters, W. (1984) The Masters and Johnson treatment
> program for dissatisfied homosexual men. American Journal of
> Psychiatry. 141: 173 - 181
Again, where did they say it was a disorder?
> > > The fourth one was Dr Schwartz - again, he found a number of
> > > pathologies and mental disorders directly associated with
> > > homosexuality.
> >
> > Gosh earliest reference I can find to David M. Schwartz's views is 1973
> > and then only as a co-contributor to an article trying to attribute
> > male homosexuality to father estrangement.
> >
> > . Cites to other relevant references would be more than welcome.
> >
> > > Now, all we need is you to post all of these studies you say were
> > > used by the APA in which to base their political vote. BTW, why did
> > > a full 40% of the APA vote that homosexuality *was* a disorder?
> > >
> > > Just the facts.
> >
> > There's always a few loonies in every bin Kevin, and also the
> > Freudian's were very entrenched with an erroneous rationale for
> > classifying homosexuality as a pathology. I have a good friend who is
> > a Freudian and we've actually had several discussions about this - he
> > said it took some time before his collegues came to the understanding
> > that it was their assumptions that were in error along with the
> > diagnosis.
> >
> > You don't seem very well versed on your topic of discussion though
> > Kevin - how could you have missed all these relevant studies,
> > especially the flurry of them just before the critical 1974 vote of the
> > membership?
>
> Yep, just keep kidding yourself. I think I rather thrashed you and
> your "studies". Don't you think?
No, you demonstrated you were totally ignorant of what they said, and
clueless as to the potential effects they would have on opinion of a
mental health professional. Shoot some of the ones probably most
influential in swaying the APA committee and electorate you weren't
even aware of!
You've lost again Kevin. The mythic studies *DO* exist and in just the
way they would to have effectively swayed the APA into changing their
opinions.
Sorry, you lost again.
>
> -Red Davis
>
> >
> >
> > (I do find it satisfying that the only thing you could find to even
> > post about in my note was this, as ineffective as it was)
>
> Studies that oppose these noted here are:
>
> Kolb and Johnson, "Etiology and Therapy of Overt Homosexuality", in
> Psychoanalytic Quarterly 24:506-515, 1955
>
> Masserman, "Some Current Concepts of Sexual Behavior", Psychiatry
> 14:61-62, 1951.
>
> Bychowsky, "The Structure of Homosexual Acting Out", Psychoanalytic
> Quarterly 23:48-61, 1954.
>
> Horney, "The Neurotic Personality of Our Time", New York, 1937; Our
> Inner Conflicts, New York, 1945.
>
> Silverberg, "Childhood Experiences and Personal Destiny", New York,
> 1952.
>
> Thompson, "Changing Concepts of Homosexuality in Psychoanalysis",
> Psychiatry 10:2-13, 1947.
>
> Ovesey, "The Homosexual Conflict", Psychiatry 17:243-250, 1954.
>
> Ovesey, "The Pseudohomosexual Anxiety", Psychiatry 18:17-25, 1955.
>
> Bauer, "Homosexuality as an Endocrinological, Psychological, and
> Genetic Problem", J. Crim. Path. 2:188-197, 1940.
Gosh ancient history, ones that fell the instant homosexuals without
psychological pathology were identified.
Again Kevin, for homosexuality to be a psychiatric pathology it has to
have some pervasive pathology. If there isn't one, then it can NOT be
the primary pathology - think of it as Koch's principles of mental
illness. That it wasn't a pathology in and of itself is the viewpoint
that my quoted papers supported, and they and others were obviously
enough to sway the opinion of the APA nomenclature committee and the
APA electorate in general.
But then I guess you're just living in the past, as would be indicated
from your antique references above ;)
Lee Paulson
> Bob <nos...@4me.com> wrote in message news:<bdntbt$brp$0...@216.39.173.68>...
> > In article <fe6e030e.0306...@posting.google.com>, KDavis
> > <kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Bob <nos...@4me.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<bd380d$t8f$0...@216.39.173.68>... > In article
> > > <fe6e030e.03062...@posting.google.com>, KDavis >
> > > <kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote: [nip] > > Association (APA)'s
> > > decision to open > the door to removing pedophilia from their list
> What we have before us is a desperate attempt to provide cover for the
> APA by doing a search on any and all studies completed up to 1972.
> Questions are: did any of these studies pass peer review and were
> accepted by the scientific community? Were all of these studies
> actually completed prior to the APA's vote? And, key to it all: did
> the APA actually review or cite these studies before they voted?
> Finally, were there other researchers who had concluded that
> homosexuality was, indeed, an abnormality? Yes, indeed.
>
snip
HA, HA, HA, HA! Red Davis, who cites from right-wing news publications,
asks if journal articles were peer reviewed! HA, HA, HA!
Lee Paulson
Your daddy was fictional. But delusional people often have invisible
guidance.
Red, you can't respond. You've been shown up so many times that now all you
can do is rely on dad to give you an inappropriate homily or two.
TheJordan6
>Date: 6/30/2003 9:36 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <fe6e030e.03063...@posting.google.com>
>
>"Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:<bdpoo5$vav23$1...@ID-146277.news.dfncis.de>...
>> "Bob" <nos...@4me.com> wrote in message news:bdoctm$crl$0...@216.39.173.68...
>> > In article <ud3vfvc6aabh4r6qa...@4ax.com>, Nathan Packer
>> > <npa...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Somebody filled Red's little white space. Oh darn. Now Red will have
>> > > to tuck his tail and do the Red fade. He will be back though with the
>> > > same drivel. Just save this response and drop it on him when he
>> > > returns.
>> >
>> > yeah, what do you think Kevin's motivations really are? I mean they
>> > obviously aren't truth because he either misstates, or tries to misuse
>> > statistics to try and lump widely different groups together...
>
>What is your motivation? I could care less.
>
>I simply researched the facts about homosexuality and post the
>results:
>
>Homosexuality is an abnormal and unhealthy lifestyle build upon
>perverted behavior.
>
>As to missinformation, what do you call the following gay lies?
Hmmmm, speaking of lies:
>To the best of my knowledge, I have *never* posted on the subject of
>the Danites - much less described them as "invisible Danites" or
>"non-existent Danites".
---Red Davis, ARM post, June 29, 2003
"It was only after Hickman met up with J.H. Beade (the first version of D.
Michael Quinn - a historian who isn't afraid to forge
history to meet his agenda) that his numerous and unbelievable stories came
about. Murders everywhere. Danites everywhere. Why, alledged Hickman --
murmur a word about it -- and you'r dead, dead, dead."
---Kevin (Red) Davis, ARM post, November 19, 2001
"The old anti-Mormon legend of the Danites. I guess I could have
challenged a Baptist minister or the freedom of a black man and had
the KKK lynch me to a pecan tree anywhere South of the Maxon-Dixon
line. Now, that is a reality. The Danites are fictional gobbly-gook,
whose legend has been embelleshed by anti-Mormons for over a century
and a half."
-----Red Davis, ARM post, January 16, 2003.
"Yet, I niether have a temple recommend nor lied about my tithing status
because I simply do not lie."
---Red Davis, ARM post, February 8, 1997
Randy J.
Bob
<lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "KDavis" <kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fe6e030e.03063...@posting.google.com...
> > Bob <nos...@4me.com> wrote in message news:<bdntbt$brp$0...@216.39.173.68>...
> > > In article <fe6e030e.0306...@posting.google.com>, KDavis
> > > <kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Bob <nos...@4me.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:<bd380d$t8f$0...@216.39.173.68>... > In article
> > > > <fe6e030e.03062...@posting.google.com>, KDavis >
> > > > <kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote: [nip] > > Association (APA)'s
> > > > decision to open > the door to removing pedophilia from their list
> snip
>
> > What we have before us is a desperate attempt to provide cover for the
> > APA by doing a search on any and all studies completed up to 1972.
> > Questions are: did any of these studies pass peer review and were
> > accepted by the scientific community? Were all of these studies
> > actually completed prior to the APA's vote? And, key to it all: did
> > the APA actually review or cite these studies before they voted?
> > Finally, were there other researchers who had concluded that
> > homosexuality was, indeed, an abnormality? Yes, indeed.
> >
> snip
>
> HA, HA, HA, HA! Red Davis, who cites from right-wing news publications,
> asks if journal articles were peer reviewed! HA, HA, HA!
Well in all fairness that was his attempt at 'payback' since I've
invalidated so many of his Cameron and NARTH spawned references that
way.
Of course in this instance its immaterial - the articles only needed to
exist and be published in at least common journals at the times in
question to have been influential to the APA, which is the topic under
'discussion'.
Some people ask why I bother even taking Kevin on. My response would
be that even in a discussion with Kevin, you can end up learning
something useful. Cham chiming in with is references led me to this
page http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gayhealth.html that seems to have some
exellent references that I've previously been unaware of.
Already have the page pdf'ed and will be taking it on the laptop to the
med school's library to find the actual studies referenced.
Kevin himself is a dinosaur and an amusement. For most of the country
this entire discussion is so 'last millenium'. Last Thursday the
Seattle Post Intelligencer had a blurb on the front page that the
Friday weekend entertainment section would be about Gay Pride. In
the next day's paper the entire insert was about Gay Pride, the best
restaurants and bars to go to to celebrate after the parade, etc. And,
of course, the Gay Pride parade is the second only to the Seafair
parade in size and there are rumors that this years it might actually
be the biggest parade in town. Parade was very family friendly as was
the festival afterwards. Beautiful weather and a wonderful time was
had by all.
Washington state has had gay foster parents and adoptions for well over
a decade now without problem in fact they department in charge has said
they wish all their foster parents were of the same caliber. Seattle's
non-discrimination policies based on marital status has allowed all
couples to take advantage of area business'es couple memberships and
discounts with only increased sales and profit as a result to the
businesses involved. 'The Old Gay Ghetto' of Capitol Hill is so
gentrified, expensive, and overrun with straights that the gay
households have spread throughout the city performing their own style
of 'urban renewal' one house at a time.
Its fun trying to keep Kevin 'honest', but I have no delusions that his
mind could ever be changed. But then that's his problem - evil, hate,
and prejudice produce their own consequences to those that practice
them. I do feel a bit guilty at my enjoyment of watching him shoot
himself in the foot over and over and over again, but then everyone as
their 'guilty pleasures' I guess. Just hope he doesn't have accest to
too many young minds so he can infect them with his bigotry - Lord help
them if any turn out to be gay themselves.
Nathan Packer
I had the pleasure of reading his rather long post in response to your
homophobia. Filled your white space many times over and ground you to
a pulp.
All the intelligence must have been retained in your daddy cause he
sure didn't replicate any in you. Maybe you should check.
TheJordan6
>Date: 7/1/2003 7:15 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <bdru1j$108pv7$1...@ID-146277.news.dfncis.de>
And this is coming from a guy who thinks that FARMS publications are legitimate
scholarship.
Randy J.
cham
> In article <fe6e030e.03063...@posting.google.com>, KDavis
> <kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Bob <nos...@4me.com> wrote in message news:<bdntbt$brp$0...@216.39.173.68>...
> > > In article <fe6e030e.0306...@posting.google.com>, KDavis
> > > <kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Bob <nos...@4me.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:<bd380d$t8f$0...@216.39.173.68>... > In article
> > > > <fe6e030e.03062...@posting.google.com>, KDavis >
> > > > <kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote: [nip] > > Association (APA)'s
> > > > decision to open > the door to removing pedophilia from their list of
> > > > disorders. Let's > > recount their history:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. They removed homosexual behavior from their list of disorders
> > > > > > as written in DSM-II based on political reaction in the face of
> > > > > > violent protests by homosexual activists.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not true - they did so on the studies that showed there was no
> > > > > intrinsic pathology associated with homosexuality.
SNIP-lots deleted to this.
> You need to get your information from somewhere other than NARTH :)
> This was probably one of the primary articles that changed minds, it
> was an extensive examination of the 'homosexuality as a mental illness'
> paradigm past present and future. Accompanying were pro and con
> commentaries by Socarides, Hatterer, Jud Marmor, Martin Hoffman and
> others. This Kevin was a 'big deal'. If there was a single article
> that changed minds in the APA membership, this was probably it.
>
> > > J. Marmor, "Homosexuality - Mental illness or moral dilemma?"
> > > International Journal of Psychiatry 10(1): 114-117 (1972)
> >
> > Ditto.
>
> Yep poor Dr. Marmor, a humble unknown who just happened to become the
> president of the APA in later years.
>
Thanks for this review-although for Kevin, it was very interesting. I
appreciate the clarity of responses on specific articles and APA DSM
history. I'm saving the whole post.
I've snipped the rest and wanted to add a comment on NARTH-.
Although they are alone among psychological associations (they claim a
thousand practicing pscyhol. members) in claiming "the cure" works,
they do have one thing on their website -they said something may
people would agree to- though given the bias in their reports its hard
to know what it means practically;
"Like the APA, NARTH opposes homophobia (irrational fear and hatred of
homosexuals). We, too, oppose social stigmatization and obstruction of
the civil rights of homosexuals. We wish to make this point of
agreement clear."
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/apa-response.html
Given their very divergent ideas of common definitions,(fuzzy on what
is bisexual, etc.) this may not mean what it appears to say.
Maybe NARTH believes (well the people who run it) that the fears and
myths promoted by their publications and annoucements (such as the
CBN-APA conference "commentary")-which was fear mongering at its
worst-are rational??
Chuck
KDavis
You don't know any gay people who claim that "10% of the population is
homosexual"?
This is typical of the propaganda and dissinformation that comes from
homophile apologists and militant homosexual activists. When they are
caught in their lies - they just deny every having lied in the first
place.
The fact is this: homosexual activists always inflate and
misrepresent the incidence of homosexuality in our society as being
"10%" in order to demand political favoritism. The "10%" figure is a
lie. It has no basis in any study, though, just as Bob did here -- it
is misattributed to the Kinsey Study.
The Kinsey studies that Bob is referring to were studies done on
mental patients and prison inmates circa 1940's-1950's. Kinsey
*never* found that "10%" of the population was homosexual. So, what
homophile propagandists due when they are called on the false claim --
is they quote Kinsey sideways and hope the reader is stupid enough to
be duped by the presence of a "10%" figure in their sideways quote.
Said Bob of the Kinsey study: "10% of men had...primarily homosexual
contact for 4 or more years between the ages of 16 and 59". Ah, but
were they homosexual? Nope. Were they even normal given they resided
in a nut house? Nope. Do men in prison have access to women? Nope.
So, again, we see how rediculous and far fetched homosexual propaganda
is -- and why it is that homosexual activists must shout down those
who oppose their agenda with shouts of "homophobe", "intolerant",
"hateful", "narrow minded" - instead of addressing the issues.
Homosexuals cannot defend their lifestyle or their behavior. So, we
get the "Big Lie" over and over and over again -- while all opposition
is being muted by militants screaming "homophobe".
Here, some gays Bob doesn't know claiming that homosexuals are 10% of
the population:
(from a previous Red Davis post)
1. The Ten Percent Society (http://tps.stdorg.wisc.edu/)
[Shouldn't that be "2.5%" :-O )
2. Ten Percent of American's Children Needlessly Suffer, Have No One
to Turn
To...and Are Gay, says Mary Ann Cantwell
(http://www.guestfinders.com/nfgay.htm)
3. The Tri-College Ten Percent Society.
(http://www.acm.ndsu.nodak.edu/Ten_Percent/)
4. The Other 10%
(http://www.ma.huji.ac.il/~dafid/asiron_.html)
5. The Tri-College Ten Percent Society
(http://www.acm.ndsu.nodak.edu/Ten_Percent/)
6. University of North Dakota Ten Percent Society
(http://www.und.nodak.edu/org/tenps/index.html)
7. Considering only sexual experiences after puberty, Kinsey found
that 37%
of the males and 20% of the females in his sample had at least one
adult
experience with a person on the same gender. He also found that 13% of
the
men and 7% of the women were predominantly homosexual for at least
three
years of their lives between the ages of 16 and 55. Put another way,
this
meant that more than 10% had a very significant homosexual dimension
to their
lives. [Shouldn't we say, "Make it up this way, this meant that more
than
10%..."] (http://gaylesissues.miningco.com/library/weekly/aa072498.htm)
8. "According to national estimates, 10 percent of the
population is gay/lesbian. Using this figure, there are
approximately 3700 gay/lesbian members of the NC State
University community."
(http://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/project/www/ncsu/housing/safe/whysafe.html)
[Here they take the faked "10%" figure wrongfully attributed to the
Kinsey
study and falsely claim that there are actually several "national
estimates"
that have also found the "10 percent" figure. Did they name any of
these
"national estimates"? Who made them? Answer: homosexual activists.
Heck,
here they even make up the fact that they are *several* such sources
for the
figure. Again - the Big Lie.]
9. Queer Resources - Ten Percent
(http://echonyc.com:70/1/Queer)"
How, the truth of the matter. Homosexuals make up less than 3% of the
population. When lesbians are included and the population as a whole
is viewed - homosexuals/lesbians make up less than 2% of the
population.
"A comprehensive new survey of the sexual behavior and attitudes of
American
men in their 20s and 30s had found that just 2.3% -- far less than the
10% figure usually cited -- say that they have ever had sex with
another
man, and that 1.1% report being exclusively homosexual. The figures
in the federally funded study, released Wednesday by the Alan
Guttmacher
Institute, are far less than the 10% homosexuality figure commonly
attributed to the landmark Kinsey report published in 1948."
"The median number of female sex partners the men said they had ever
had
was 7.3"
"Although the survey's finding of homosexual behavior among 1% to 2%
of
respondents is at variance with the popularly repeated figure of 10%,
it
agrees with several previous surveys in this country, Britain and
France."
"This is not a surprise to those of us who do the research, " said
John
O.G. Billy, a Battelle demographer who did the study with Koray
Tanfer,
William R. Grady and Daniel H. Klepinger. "It's pretty much what
other studies have found."
("2.3% of men in Survey Report Sex with Male, Los Angeles Times, A3,
15 April 1993).
A study of men conducted between 1984 and 1987 by David
Forman, the senior staff scientist at the Radcliffe Infirmary
(Oxford, England), found that only 1.7 percent of the sample study
had ever had homosexual intercourse.("The Ten Percent Solution, Part
II,"
_Peninsula_ 3:2 (October/November 1991)
>
> I know that largest population study done by the University of Chicago
> for that in major urban areas about 9% of the men self-identifed as
> gay.
>
> Again, please a current reference that the monolithic gay 'liars' are
> saying 10% of the entire population is gay?
Oh, I just gave you 9 national references, and you just tried to make
the claim again with some slanted study from the University of
Chicago, where they only looked at "major urban areas" (e.g., cities
with large gay communities) - instead of analyzing the incidence with
respect to the general population.
Can you get any more dishonest or desparate? Trying to present this
"9%" figure as representative of the population as a whole? You know,
if I were to walk down the middle of the gay district in San Francisco
(a major urban area) taking a survey -- I bet I would find 40-50% of
the men would "self-identify" as being gay. Does that mean that
40-50% of society is gay?
What a liar.
>
> > The lie that homosexuals are "born that way"? No scientific study has
> > ever concluded that homosexuality is innate or immutable. In fact,
> > every scientific study (even those done by LeVay) have found that
> > homosexuality is a result of environmental conditioning.
>
> No no more 'the result of' than it is the result of mere genetics. All
> reasonable people say there are probably both genetic and environmental
> factors that stretch as far back as the womb.
Yes, all reasonable people accept the fact that science has *never*
concluded that homosexuality is innate or immutable. Yet, we find
such claims from homosexual activists all the time in the media.
> >
> > The lie that homosexuals are not immoral. *Every* study ever
> > completed on the sexual behavior of male homosexuals has found that a
> > typical homosexual male has had over 300 different sexual partners. A
> > heterosexual male averages about 7.
>
> Well first you would have to show that promiscuity is innately
> 'immoral'. But regardless, as I have demonstrated to you time and time
> again population studies the percentage of promiscuous gay men is about
> the same as that of straight men which is remarkable in itself since
> most gay people are denied couple stabilizing social institutions such
> as marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships.
Another gay lie. *Every* single gay population study has found that
the promiscuity rates among homosexuals is much, much larger than
among heterosexuals. (just read the study posted above)
Here, some more reading for you:
Corey, L. and Holmes, K. "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in
Homosexual Men." New England J. Med., 1980, pp. 435-38.
Bell, A. and Weinberg, M. Homosexualities: a Study of Diversity
Among Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978.
Cameron et. al. ISIS National Random Sexuality Survey. Nebraska
Med. Journal, 1985, 70, pp. 292-299.
"Changes in Sexual Behavior and Incidence of Gonorrhea." Lancet,
April 25, 1987.
Kus, R. "Alcoholics Anonymous and Gay America." Medical Journal
of Homosexuality, 1987, 14(2), p. 254.
MsKusick, L. et. al. "AIDS and Sexual Behavior Reported By Gay
Men in San Francisco." Am. J. Pub. Health, 1985, 75, pp. 493-96.
Here, some light reading:
Promiscuity, described as "sexual freedom" and a core value of today's
homosexuality, is the very opposite of Jewish fidelity. In 1948,
homosexual promiscuity was described as relatively rare in this
country [2]. The gay liberation movement of the 1970's totally
reversed this situation. By the 1980's, many gay men were having
sexual relations with several, sometimes anonymous, partners each
week, especially in major cities. This transformation to gay life is
mirrored in the medical records of venereal disease. The rate of
syphilis among white males in the United States increased by 351
percent between 1967 and 1979, due in very large part to increased
homosexual activity. Cases of gonorrhea increased from 259,000 in 1960
to 600,000 in 1970 to over a million in 1980 [3].
A central feature of gay urban life today, the New York Times reports,
is "sex clubs, bathhouses, and weekend-long drug parties where men
have intercourse with a dozen partners a night" [4]. Concern about the
diseases and public horror this blatant promiscuity evokes has led
some "moderate" gay leaders like Larry Kramer to seek community
acceptance of homosexuality by asking gays "to adopt a culture rooted
as much in art, literature and relationships as in 'what's between our
legs and what we do with it'".
"Sex Panic", a more radical gay group, opposes any such efforts to
reduce gay promiscuity. One of its founders, a Rutgers English
professor who regards promiscuous sex as the essence of gay
liberation, calls it "an absurd fantasy to expect gay men to live
without a sexual culture when we have nothing else that brings us
together". "To the many homosexuals who had been discriminated against
for the way they had sex," the Times says, "liberations means having
as much sex as possible as publicly as possible". One of the striking
differences between homosexuals and the heterosexual community is the
much larger number of sexual partners homosexuals have.
This is demonstrated by a host of studies - including some conducted
by homosexuals themselves. Sex in America (1994) found that while 68%
of men and 76% of women had only one heterosexual partner in the
previous year, only 2.6% of homosexual men and 1.2% of lesbians had so
limited themselves [5]. An earlier study estimated the number of
lifetime partners for the American population as a whole at 7.15 (8.67
for those who never married) [6]. Another found that while fear of
AIDS had lowered gay men's promiscuity, the average have male would
still have fifty sexual partners in a given year (down from seventy)
and altogether over six hundred sexual partners between ages 18 and 30
[7] [8].
1. N.S. Lehrman, "On Freud's post-marital celibacy" (Letter),
"Commentary," Sept. 1980,22.
2. A.C. Kinsey, W.B. Pomeroy, C.E. Martin. "Sexual Behavior in the
Human Mate." Philadelphia: Saunders, 1948). Pp 633-636.
3. R.S. Root-Bernstein, "Rethinking AIDS: The Tragic Cost of Premature
Consensus." (New York: Free Press, 1993).
4. S.G. Stolberg, "Gay Culture Weighs Sense and Sexuality," "New York
Times, Review of the Week," Nov. 23, 1997, p.1.
5. R.T. Michael, J.H. Gagnon, E.O. Laumann, G. Kolata, "Sex in
America." (Boston: Little Brown, 1994).
6. "Adult Sexual Behavior in 1989: Number of Partners, Frequency and
Risk," presented Feb., 1990 to American Association for the
Advancement of Science, published 1990 by NORC, University of Chicago;
cited in
7. A.N. Marco, "Same Sex Marriage," "Journal of Human Sexuality" (G.A.
Rekers, editor) 1996, 45-64; p.55.
8. Study by American Psychological Association's Ethics Committee,
reported in "USA Today," Nov, 21, 1984; cited in A.N. Marco, ref. 7 p.
54.
9. J.A. Reisman. Kinsey: "Crimes and Consequences." (Arlington VA:
Institute for Media Education, 1998).
10. Root-Bernstein, "Rethinking AIDS."
>
> The difference is in the gay men of the opportunity to be VERY
> promiscuous. But since we are on the topic of lying, only a liar of
> the first degree would average together people with thousands of
> contacts and those with a few and call that numerical average
> 'typical'. Ditto with taking studies done specifically performed in
> promiscuous subjects and presenting them as typical of the larger
> unevaluated population.
Speak for yourself, University of Chicago 9% Study Boy.
So, 90% of gay men are giving the other 10% of gay men a bad name when
it comes to promiscuity. So, your approach is to simply exclude the
90% of gay males who are hypersexual -- and present the 10% as a valid
sample.
Sounds like the Dr. Jenny study on pedophilia where she excluded male
adults committing sexual acts on male children as instances of
homosexual pedophilia in order to conclude there is no evidence of
homosexuals molesting boys.
I kid you not. And yet, her study was even used in the case against
Colorado passing their Proposition banning special homosexual rights
as evidence that homosexuals are not predophiles.
>
> Telling half truths is just as much a violation 'bearing false witness'
> as an out and out lie.
I just quote the facts.
>
> > The lie that HIV/AIDS is not a gay disease. Some 65% of all HIV/AIDS
> > cases are homosexual males -- even though they are only 2% of the
> > population.
>
> No the vast majority of HIV cases are heterosexual world wide. And
> again you are talking through out the history of the disease. As it
> stands now, a small percentage of the gay male community is HIV+, again
> rather remarkable considering the percentages that were just 10-15
> years ago.
We have already been over this. The reason that HIV/AIDS is spread so
wide in Africa and Asia is because:
1) receptive anal intercourse is much more common among heterosexuals
2) tainted needles were used by WHO to innoculate entire villages
3) In 1996, the WHO redefined HIV/AIDs to include much more diseases
4) Cultural practices such as scarring and spreading blood among
villagers
"A small percentage of the gay male community is HIV+"? You are a
disgrace to truth. That comment is so outrageous -- it doesn't even
deserve a reasoned response.
>
> > The lie that homosexuals are not disproportionately pedophiles.
> > Again, while they make up only 2% of the population - various studies
> > have found that 35-60% of pedophiles are men who molest boys.
>
> yes but as has been shown to you, they are not homosexuals - most
> pedophiles don't care what the sex of their victims are as long as they
> are preadolescent children. Homosexuality as an adult sexual
People who are attracted to both sexes are known as "bi-sexuals". The
vast majority of "homosexuals" are "bi-sexual". We both know about
the Kinsey scale of 0-6 - and that very, very, very few "homosexuals"
are a "6" - that is, they only have sex with the same sex.
So, what we have are men who have sex with both young boys and young
girls. These men are committing homosexual acts on these young boys.
They are, in fact, homosexual pedophiles.
How convenient it must be to have a "closet" to go into and outof when
the subject doesn't fit into your agenda.
> orientation is a world away from pedophilia. Might as well call
> someone who buggered rams a homosexual because his victims were male.
> :)
Homosexuals disproportionately do commit acts of beastiality. So, if
a homosexual has sex with Biff and with Bull -- does that mean he is
not homosexual?
>
> Again, presumptive heterosexuals are far more likely to molest children
> of all ages rather than out gay people.
Tell that to the 32 boys murdered by John Wayne Gacey. Tell that to
the 16 boys murdered by Jeffrey Dahmer. Tell that to the Dirkshire
boy who was rapped to death by two homosexual men.
>
> > Just
> > look at the homosexual priests in the Catholic Church who have
> > molested all those boys as an example of what happens when homosexuals
> > gain authority in an organization that works with children.
>
> And as a simple google search will show you the under reported story is
> about the priests that are molesting girls. (check the boston papers
> for a series about same). That they have deliberately deflected the
> story to only the male victims is just damage control PR on the
> church's part. And I think its more a testimony about the effects of
> forcing a true perversion like celibacy on an entire caste of service
> workers. The sex drive is like steam in a boiler - its gotta have a
> release - never venting it cause lots of negative effects. But that's
> another discussion for another time. Out gay men are rarely child
> abusers of any ilk - the Washington state department in charge of
> foster parents has even said their gay ones are exemplary and they wish
> all their foster homes were of as high a caliber.
Ah, yes, those self-selected "gay parents" are so much better than the
heterosexual ones, aren't they? Why, homosexuality should even be
preferred over heterosexuality. At least, that is what they said
before the fall of Roman and Greek civilations due to the widespread
acceptance of homosexuality.
How we never learn. The Romans had their Coliseum where they got to
eat their bread and watch their gladiators whilst the Senators
committed homosexual acts and raped children. We Americans have our
footbal stadiums and our beers, whilst our elected officials (like
Barney Frank) have prostitution rings ran out of their Congressional
offices and commit homosexuals acts and allow children to be raped. I
mean, isn't it Barney Frank who tried to ammend the immigration laws
last year to permit known pedophiles to apply for re-entry into the US
and for resident and citizenship status? Why, I think it was.
>
> > > > What is at the root of this hateful obsession with gay people that
> > > > motivates him to lie and mislead at every opportunity in obvious
> > > > attempts to demonize them as a monolithic group?
> >
> > I don't know. Maybe it is all that monolithic political activism
> > trying to force homosexuals into the schools and bedrooms of our
> > children.
>
> Kevin, homosexuals have ALWAYS been in your schools, just as
> heterosexuals have.
I don't buy that for a second. Given the true incidence of
homosexuality -- perhaps 1 out of 50 teachers were homosexual.
However, they *never* stood in front of the classroom and taught us
that anal intercourse was natural -- nor did they seek out mixed up
kids and try to indoctrinate them into an unhealthy lifestyle, or find
isolated kids and offer them the peer acceptance of the "gay
community" as they brainwash them into thinking that gay sex is not
only good -- they were born that way.
-Red Davis
KDavis
> >From: kdavi...@hotmail.com (KDavis)
> >Date: 6/30/2003 9:36 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <fe6e030e.03063...@posting.google.com>
> >
> >"Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >news:<bdpoo5$vav23$1...@ID-146277.news.dfncis.de>...
> >> "Bob" <nos...@4me.com> wrote in message news:bdoctm$crl$0...@216.39.173.68...
> >> > In article <ud3vfvc6aabh4r6qa...@4ax.com>, Nathan Packer
> >> > <npa...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Somebody filled Red's little white space. Oh darn. Now Red will have
> >> > > to tuck his tail and do the Red fade. He will be back though with the
> >> > > same drivel. Just save this response and drop it on him when he
> >> > > returns.
> >> >
> >> > yeah, what do you think Kevin's motivations really are? I mean they
> >> > obviously aren't truth because he either misstates, or tries to misuse
> >> > statistics to try and lump widely different groups together...
> >
> >What is your motivation? I could care less.
> >
> >I simply researched the facts about homosexuality and post the
> >results:
> >
> >Homosexuality is an abnormal and unhealthy lifestyle build upon
> >perverted behavior.
> >
> >As to missinformation, what do you call the following gay lies?
>
> Hmmmm, speaking of lies:
Hmmm, speaking of false accusations:
>
> >To the best of my knowledge, I have *never* posted on the subject of
> >the Danites - much less described them as "invisible Danites" or
> >"non-existent Danites".
>
> ---Red Davis, ARM post, June 29, 2003
>
> "It was only after Hickman met up with J.H. Beade (the first version of D.
> Michael Quinn - a historian who isn't afraid to forge
> history to meet his agenda) that his numerous and unbelievable stories came
> about. Murders everywhere. Danites everywhere. Why, alledged Hickman --
> murmur a word about it -- and you'r dead, dead, dead."
>
> ---Kevin (Red) Davis, ARM post, November 19, 2001
>
> "The old anti-Mormon legend of the Danites. I guess I could have
> challenged a Baptist minister or the freedom of a black man and had
> the KKK lynch me to a pecan tree anywhere South of the Maxon-Dixon
> line. Now, that is a reality. The Danites are fictional gobbly-gook,
> whose legend has been embelleshed by anti-Mormons for over a century
> and a half."
>
> -----Red Davis, ARM post, January 16, 2003.
>
> "Yet, I niether have a temple recommend nor lied about my tithing status
> because I simply do not lie."
>
> ---Red Davis, ARM post, February 8, 1997
>
> Randy J.
>
>
So, Randy, where did I use the words that were falsely attributed to
me?
Do you see the words, "invisible Danites" or "non-existent Danites" in
these two posts? Now, the accusation was that I had explicitly used
these words. I have not. And, given I have been on the Internet for
over 15 years, you could only find my mention on the Danites twice,
some several years ago?
John Lemins said:
> I doubt highly that you would have questioned the prophet, if you had, you
> may have found a few Danites knocking at your door that night. Since Joseph
> claimed to be speaking under the authority of the Holy Spirit, you should be
> taking his teachings on God being a man and men becoming gods as scripture.
I responded:
"If I may, he asked to be guided -- he did not claim to have received
guidance, much less such guidance for every word, thought, or comma.
The old anti-Mormon legend of the Danites. I guess I could have
challenged a Baptist minister or the freedom of a black man and had
the KKK lynch me to a pecan tree anywhere South of the Maxon-Dixon
line. Now, that is a reality. The Danites are fictional gobbly-gook,
whose legend has been embelleshed by anti-Mormons for over a century
and a half."
As to my second mention, the complete quote is:
"That is Hickman's unsubstantiated claim. A claim that he did not
mention to Governor Harding (nor any of the other allegations of
murder) when the two met to try and pin whatever they could on Brigham
Young. It was only after Hickman met up with J.H. Beade (the first
version of D. Michael Quinn - a historian who isn't afraid to forge
history to meet his agenda) that his numerous and unbelievable stories
came about. Murders everywhere. Danites everywhere. Why, alledged
Hickman -- murmur a word about it -- and you'r dead, dead, dead.
Then Hickman proceeds to write an odyssey of lurid tales of murder and
Danite secrets, page after page, lurid accusation after lurid
accusation. Murder after murder.
Only anti-Mormons do not pay attention to the fact that there is
Hickman supposedly spilling the beans on that which couldn't even be
whispered -- yet he is never harmed, and lives out the rest of his
life in Utah in perfect safety.
Indeed, here is an anti-Mormon's accusation of what would happen to a
person like Hickman:
"While all the evidence seems to show that everyone who opposed
the Mormon Church in early Utah risked the possibility of losing their
property or even their lives, things are different today."
Except, of course, Hickman (who certainly opposed the Church) didn't
lose either his property or his life.
Imagine that. An anti-Mormon makes a sensational accusation -- and
their own evidence mitigates their accusation!?"
So, Randy, I stated that "to the best of my knowledge" I had not
posted those words, and such was true, and through 15 years of posting
on the Internet -- you could only find two posts where I even
mentioned the word "Danite" - and those are several years ago.
Are you really this desperate to call me a liar? I think that speaks
volumes about how accurate my posts truly are.
BTW, I don't know where you get your dates from for my posts. You
need to do a better job of documenting your false accusations.
-Red Davis
Bob
<kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
In the since that 1 out of 10 people at this instant are gay, no I
don't. Do you? I know I never have - but then I knew what the
Kinsey study really said long long ago.
> This is typical of the propaganda and dissinformation that comes from
> homophile apologists and militant homosexual activists. When they
> are caught in their lies - they just deny every having lied in the
> first place.
>
> The fact is this: homosexual activists always inflate and
> misrepresent the incidence of homosexuality in our society as being
> "10%" in order to demand political favoritism. The "10%" figure is a
> lie. It has no basis in any study, though, just as Bob did here --
> it is misattributed to the Kinsey Study.
>
> The Kinsey studies that Bob is referring to were studies done on
> mental patients and prison inmates circa 1940's-1950's. Kinsey
> *never* found that "10%" of the population was homosexual. So, what
> homophile propagandists due when they are called on the false claim
> -- is they quote Kinsey sideways and hope the reader is stupid enough
> to be duped by the presence of a "10%" figure in their sideways
> quote. Said Bob of the Kinsey study: "10% of men had...primarily
> homosexual contact for 4 or more years between the ages of 16 and
> 59". Ah, but were they homosexual? Nope.
OK. Observers please note that Kevin has just, possibly for the first
time, acknowledged that people who have had same sex relations are not
necessarily homosexual. When he wanders into one of his pedophile
rants remember he said this ;) I will reference this later I'm sure.
> Were they even normal given they resided in a nut house? Nope. Do
> men in prison have access to women? Nope.
>
Kevin its always fun to see you go off on a rant. After I said I know
of no gay people who say that 10% of the population is gay you go off
on this wild tangent spinning and rambling about things that weren't
said as if they were. You are very entertaining Kevin. :)
>
> So, again, we see how rediculous and far fetched homosexual
> propaganda is -- and why it is that homosexual activists must shout
> down those who oppose their agenda with shouts of "homophobe",
> "intolerant", "hateful", "narrow minded" - instead of addressing the
> issues.
> Homosexuals cannot defend their lifestyle or their behavior. So, we
> get the "Big Lie" over and over and over again -- while all
> opposition is being muted by militants screaming "homophobe".
>
> Here, some gays Bob doesn't know claiming that homosexuals are 10% of
> the population:
> (from a previous Red Davis post) 1. The Ten Percent Society
> (http://tps.stdorg.wisc.edu/) [Shouldn't that be "2.5%" :-O )
Not at all, not if you are talking about the % of society that has had
significant same sex experience. Not if you are talking about a major
urban area where 9% of men are gay. Not if you are using the studies
that attempt to gage sexual orientation acted on or not (like the
University of Chicago study you turned me on to - they found that 10.1%
of men had same gender sexuality and 8.6% of all women.) Again, the 10%
figure is accurate as a round figure if you are talking about many
population aspects of gay issues. It just isn't the % of the
population that is engaged in gay sex at the current instant.
>
> 2. Ten Percent of American's Children Needlessly Suffer, Have No One
> to Turn To...and Are Gay, says Mary Ann Cantwell
> (http://www.guestfinders.com/nfgay.htm)
No such web page odd. ;)
> 3. The Tri-College Ten Percent Society.
> (http://www.acm.ndsu.nodak.edu/Ten_Percent/)
Never claims that 10% of the general population is gay. odd. ;)
> 4. The Other 10% (http://www.ma.huji.ac.il/~dafid/asiron_.html)
No such web page. odd. ;)
> 5. The Tri-College Ten Percent Society
> (http://www.acm.ndsu.nodak.edu/Ten_Percent/)
Never claims that 10% of the general population is gay. odd. ;)
> 6. University of North Dakota Ten Percent Society
> (http://www.und.nodak.edu/org/tenps/index.html)
Same web page as 3. Still doesn't claim a 10% of the general
population is gay. odd. ;)
>
> 7. Considering only sexual experiences after puberty, Kinsey found
> that 37% of the males and 20% of the females in his sample had at
> least one adult experience with a person on the same gender. He also
> found that 13% of the men and 7% of the women were predominantly
> homosexual for at least three years of their lives between the ages
> of 16 and 55. Put another way, this meant that more than 10% had a
> very significant homosexual dimension to their lives. [Shouldn't we
> say, "Make it up this way, this meant that more than 10%..."]
> (http://gaylesissues.miningco.com/library/weekly/aa072498.htm)
No such page. odd.
of couse it is worlds away from saying that 10% of the population is
currently gay in any case.
>
> 8. "According to national estimates, 10 percent of the population is
> gay/lesbian. Using this figure, there are approximately 3700
> gay/lesbian members of the NC State University community."
> (http://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/project/www/ncsu/housing/safe/whysafe.html)
No such page. odd.
> Here they take the faked "10%" figure wrongfully attributed to the
> Kinsey study and falsely claim that there are actually several
> "national estimates" that have also found the "10 percent" figure.
> Did they name any of these "national estimates"? Who made them?
> Answer: homosexual activists. Heck, here they even make up the fact
> that they are *several* such sources for the figure. Again - the Big
> Lie.]
>
> 9. Queer Resources - Ten Percent (http://echonyc.com:70/1/Queer)"
No such server even! odd.
> How, the truth of the matter. Homosexuals make up less than 3% of
> the population. When lesbians are included and the population as a
> whole is viewed - homosexuals/lesbians make up less than 2% of the
> population.
> "A comprehensive new survey of the sexual behavior and attitudes of
> American men in their 20s and 30s had found that just 2.3% -- far
> less than the 10% figure usually cited -- say that they have ever had
> sex with another man, and that 1.1% report being exclusively
> homosexual. The figures in the federally funded study, released
> Wednesday by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, are far less than the 10%
> homosexuality figure commonly attributed to the landmark Kinsey
> report published in 1948."
Apple and oranges - Kinsey's report was about a lifetime of sexual
activity. The Guttmacher Institute study was about sexual activity
only in a narrow time range.
>
> "The median number of female sex partners the men said they had ever
> had was 7.3"
>
> "Although the survey's finding of homosexual behavior among 1% to 2%
> of respondents is at variance with the popularly repeated figure of
> 10%, it agrees with several previous surveys in this country, Britain
> and France."
>
> "This is not a surprise to those of us who do the research, " said
> John O.G. Billy, a Battelle demographer who did the study with Koray
> Tanfer, William R. Grady and Daniel H. Klepinger. "It's pretty much
> what other studies have found." ("2.3% of men in Survey Report Sex
> with Male, Los Angeles Times, A3, 15 April 1993).
>
> A study of men conducted between 1984 and 1987 by David Forman, the
> senior staff scientist at the Radcliffe Infirmary (Oxford, England),
> found that only 1.7 percent of the sample study had ever had
> homosexual intercourse.("The Ten Percent Solution, Part II," _Peninsula_ 3:2 (October/November 1991)
>
> > > I know that largest population study done by the University of
> > > Chicago > for that in major urban areas about 9% of the men
> > > self-identifed as > gay.
> >
> > Again, please a current reference that the monolithic gay 'liars'
> > are saying 10% of the entire population is gay?
>
> Oh, I just gave you 9 national references,
most of which never say what the 10% refers to when they exist at all.
A couple are individuals misusing the 10% figure, but then that hardly
denotes a massive conspiracy.
> and you just tried to make the claim again with some slanted study
> from the University of Chicago, where they only looked at "major
> urban areas" (e.g., cities with large gay communities) - instead of
> analyzing the incidence with respect to the general population.
You have a fear of a 10% figure don't you? Like it or not, numbers in
that general range really do show up in studies about same sex
orientation. Your strawman depends on them all referring to there
being 10% of the population being homosexual right now, which they
obvously don't.
>
> Can you get any more dishonest or desparate? Trying to present this
> "9%" figure as representative of the population as a whole?
No, if I was doing that I would have specifically avoided mentioning it
pertained to large urban areas. doh. Odd isn't it, when you want to
present gays in a bad light you have no problems using numbers derived
from people recruited at bathhouses or std clinics, but when you want
to minimize the gay presence you insist it being a population study.
Really odd that you are that inconsistent, don't you think? ;)
> You know, if I were to walk down the middle of the gay district in
> San Francisco (a major urban area) taking a survey -- I bet I would
> find 40-50% of the men would "self-identify" as being gay. Does that
> mean that 40-50% of society is gay?
In that society, yeah. You'd have no problem with using them as your
sampling study for evaluating promiscuity, would you? ;)
>
> What a liar.
No you just have lied so long you can no longer recognize the truth -
that a large segment of society has same had same sex desire, behavior
and/or sexual identification, just about 10%. No one really thinks
that 10% of all people self-identify as 'gay' right this instance. No
one thinks that 10% of the people are having gay sex right now. This
strawman isn't even of any use as a scarecrow.
> > > > The lie that homosexuals are "born that way"? No scientific
> > > > study has > > ever concluded that homosexuality is innate or
> > > > immutable. In fact, > every scientific study (even those done
> > > > by LeVay) have found that > > homosexuality is a result of
> > > > environmental conditioning.
> >
> > No no more 'the result of' than it is the result of mere genetics.
> > All reasonable people say there are probably both genetic and
> > environmental factors that stretch as far back as the womb.
>
> Yes, all reasonable people accept the fact that science has *never*
> concluded that homosexuality is innate or immutable. Yet, we find
> such claims from homosexual activists all the time in the media.
and we have claims for frothing fundies that its all choice. There are
people who flounder in hyperbole all the time Kevin. I'm sure you can
personally relate to that.
>
> > > > > The lie that homosexuals are not immoral. *Every* study ever
> > > > > > > completed on the sexual behavior of male homosexuals has
> > > > > > > > found that a > typical homosexual male has had over 300
> > > > > > > different sexual partners. A > > heterosexual male
> > > > > averages > > > about 7.
> >
> > Well first you would have to show that promiscuity is innately
> > 'immoral'. But regardless, as I have demonstrated to you time and
> > time again population studies the percentage of promiscuous gay men
> > is about the same as that of straight men which is remarkable in
> > itself since most gay people are denied couple stabilizing social
> > institutions such as marriage, civil unions, and domestic
> > partnerships.
>
> Another gay lie. *Every* single gay population study has found that
> the promiscuity rates among homosexuals is much, much larger than
> among heterosexuals. (just read the study posted above)
Unfortunately for you there is not such things as a 'gay population'
study - you have to study the entire population and identify the gays.
Or are we now shifting from your preference for population studies for
'targeted' studies derived from, oh I don't know, gay bathhouses, std
clinics, std suffers, etc? ;)
>
> Here, some more reading for you:
>
> Corey, L. and Holmes, K. "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in
> Homosexual Men." New England J. Med., 1980, pp. 435-38.
Gosh an STD clinic study. Wow. Bet we can get a good impression of
how straight people are from the ones that come to public STD
clinics too, eh?
>
> Bell, A. and Weinberg, M. Homosexualities: a Study of Diversity Among
> Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978.
A study that the authors clearly state IS NOT representative of all gay
people at the very beginning of the book and who's participants were
recruited at the cores of the gay meccas of the west coast even going
into gay bathhouses to recruit participants! Gee that really would
represent people who aren't in those venues.... NOT! ;)
>
> Cameron et. al. ISIS National Random Sexuality Survey. Nebraska Med.
> Journal, 1985, 70, pp. 292-299.
Yeah one of the studies he was kicked out of his professional
organizations for falsifying.
>
> "Changes in Sexual Behavior and Incidence of Gonorrhea." Lancet,
> April 25, 1987.
STD Clinic studies again.
>
> Kus, R. "Alcoholics Anonymous and Gay America." Medical Journal of
> Homosexuality, 1987, 14(2), p. 254.
Self referral to 12 step treatment programs - another wonderful
sampling method.
>
> MsKusick, L. et. al. "AIDS and Sexual Behavior Reported By Gay Men in
> San Francisco." Am. J. Pub. Health, 1985, 75, pp. 493-96.
Yeah, going to San Franscisco to try and do a popultion study about gay
men. Might as well go to Vegas to do a population study about
gambling. ;) Oh but wait - didn't you yourself say that would NOT be a
good sampling method? Hmmmm the contradictions in your POV are vexing.
>
> Here, some light reading: Promiscuity, described as "sexual freedom"
> and a core value of today's homosexuality, is the very opposite of
> Jewish fidelity. In 1948, homosexual promiscuity was described as
> relatively rare in this country [2]. The gay liberation movement of
> the 1970's totally reversed this situation. By the 1980's, many gay
> men were having sexual relations with several, sometimes anonymous,
> partners each week, especially in major cities. This transformation
> to gay life is mirrored in the medical records of venereal disease.
> The rate of syphilis among white males in the United States increased
> by 351 percent between 1967 and 1979, due in very large part to
> increased homosexual activity. Cases of gonorrhea increased from
> 259,000 in 1960 to 600,000 in 1970 to over a million in 1980 [3].
Gosh looking at the statistics, it seems that everyone was getting a
bit randy during the sexual revolution. And the incredible increase of
syphilis cases in the deep south - who ever would have guess there were
such large hidden gay communities down there? ;)
> A central feature of gay urban life today, the New York Times
> reports, is "sex clubs, bathhouses, and weekend-long drug parties
> where men have intercourse with a dozen partners a night" [4].
> Concern about the diseases and public horror this blatant promiscuity
> evokes has led some "moderate" gay leaders like Larry Kramer to seek
> community acceptance of homosexuality by asking gays "to adopt a
> culture rooted as much in art, literature and relationships as in
> 'what's between our legs and what we do with it'".
>
> "Sex Panic", a more radical gay group, opposes any such efforts to
> reduce gay promiscuity. One of its founders, a Rutgers English
> professor who regards promiscuous sex as the essence of gay
> liberation, calls it "an absurd fantasy to expect gay men to live
> without a sexual culture when we have nothing else that brings us
> together". "To the many homosexuals who had been discriminated
> against for the way they had sex," the Times says, "liberations means
> having as much sex as possible as publicly as possible". One of the
> striking differences between homosexuals and the heterosexual
> community is the much larger number of sexual partners homosexuals
> have.
> 4. S.G. Stolberg, "Gay Culture Weighs Sense and Sexuality," "New York
> Times, Review of the Week," Nov. 23, 1997, p.1.
Snarf - quoting a fluff piece article about the formation of 'Sex
Panic!' who's net presences starts in 97 and evaporates in 98. Wow -
what honest person would actually try and use this as representative of
gay people in general?
> This is demonstrated by a host of studies - including some conducted
> by homosexuals themselves.
> Sex in America (1994) found that while 68% of men and 76% of women
> had only one heterosexual partner in the previous year, only 2.6% of
> homosexual men and 1.2% of lesbians had so limited themselves [5].
> 5. R.T. Michael, J.H. Gagnon, E.O. Laumann, G. Kolata, "Sex in
> America." (Boston: Little Brown, 1994)
How incredibly odd! I have that book right in front of me and that
statistic is no where to be found in it from cover to cover. But I did
find this on page 30:
"...And that means that we could not analyze homosexual behavior
seperately, asking, for example how many partners gay men and lesbians
have in their lifetimes or where they met their partnerse. But we
included homosexual sex as part of the sex in general, so when we ask a
question such as, "How often do you have sex?" we do not distinguish
between homosexuals and heterosexuals."
Or this on page 89:
"In our analyses of the numbers of sex partners, we could not
separately analyze patterns for gay men and lesbians. that is because
homosexuals are such a small percentage of our sample that we do not
have enough people in our survey to draw valid conclusions about this
aspect of sexual behavior."
How very very odd! the book not only doesn't contain the information
claimed, but the authors specifically stated they didn't gather it!
Gee Kevin, I wouldn't be amiss to call you a liar now under these
circumstances, would I?
> An earlier study estimated the number of lifetime partners for the
> American population as a whole at 7.15 (8.67 for those who never
> married) [6].
> 6. "Adult Sexual Behavior in 1989: Number of Partners, Frequency and
> Risk," presented Feb., 1990 to American Association for the
> Advancement of Science, published 1990 by NORC, University of
> Chicago; cited in
With a wide standard deviation with lots of 1 or less at one end and
+20 or more at the other. No honest person averages such widely
varient numbers together and presents time as useful criteria to judge
an entire group. Oh, but you do Kevin, or course.
> Another found that while fear of AIDS had lowered gay men's
> promiscuity, the average have male would still have fifty sexual
> partners in a given year (down from seventy) and altogether over six
> hundred sexual partners between ages 18 and 30 [7] [8]
> 7. A.N. Marco, "Same Sex Marriage," "Journal of Human Sexuality"
> (G.A. Rekers, editor) 1996, 45-64; p.55.
> 8. Study by American Psychological Association's Ethics Committee,
> reported in "USA Today," Nov, 21, 1984; cited in A.N. Marco, ref. 7
> p. 54.
So we now have a study that cites newspaper report of an APA report.
Gosh no room for misinterpretation of what was really said there, is
there :)
> > > The difference is in the gay men of the opportunity to be VERY >
> > > promiscuous. But since we are on the topic of lying, only a liar
> > > of > the first degree would average together people with
> > > thousands of > contacts and those with a few and call that
> > > numerical average > 'typical'. Ditto with taking studies done
> > > specifically performed in > promiscuous subjects and presenting
> > > them as typical of the larger > unevaluated population.
>
> Speak for yourself, University of Chicago 9% Study Boy.
Kevin, if that confused you I'm sorry. But the University of Chicago
study that found that 9% of males in major urban areas is the very one
you just fraudulently quoted above - what do you
think the 'Sex in America' book is all about?
>
> So, 90% of gay men are giving the other 10% of gay men a bad name
> when it comes to promiscuity.
No actually, the few population studies we do have shows that they
precentage of promiscuous gay men is about the same as that of
heterosexual men 20-30%. Want me to trot them out for you again? I
have a couple more now...
> So, your approach is to simply exclude the 90% of gay males who are
> hypersexual -- and present the 10% as a valid sample.
No, never suggested or implied especially since 90% of gay men are not
hypersexual. Just rather be honest and not try and
paint all gay men as a monolithic group that all act the same way.
(Did you realize that 16% of heterosexual men have paid for sex? - just
a tidbit to tittilate you ;)
> Sounds like the Dr. Jenny study on pedophilia where she excluded male
> adults committing sexual acts on male children as instances of
> homosexual pedophilia in order to conclude there is no evidence of
> homosexuals molesting boys.
Hmmm you earlier in this very note made it clear that just because
someone has had sex with someone of the same sex doesn't make them a
homosexual. As I have shown you time and again, experts do not
consider the sex of pedophiles interest as indicitive of their sexual
orientation. MOST pedophiles that have an adult sexual orientation are
HETEROSEXUAL - they have wives, they have kids, they DON'T march in gay
pride parades. Self-identifying gay men are not often pedophiles.
I can go dig up the references for you AGAIN if you want them but
since we have had the watershed event of you having admitted that
merely having sex with someone of the same sex doesn't make them
homosexual there really isn't much need, is there?
>
> I kid you not. And yet, her study was even used in the case against
> Colorado passing their Proposition banning special homosexual rights
> as evidence that homosexuals are not predophiles.
Yep, because she, like you, knows that just because the pedophile might
be of the same sex as their victim it doesn't make them a homosexual.
You were making such progress Kevin, don't backslide now.
>
> > > Telling half truths is just as much a violation 'bearing false
> > > witness' > as an out and out lie.
>
> I just quote the facts.
But 'facts' that don't represent reality are lies kevin. Taking 99
people who have had 1 sex partner and averaging them with 1 who has had
a 901, and then saying the typical member of this group has had 10 sex
partners is a misrepresentation. It's a lie no matter how 'factual' it
might be.
>
> > > > The lie that HIV/AIDS is not a gay disease. Some 65% of all
> > > > HIV/AIDS > > cases are homosexual males -- even though they are
> > > > only 2% of the > population.
> >
> > No the vast majority of HIV cases are heterosexual world wide. And
> > again you are talking through out the history of the disease. As
> > it stands now, a small percentage of the gay male community is
> > HIV+, again rather remarkable considering the percentages that were
> > just 10-15 years ago.
>
> We have already been over this. The reason that HIV/AIDS is spread
> so wide in Africa and Asia is because: 1) receptive anal intercourse
> is much more common among heterosexuals 2) tainted needles were used
> by WHO to innoculate entire villages 3) In 1996, the WHO redefined
> HIV/AIDs to include much more diseases 4) Cultural practices such as
> scarring and spreading blood among villagers
Actually we know no such thing and largely irrelevant Still the
majority of cases are heterosexual.
>
> "A small percentage of the gay male community is HIV+"? You are a
> disgrace to truth. That comment is so outrageous -- it doesn't even
> deserve a reasoned response.
Gosh they just did the study - here in Seattle they found only 2.2% of
young gay men were HIV+, that's seems pretty low to me considering it
was up to almost 30% back as late as the mid 80's. You should be
praising their efforts. Even in San Francisco it was only 6.5% and
they used to have an almost 60% prevalence rate.
Or do you not consider numbers less than 10% a 'small percentage'?
> > > > The lie that homosexuals are not disproportionately pedophiles.
> > > > > > Again, while they make up only 2% of the population - > >
> > > > various studies > > have found that 35-60% of pedophiles are >
> > > > > men who molest boys.
> >
> > yes but as has been shown to you, they are not homosexuals - most
> > pedophiles don't care what the sex of their victims are as long as
> > they are preadolescent children. Homosexuality as an adult sexual
>
> People who are attracted to both sexes are known as "bi-sexuals". The
> vast majority of "homosexuals" are "bi-sexual". We both know about
> the Kinsey scale of 0-6 - and that very, very, very few "homosexuals"
> are a "6" - that is, they only have sex with the same sex.
Now Kevin, you were making such progress. Again, pedophilia is NOT an
adult sexual orientation.
>
> So, what we have are men who have sex with both young boys and young
> girls. These men are committing homosexual acts on these young boys.
> They are, in fact, homosexual pedophiles.
No, because homosexual denotes a sexual orientation. They might be
pedophiles engaging in homosexual pedophilic acts, but they aren't gay
or considered homosexual by the people who define the term.
>
> How convenient it must be to have a "closet" to go into and outof
> when the subject doesn't fit into your agenda.
No just using the terms correctly. AGain, you really shoot yourself in
the foot on this subject because you lose all credibility. The experts
say that the sex of the pedophiles victims has no relation to the adult
sexual orientation of the pedophile, just reading news papers people
can figure out it AIN'T the local gay activist that's getting his name
in the paper for molesting children (usually its some heterosexual day
care worker, or the nice old man and his wife that has still has all
the children amusements in his yard, or old uncle ernie who really
doesn't mind having your kids come over to say with his overnight.)
>
> > orientation is a world away from pedophilia. Might as well call
> > someone who buggered rams a homosexual because his victims were
> > male. :)
>
> Homosexuals disproportionately do commit acts of beastiality.
Hahahahahahaha! Oh you are so funny.... ROLFing as we type.
> So, if a homosexual has sex with Biff and with Bull -- does that mean
> he is not homosexual?
>
> > > Again, presumptive heterosexuals are far more likely to molest
> > > children > of all ages rather than out gay people.
>
> Tell that to the 32 boys murdered by John Wayne Gacey.
A married man who had victims ranging up to 27 -not a gay man by any
useful definition of the word - gotcha.
> Tell that to the 16 boys murdered by Jeffrey Dahmer.
Gosh and you think I can't trot out a list of heterosexual loonies?
that you are bringing these up just shows your desperation....
> Tell that to the Dirkshire boy who was rapped to death by two
> homosexual men.
Gosh usually your references will at least pull up a hit or two on
Google. And you mean that rape murders are unheard of in
heterosexuals? Wouldn't it be more honest to say they are so common
they barely get any press at all?
> > > > Just > > look at the homosexual priests in the Catholic Church
> > > > > > > who have > molested all those boys as an example of what
> > > > > happens when homosexuals > > gain authority in an
> > > > organization > > > that works with children.
> >
> > And as a simple google search will show you the under reported
> > story is about the priests that are molesting girls. (check the
> > boston papers for a series about same). That they have deliberately
> > deflected the story to only the male victims is just damage control
> > PR on the church's part. And I think its more a testimony about
> > the effects of forcing a true perversion like celibacy on an entire
> > caste of service workers. The sex drive is like steam in a boiler
> > - its gotta have a release - never venting it cause lots of
> > negative effects. But that's another discussion for another time.
> > Out gay men are rarely child abusers of any ilk - the Washington
> > state department in charge of foster parents has even said their
> > gay ones are exemplary and they wish all their foster homes were of
> > as high a caliber.
>
> Ah, yes, those self-selected "gay parents" are so much better than
> the heterosexual ones, aren't they?
Maybe not better, but as a group higher caliber. Some heterosexuals
seem to become foster parents more as a source of income rather than a
desire to help kids.
> Why, homosexuality should even be preferred over heterosexuality.
For some it is as we have discussed these many years.
> At least, that is what they said before the fall of Roman and Greek
> civilations due to the widespread acceptance of homosexuality.
Silly boy - the Romans were erecting statues to same sex lovers 200
years before the birth of christ. The sign of a civilization's fall is
when the moralists appear whining about what other people do. You are
the harbringer of the fall of civilization, not I ;)
>
> How we never learn. The Romans had their Coliseum where they got to
> eat their bread and watch their gladiators whilst the Senators
> committed homosexual acts and raped children. We Americans have our
> footbal stadiums and our beers, whilst our elected officials (like
> Barney Frank) have prostitution rings ran out of their Congressional
> offices and commit homosexuals acts and allow children to be raped.
Story grows with the telling doesn't it? When you can be a bit more
honest and factual we might come back to this, ok?
> I mean, isn't it Barney Frank who tried to ammend the immigration
> laws last year to permit known pedophiles to apply for re-entry into
> the US and for resident and citizenship status? Why, I think it was.
Really? That should be really easy for you to cite, shouldn't it? I
tried Google, but again no hits - makes we wonder if you finally
snapped and just started making these things up whole cloth.
> > > > > > What is at the root of this hateful obsession with gay > >
> > > > > > > > > people that > > > > motivates him to lie and mislead
> > > > > > at > every opportunity in obvious > attempts to demonize
> > > > > > them as > > > > > a monolithic group?
> > >
> > > I don't know. Maybe it is all that monolithic political activism
> > > trying to force homosexuals into the schools and bedrooms of our
> > > children.
> >
> > Kevin, homosexuals have ALWAYS been in your schools, just as
> > heterosexuals have.
>
> I don't buy that for a second. Given the true incidence of
> homosexuality -- perhaps 1 out of 50 teachers were homosexual.
If they were in a blender maybe. I know of 3 of my highschool
teachers, 2 male, 1 female. May have been others.
> However, they *never* stood in front of the classroom and taught us
> that anal intercourse was natural.
Since when did any of your teachers stand up and teach you about
intercourse period? you must have gone to a massively progressive
school. We had one day as a sophmore in high school about the
reproductive system. Did your teachers try and be more 'instructive'
than that? Would explain a lot....
> -- nor did they seek out mixed up kids and try to indoctrinate them
> into an unhealthy lifestyle, or find isolated kids and offer them the
> peer acceptance of the "gay community" as they brainwash them into
> thinking that gay sex is not only good -- they were born that way.
Man you are paranoid. There is no indication that you can cajole a
person into another sexual orientation. You can't have it both ways -
either homosexuals are a tiny fraction of the population inspite of
years of gay activism or they aren't.
Since all the studies seem to show about the same relative number of
gay people in society with or without persecution, what justification
do you have for the persecution? Sadistic grins and giggles? If you
aren't going to prevent gay people from existing or even from having
sex, exactly what purpose does all this vitrolic rage serve?
Bob
> Another found that while fear of
> AIDS had lowered gay men's promiscuity, the average have male would
> still have fifty sexual partners in a given year (down from seventy)
> and altogether over six hundred sexual partners between ages 18 and 30
> [7] [8].
> 7. A.N. Marco, "Same Sex Marriage," "Journal of Human Sexuality" (G.A.
> Rekers, editor) 1996, 45-64; p.55.
> 8. Study by American Psychological Association's Ethics Committee,
> reported in "USA Today," Nov, 21, 1984; cited in A.N. Marco, ref. 7 p.
> 54.
Snarf. Just had to come back - I found this one turns out the
'Journal of Human Sexuality' isn't a journal at all, its a
fundamentalist Christian collection of anti-gay works!
http://store.clm.org/4264.html
And at the author is the author of the infamous Colorado's Amendment 2
that was found unconstitutional by the SCOTUS!
http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/marco.html
I mean, this reference is right up there with Paul Cameron's too - I
mean quoting a popular press newspaper instead of the real source
information = tacky!
KDavis
> In article <fe6e030e.03070...@posting.google.com>, KDavis
> <kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Another found that while fear of
> > AIDS had lowered gay men's promiscuity, the average have male would
> > still have fifty sexual partners in a given year (down from seventy)
> > and altogether over six hundred sexual partners between ages 18 and 30
> > [7] [8].
>
> > 7. A.N. Marco, "Same Sex Marriage," "Journal of Human Sexuality" (G.A.
> > Rekers, editor) 1996, 45-64; p.55.
> > 8. Study by American Psychological Association's Ethics Committee,
> > reported in "USA Today," Nov, 21, 1984; cited in A.N. Marco, ref. 7 p.
> > 54.
>
> Snarf. Just had to come back - I found this one turns out the
> 'Journal of Human Sexuality' isn't a journal at all, its a
> fundamentalist Christian collection of anti-gay works!
> http://store.clm.org/4264.html
Snarf back. So, are you stating that Dr. Jeffrey Satinover is not an
expert? Or, do you describe everything as "anti-gay works" simply
because they present an unbiased position? Especially given the fact
you still have not *read* it.
And Dr. Judith Reisman, Ph.D? Just another "anti-gay" bigot homophobe
because she stands by actual unbiased research?
This respons is so typical of homosexual activists: they scream
intolerance at any and all reasonsed research that concludes that
homosexuality is harmful and unnatural.
>
> And at the author is the author of the infamous Colorado's Amendment 2
> that was found unconstitutional by the SCOTUS!
>
> http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/marco.html
So? What does that have to do with the price of AIDS in San
Francisco?
>
> I mean, this reference is right up there with Paul Cameron's too - I
> mean quoting a popular press newspaper instead of the real source
> information = tacky!
You quoted studies that you hadn't even read yet. I mean, when I
posted the fact that Hooker *never* concluded that homosexuality was
normal -- you must have went into a real tizzy screaming "homophobe"
at the computer monitor.
Now, go get a brain.
-Red Davis
KDavis
Yet, you feigned no knowledge that the gay community repeatedly uses
the "10%" figure to inflate and misrepresent their number in society.
What a liar.
>
> > This is typical of the propaganda and dissinformation that comes from
> > homophile apologists and militant homosexual activists. When they
> > are caught in their lies - they just deny every having lied in the
> > first place.
> >
> > The fact is this: homosexual activists always inflate and
> > misrepresent the incidence of homosexuality in our society as being
> > "10%" in order to demand political favoritism. The "10%" figure is a
> > lie. It has no basis in any study, though, just as Bob did here --
> > it is misattributed to the Kinsey Study.
> >
> > The Kinsey studies that Bob is referring to were studies done on
> > mental patients and prison inmates circa 1940's-1950's. Kinsey
> > *never* found that "10%" of the population was homosexual. So, what
> > homophile propagandists due when they are called on the false claim
> > -- is they quote Kinsey sideways and hope the reader is stupid enough
> > to be duped by the presence of a "10%" figure in their sideways
> > quote. Said Bob of the Kinsey study: "10% of men had...primarily
> > homosexual contact for 4 or more years between the ages of 16 and
> > 59". Ah, but were they homosexual? Nope.
>
> OK. Observers please note that Kevin has just, possibly for the first
> time, acknowledged that people who have had same sex relations are not
> necessarily homosexual. When he wanders into one of his pedophile
> rants remember he said this ;) I will reference this later I'm sure.
Hey, Bob, I have never said anthing other then this: homosexual is as
homosexual does. A person who engages in homosexual behavior is a
homosexual. I believe quite strongly that people can change from
being homosexual (i.e., a person who engages in homosexual behavior)
to heterosexual. After all, there are literally ten of thousands of
success stories.
My view on homosexuality, as stated numerous times, is thusly:
A person is not a homosexual because they are tempted by homosexual
thoughts. We cannot choose what we are tempted by. Just as a person
who is tempted by adultery is not an adulterer unless he acts on such
temptations. We, as intelligent beings, can certainly choose how we
behave, whether or not we act on temptations. A person who acts on
their homosexual tempations is a homosexual. Just like a person who
acts on their temptations of adultery is an adulterer.
When a male adult commits a sexual act on a male child -- that male
adult is a homosexual pedophile. Period.
Again, we both know that most "homosexuals" are actually "bisexual",
that the Kinsey Scale of 0-6 (0 is exclusively heterosexual, 6 is
exclusively homosexual) has found that 97% of all people are a "0",
while about 2-3% vary in range from a 1-6, with very, very few being a
"6".
>
> > Were they even normal given they resided in a nut house? Nope. Do
> > men in prison have access to women? Nope.
> >
> Kevin its always fun to see you go off on a rant. After I said I know
> of no gay people who say that 10% of the population is gay you go off
> on this wild tangent spinning and rambling about things that weren't
> said as if they were. You are very entertaining Kevin. :)
You mean after you lied about knowing no gay people who claim that 10%
of the population is gay, then you throw out there the Kinsey study to
try and suggest that there is legitimate support for an idea you claim
you know nothing about?
You are simply unbelievable.
> >
> > So, again, we see how rediculous and far fetched homosexual
> > propaganda is -- and why it is that homosexual activists must shout
> > down those who oppose their agenda with shouts of "homophobe",
> > "intolerant", "hateful", "narrow minded" - instead of addressing the
> > issues.
>
> > Homosexuals cannot defend their lifestyle or their behavior. So, we
> > get the "Big Lie" over and over and over again -- while all
> > opposition is being muted by militants screaming "homophobe".
> >
> > Here, some gays Bob doesn't know claiming that homosexuals are 10% of
> > the population:
>
> > (from a previous Red Davis post) 1. The Ten Percent Society
> > (http://tps.stdorg.wisc.edu/) [Shouldn't that be "2.5%" :-O )
>
> Not at all, not if you are talking about the % of society that has had
> significant same sex experience. Not if you are talking about a major
> urban area where 9% of men are gay. Not if you are using the studies
> that attempt to gage sexual orientation acted on or not (like the
> University of Chicago study you turned me on to - they found that 10.1%
> of men had same gender sexuality and 8.6% of all women.) Again, the 10%
> figure is accurate as a round figure if you are talking about many
> population aspects of gay issues. It just isn't the % of the
> population that is engaged in gay sex at the current instant.
Now, Bob only knows Bob as a person going around claiming that 10% of
the population is homosexual. :-O
Are "major urban areas" representative of the general population as a
whole, such that a linear extrapolation of the data can be made as
representative of the general population? No. So, if you wonder into
a major urban area such as San Francisco's gay district, or Houston's,
or New York's -- you will find the incidence of homosexuality is much
greater than elsewhere. But, when taken as a whole - the incidence of
homosexuality in society is about 2-3%.
Again, homosexual is as homosexual does -- and nine national studies
conducted since 1980 have all found the incidence of homosexuality in
society to be at about 2-3%. That is a very compelling grouping of
data points.
Unless, of course, you still want to count the Kinsey Study - where
Kinsey went into prisons and asked male inmates when was the last time
they had had sex with Big Al!!!
What a whoot! Did you borrow your brain from K-Mart?
>
> >
> > 2. Ten Percent of American's Children Needlessly Suffer, Have No One
> > to Turn To...and Are Gay, says Mary Ann Cantwell
> > (http://www.guestfinders.com/nfgay.htm)
> No such web page odd. ;)
From a post several years back. The Internet is dynmaic.
>
> > 3. The Tri-College Ten Percent Society.
> > (http://www.acm.ndsu.nodak.edu/Ten_Percent/)
> Never claims that 10% of the general population is gay. odd. ;)
Oh, yea, "Never claims that 10% of the general population is gay" --
save the fact that this gay club calls itself the "Tri-College TEN
PERCENT SOCIETY". So, I guess you just mised that.
>
> > 4. The Other 10% (http://www.ma.huji.ac.il/~dafid/asiron_.html)
>
> No such web page. odd. ;)
Again, from a post a few years back.
>
> > 5. The Tri-College Ten Percent Society
> > (http://www.acm.ndsu.nodak.edu/Ten_Percent/)
>
> Never claims that 10% of the general population is gay. odd. ;)
Again, save that "TEN PERCENT" in their title.
>
> > 6. University of North Dakota Ten Percent Society
> > (http://www.und.nodak.edu/org/tenps/index.html)
>
> Same web page as 3. Still doesn't claim a 10% of the general
> population is gay. odd. ;)
Yep, and the National Organization for Women never claims to be an
organization for "Women".
Said they, "The University of North Dakota Ten Percent Society is the
oldest gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered organization in the
state of North Dakota, since 1982. Our primary goal is to provide a
safe, respectful, and supportive environment for LGBT students,
faculty, and staff. (see our organization's constitution)". No, no
claim that gays are "Ten Percent" there!
> >
> > 7. Considering only sexual experiences after puberty, Kinsey found
> > that 37% of the males and 20% of the females in his sample had at
> > least one adult experience with a person on the same gender. He also
> > found that 13% of the men and 7% of the women were predominantly
> > homosexual for at least three years of their lives between the ages
> > of 16 and 55. Put another way, this meant that more than 10% had a
> > very significant homosexual dimension to their lives. [Shouldn't we
> > say, "Make it up this way, this meant that more than 10%..."]
> > (http://gaylesissues.miningco.com/library/weekly/aa072498.htm)
>
> No such page. odd.
>
> of couse it is worlds away from saying that 10% of the population is
> currently gay in any case.
Can anyone believe the depth of dishonesty of the militant gays? They
spend 30 years claiming that "10% of the population is gay" with a
figure (10%) that they just make up, and then they deny ever having
done it.
Here, let me give you some newer web pages that make the claim:
"Its a generally accepted statistic, although I'm sure some here are
going to dispute me on this, that 90% of the population is
heterosexual, and 10% is homosexual or lesbian. It is, therefore, not
surprising that said 10% has historically been feared and oppressed.
What does the 90% fear? Difference. We fear what is different even if
it doesn't hurt us or those acting in a different manner"
http://www.political-debate.org/fame.html
"Generally accepted statistic...10% is homosexual or lesbian" Why is
it "generally accepted"? Because, homosexuals have lied claiming 10%
for 30 years.
"to support the well known "facts" that one couple in 10 is infertile,
or that one man in 10 is homosexual"
http://bmj.com/archive/7110/7110ed.htm
Here, from the "37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Wednesday, February 12, 2003
"At least 1 person in 10 is homosexual, so someone is going to have a
child or grandchild who is a homosexual."
http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/37/2/JUST/Meetings/Evidence/JUSTEV16-E.HTM
So, homosexuals have engaged in dishonest propaganda campaign for 30
years claiming that "10% of the population is homosexual" - when in
fact, such is a lie. Yet, this lie has been told so often by
homosexual activists -- that even the 37th Parliament states as common
fact that "at least 1 person in 10 is homosexual".
But, is that a fact? No. It is a gay lie. So, there is Canada
legalizing marriage between perverts based on a lie that was
established as fact by an effective propaganda campaign that "at least
10%" of their population is demanding such a change.
What a lie.
> >
> > 8. "According to national estimates, 10 percent of the population is
> > gay/lesbian. Using this figure, there are approximately 3700
> > gay/lesbian members of the NC State University community."
> > (http://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/project/www/ncsu/housing/safe/whysafe.html)
>
> No such page. odd.
Again, the Internet is dynamic. When I posted these pages a few years
ago -- all of these pages were reachable.
Here is another gay group spreading the lie that homosexuals are 10%:
http://www.clubs.psu.edu/psupride/oneinten/
>
> > Here they take the faked "10%" figure wrongfully attributed to the
> > Kinsey study and falsely claim that there are actually several
> > "national estimates" that have also found the "10 percent" figure.
> > Did they name any of these "national estimates"? Who made them?
> > Answer: homosexual activists. Heck, here they even make up the fact
> > that they are *several* such sources for the figure. Again - the Big
> > Lie.]
> >
> > 9. Queer Resources - Ten Percent (http://echonyc.com:70/1/Queer)"
>
> No such server even! odd.
>
> > How, the truth of the matter. Homosexuals make up less than 3% of
> > the population. When lesbians are included and the population as a
> > whole is viewed - homosexuals/lesbians make up less than 2% of the
> > population.
>
>
> > "A comprehensive new survey of the sexual behavior and attitudes of
> > American men in their 20s and 30s had found that just 2.3% -- far
> > less than the 10% figure usually cited -- say that they have ever had
> > sex with another man, and that 1.1% report being exclusively
> > homosexual. The figures in the federally funded study, released
> > Wednesday by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, are far less than the 10%
> > homosexuality figure commonly attributed to the landmark Kinsey
> > report published in 1948."
>
> Apple and oranges - Kinsey's report was about a lifetime of sexual
> activity. The Guttmacher Institute study was about sexual activity
> only in a narrow time range.
False. The Kinsey study was done on a non-representative sample --
people in nuthouses and prisons (men sleeping with men denied of
women). The Guttmache Insitute study was the largest study ever
conducted up to that time - and agree with studies conducted by *all*
other sexual demongraphers. Since that time, a newer study has come
out that was even larger than the Guttmacher study, and it also found
the incidence of homoseuxality to be about 2-3%.
Question: If you state that no gay person has evern claimed that 10%
of the population is gay, and that such is not important anyway -- why
are you fighting so hard to establish just such a claim?
Can we say: gay math leads to gay lies that lead to gay gains?
> >
> > "The median number of female sex partners the men said they had ever
> > had was 7.3"
> >
> > "Although the survey's finding of homosexual behavior among 1% to 2%
> > of respondents is at variance with the popularly repeated figure of
> > 10%, it agrees with several previous surveys in this country, Britain
> > and France."
> >
> > "This is not a surprise to those of us who do the research, " said
> > John O.G. Billy, a Battelle demographer who did the study with Koray
> > Tanfer, William R. Grady and Daniel H. Klepinger. "It's pretty much
> > what other studies have found." ("2.3% of men in Survey Report Sex
> > with Male, Los Angeles Times, A3, 15 April 1993).
> >
> > A study of men conducted between 1984 and 1987 by David Forman, the
> > senior staff scientist at the Radcliffe Infirmary (Oxford, England),
> > found that only 1.7 percent of the sample study had ever had
> > homosexual intercourse.("The Ten Percent Solution, Part II," _Peninsula_ 3:2 (October/November 1991)
> >
> > > > I know that largest population study done by the University of
> > > > Chicago > for that in major urban areas about 9% of the men
> > > > self-identifed as > gay.
> > >
> > > Again, please a current reference that the monolithic gay 'liars'
> > > are saying 10% of the entire population is gay?
> >
> > Oh, I just gave you 9 national references,
>
> most of which never say what the 10% refers to when they exist at all.
> A couple are individuals misusing the 10% figure, but then that hardly
> denotes a massive conspiracy.
A gay in denial. I guess you are claiming you have never heard of
"Project 10"? This project is a national program that claims that
children must be taught early about homosexuality because "one in ten
are homosexual".
"Many of our children are being systematically indoctrinated in our
public schools. They are taught that homosexuality is as normal as
having brown eyes or blue. Many communities have already adopted a
program called "One In Ten" or "Project 10" designed to teach students
that "gay is good." (One in ten comes from the homosexual assertion
that 10% of our society is gay.) Dr. Jocelyn Elders, President
Clinton's former Surgeon General has been actively involved in efforts
to introduce this program into Arkansas schools."
http://208.55.167.140/articles/hs1.htm
I now you reject anything that comes from the religious right, so
let's hear the same thing from the immoral left:
"This incident served as the catalyst for Dr. Uribe who then spent
months putting together counseling advice from experts that
subsequently formed the foundation of what is now Project 10 (the name
comes from the Kinsey sex research theory that 10% of the population
is gay)."
http://www.project10.org/
Project 10 seeks to have teachers who commit deviant sexual acts bring
this fact to the attention of their students:
"Coming out to students is a very personal decision. However, more and
more people are doing it, and therefore these are some suggestions on
how to do it based on the experiences of openly LGBT teachers.
1. Take a reality check of your school environment. Remember, private
schools are not governed by anti-discrimination laws.
2. Be sure that nondiscrimination policies are in effect for your
school district.
3. Be appropriate in the way that you disclose your sexual
orientation.
It might be in the form of a matter-of-fact response to a question
posed by a student.
It might be in the form of a lesson on prejudice or an incident of
name calling.
It might be in the context of a discussion of current events such as
the discovery of a possible gene for the cause of homosexuality, or a
social issue such as gays in the military.
It might be in the form of your participation in some community event.
It might be in a way that hasn't been mentioned here, but always it
should be casual, not strained, and with you, not the students, in
charge of the discussion."
http://www.project10.org/
Question: what right does any teacher have to pro-actively discuss
their private sexual proclivities with their students? What if a
teacher wants to "come out" about their acts of beastiality? Their
thoughts of pedophilia? Their habit of masturbating?
This is what the gay rights movement is all about: sexualizing
children.
"It depends. If you are in the Los Angeles Unified School District and
a principal tells you that, you can challenge the principal and take
it to the District's Educational Equity Compliance office. However, if
you are in a school district with no gay-friendly policies and a
principal who is scared to death of some vocal parent (the principal
has obviously forgotten that public education serves all students and
that includes LGBT students, too) then you have to be cautious. In
those situations the best thing to do is to try and elicit the
discussion from the students themselves. For example, one could do a
lesson on name-calling and in the course of the discussion the
students would probably list "faggot" as a bad name. Then you could
talk about why it is hurtful, emphasizing that we live in a society
where it's important that people respect one another. Or, you could do
a lesson on different family structures, the theme being what
constitutes a "family?" Another idea is that you could talk about
civil rights' movements. Structure your class so that it allows open
discussion, and different points of view. When LGBT issues come up,
work them into the context of whatever is happening."
http://www.project10.org/
>
> > and you just tried to make the claim again with some slanted study
> > from the University of Chicago, where they only looked at "major
> > urban areas" (e.g., cities with large gay communities) - instead of
> > analyzing the incidence with respect to the general population.
>
> You have a fear of a 10% figure don't you? Like it or not, numbers in
> that general range really do show up in studies about same sex
> orientation. Your strawman depends on them all referring to there
> being 10% of the population being homosexual right now, which they
> obvously don't.
The 10% figure has been abused by homosexuals in order to gain
political power. If the goal of homosexuality is so right, why must
homosexuals lie to make it so?
"Numbers in that general range" reporting the incidence of
homosexuality in the general population do not show up in studies.
Again, we have 9 studies that have been conducted on the incidence of
homosexuality in the general population. All 9 have found the
incidence to be about 2-3%. No exceptions.
You can continue your game of denying the 10% figure was used, but
doing all you can to support it being used, but it all boils down to
one thing:
You are a liar.
> >
> > Can you get any more dishonest or desparate? Trying to present this
> > "9%" figure as representative of the population as a whole?
>
> No, if I was doing that I would have specifically avoided mentioning it
> pertained to large urban areas. doh. Odd isn't it, when you want to
> present gays in a bad light you have no problems using numbers derived
> from people recruited at bathhouses or std clinics, but when you want
> to minimize the gay presence you insist it being a population study.
Excuse me. You used the 9% figure to imply that the use of the 10%
figure was right on the mark. Then you state that studies have found
that "numbers in that general range" and yet, the 9% figure is the
only one you quote.
Why do you keep lying about lying about lying?
You are very consistent in the fact that you are basically a dishonest
person.
>
> Really odd that you are that inconsistent, don't you think? ;)
>
> > You know, if I were to walk down the middle of the gay district in
> > San Francisco (a major urban area) taking a survey -- I bet I would
> > find 40-50% of the men would "self-identify" as being gay. Does that
> > mean that 40-50% of society is gay?
>
> In that society, yeah. You'd have no problem with using them as your
> sampling study for evaluating promiscuity, would you? ;)
I think the HIV/AIDS surveillance data is a good indicator of the
national promiscuity of gays, don't you? Given it is national data.
What do we have? We have 65% of all HIV/AIDS cases being among
homosexuals, though they are only 2% of the population.
You are so right: 90% of the gays are giving gays a bad rep as being
promiscuious. Horses' laugh!
> >
> > What a liar.
>
> No you just have lied so long you can no longer recognize the truth -
> that a large segment of society has same had same sex desire, behavior
> and/or sexual identification, just about 10%. No one really thinks
> that 10% of all people self-identify as 'gay' right this instance. No
> one thinks that 10% of the people are having gay sex right now. This
> strawman isn't even of any use as a scarecrow.
There you go: the man who said he knows of no gay person who uses the
"10%" figure doing all he can to justify the gay community's use of
the "10%" figure!
This in face of the fact that one of the biggest gay propaganda
campaigns that was created to target children is called "Project 10"
because gay sources state as fact that "10% of the population is gay".
Wake-up, McFly!
Again, let's turn to the HIV/AIDS data, and what we find is that the
number of homosexuals infected with an STD that is 100% deadly
outnumbers those who were infected via heterosexual means by a factor
of 10 - even though homosexuals are only 1-in-50 of the population.
The only way we can explain the fact is promiscuity is generally wide
spread among gays. In fact, I have a brother who is a doctor. He
tells me that 3/4 of the homosexuals that he has as patients have
syphillis and Ghonarea, and most of those also have Hep B. He and his
medical colleagues refer to gays as "STDS on legs". The rates of STD
infections among heterosexuals aren't even on the radar screen --
compared to the rates among gays.
Something about the anus not being part of the reproductive system.
> >
> > Here, some more reading for you:
> >
> > Corey, L. and Holmes, K. "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in
> > Homosexual Men." New England J. Med., 1980, pp. 435-38.
>
> Gosh an STD clinic study. Wow. Bet we can get a good impression of
> how straight people are from the ones that come to public STD
> clinics too, eh?
Out of touch with reality.
> >
> > Bell, A. and Weinberg, M. Homosexualities: a Study of Diversity Among
> > Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978.
>
> A study that the authors clearly state IS NOT representative of all gay
> people at the very beginning of the book and who's participants were
> recruited at the cores of the gay meccas of the west coast even going
> into gay bathhouses to recruit participants! Gee that really would
> represent people who aren't in those venues.... NOT! ;)
Ah, but where are the heterosexuals "recruited at the cores of the
heterosexual meccas"? Oh, there weren't any orgy parties involving
hundreds of different heterosexuals? Just another difference between
the "gay culture of STDs" and the heterosexual culture of normalcy,
right?
> >
> > Cameron et. al. ISIS National Random Sexuality Survey. Nebraska Med.
> > Journal, 1985, 70, pp. 292-299.
>
> Yeah one of the studies he was kicked out of his professional
> organizations for falsifying.
That's a gay myth. Just click your heels together and say it three
times, it might come true in la-la land.
> >
> > "Changes in Sexual Behavior and Incidence of Gonorrhea." Lancet,
> > April 25, 1987.
>
> STD Clinic studies again.
That's where the homosexuals are.
> >
> > Kus, R. "Alcoholics Anonymous and Gay America." Medical Journal of
> > Homosexuality, 1987, 14(2), p. 254.
>
> Self referral to 12 step treatment programs - another wonderful
> sampling method.
That's where the gays are.
> >
> > MsKusick, L. et. al. "AIDS and Sexual Behavior Reported By Gay Men in
> > San Francisco." Am. J. Pub. Health, 1985, 75, pp. 493-96.
>
> Yeah, going to San Franscisco to try and do a popultion study about gay
> men. Might as well go to Vegas to do a population study about
> gambling. ;) Oh but wait - didn't you yourself say that would NOT be a
> good sampling method? Hmmmm the contradictions in your POV are vexing.
That's where the gays are.
> >
> > Here, some light reading: Promiscuity, described as "sexual freedom"
> > and a core value of today's homosexuality, is the very opposite of
> > Jewish fidelity. In 1948, homosexual promiscuity was described as
> > relatively rare in this country [2]. The gay liberation movement of
> > the 1970's totally reversed this situation. By the 1980's, many gay
> > men were having sexual relations with several, sometimes anonymous,
> > partners each week, especially in major cities. This transformation
> > to gay life is mirrored in the medical records of venereal disease.
> > The rate of syphilis among white males in the United States increased
> > by 351 percent between 1967 and 1979, due in very large part to
> > increased homosexual activity. Cases of gonorrhea increased from
> > 259,000 in 1960 to 600,000 in 1970 to over a million in 1980 [3].
>
> Gosh looking at the statistics, it seems that everyone was getting a
> bit randy during the sexual revolution. And the incredible increase of
> syphilis cases in the deep south - who ever would have guess there were
> such large hidden gay communities down there? ;)
I have mentioned repeatedly that a number of epidemics, as defined by
the CDC, began in the "gay community" and moved into the general
population in varying degrees. Syphillis, Ghonarea, Hep
B,....,HIV/AIDS are just a few of them. Please note that increases in
STDs were attributable to "increased homosexual activity".
And now, the Supreme Court has ruled that states have no compelling
reason to outlaw sodomy - even though the medical community has as
accepted fact that sodomy is the leading vector of disease
transmission in the United States.
Again, the Supreme Court was totally out of their minds in making such
a ruling.
Yep, gays are sexual predators. Their communities are centered around
porno shops, sex shops, bathhouses, and all other kinds of sexually
oriented businesses.
Sure, you could, but you have no credibility. We have caught you
making stuff up left and right.
Again, here is the data with the source posted cause you deleted it in
your response:
"This is demonstrated by a host of studies - including some conducted
by homosexuals themselves. Sex in America (1994) found that while 68%
of men and 76% of women had only one heterosexual partner in the
previous year, only 2.6% of homosexual men and 1.2% of lesbians had so
limited themselves [5]. An earlier study estimated the number of
lifetime partners for the American population as a whole at 7.15 (8.67
for those who never married) [6]. Another found that while fear of
AIDS had lowered gay men's promiscuity, the average have male would
still have fifty sexual partners in a given year (down from seventy)
and altogether over six hundred sexual partners between ages 18 and 30
[7] [8]."
http://www.jerusalemletter.co.il/archives/Jun22,2000/mask.htm
Here is another that draws from data in the study that confirms that
heterosexuals are basically monogamous:
"During the past year, 80 percent of Americans had no or only one
sexual partner.
Over a lifetime, the median number of partners for men was six and for
women, two."
http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/current/features/1994/120194/sexstudy.html
And what do we have from studies on homosexual behavior? Homosexuals
average "hundreds" of different sexual partners.
BTW, notice how the Guttmacher Institute found that heterosexual males
averaged "7.3" over their lifetimes, and this study found "6".
Meanwhile, every study on homosexual males has found "hundreds and
hundreds".
Homosexuality is not heterosexuality. Homosexuality is sexual
deviancy.
>
> > An earlier study estimated the number of lifetime partners for the
> > American population as a whole at 7.15 (8.67 for those who never
> > married) [6].
>
> > 6. "Adult Sexual Behavior in 1989: Number of Partners, Frequency and
> > Risk," presented Feb., 1990 to American Association for the
> > Advancement of Science, published 1990 by NORC, University of
> > Chicago; cited in
>
> With a wide standard deviation with lots of 1 or less at one end and
> +20 or more at the other. No honest person averages such widely
> varient numbers together and presents time as useful criteria to judge
> an entire group. Oh, but you do Kevin, or course.
Blah-blah, blah-blah. Did it ever occur to you that the reason the
standard deviation for heterosexuals was "1", and the standard
deviation for homosexuals was "+20" was due to the fact that
heterosexuals average less than 10 different sexual partners
(specifically about 6-8), while homosexuals average hundreds and
hundreds?
Is it not typical that when data points increase in magnitude among
large populations that the standard deviation also increases?
Let me give you an exmaple for your small brain: If I average 50, 60,
and 70, would not my STD be much larger then if I averaged 5,6,7?
Becuase the STD is 10 for the former numbers and 1 for the latter
numbers, does that mean we cannot draw a conclusion between the two
sets? Bull.
So, we have homosexuals averaging in the triple digits of different
sexual partners with a high STD, and heterosexuals averaging in the
single digits of different sexual partners -- and we certainly can
conclude that the typical homosexual male is a sexual predator.
Indeed, an honest psychologist would have to conclude that such overt
promiscuity is an obsessive-compulsive disorder.
>
> > Another found that while fear of AIDS had lowered gay men's
> > promiscuity, the average have male would still have fifty sexual
> > partners in a given year (down from seventy) and altogether over six
> > hundred sexual partners between ages 18 and 30 [7] [8]
>
> > 7. A.N. Marco, "Same Sex Marriage," "Journal of Human Sexuality"
> > (G.A. Rekers, editor) 1996, 45-64; p.55.
>
> > 8. Study by American Psychological Association's Ethics Committee,
> > reported in "USA Today," Nov, 21, 1984; cited in A.N. Marco, ref. 7
> > p. 54.
>
> So we now have a study that cites newspaper report of an APA report.
> Gosh no room for misinterpretation of what was really said there, is
> there :)
Why don't you go look it up.
>
> > > > The difference is in the gay men of the opportunity to be VERY >
> > > > promiscuous. But since we are on the topic of lying, only a liar
> > > > of > the first degree would average together people with
> > > > thousands of > contacts and those with a few and call that
> > > > numerical average > 'typical'. Ditto with taking studies done
> > > > specifically performed in > promiscuous subjects and presenting
> > > > them as typical of the larger > unevaluated population.
> >
> > Speak for yourself, University of Chicago 9% Study Boy.
>
> Kevin, if that confused you I'm sorry. But the University of Chicago
> study that found that 9% of males in major urban areas is the very one
> you just fraudulently quoted above - what do you
> think the 'Sex in America' book is all about?
What you attempt to do is to take abnormal data points taken from
atypical populations and posture them as being representative of the
general population. That is far different then the fact that many of
these studies done on limited populations have re-affirmed what has
been found in major studies across the general population.
It is all about the clustering of data points and normalizing your
data. You have a habit of presenting atypical data as generally
descriptive.
I just don't take you as a credible person.
> >
> > So, 90% of gay men are giving the other 10% of gay men a bad name
> > when it comes to promiscuity.
>
> No actually, the few population studies we do have shows that they
> precentage of promiscuous gay men is about the same as that of
> heterosexual men 20-30%. Want me to trot them out for you again? I
> have a couple more now...
Oh, sure, and that is why 65% of all HIV/AIDS cases are homosexual --
even though they are only 2-3% of the population. I guess they must
have caught HIV/AIDS through toilet seats, huh? Sexual promiscuity
had *nothing* to do with the fact that HIV/AIDS rate is 100 times
greater in homosexuals, ehh?
>
> > So, your approach is to simply exclude the 90% of gay males who are
> > hypersexual -- and present the 10% as a valid sample.
>
> No, never suggested or implied especially since 90% of gay men are not
> hypersexual. Just rather be honest and not try and
> paint all gay men as a monolithic group that all act the same way.
> (Did you realize that 16% of heterosexual men have paid for sex? - just
> a tidbit to tittilate you ;)
>
> > Sounds like the Dr. Jenny study on pedophilia where she excluded male
> > adults committing sexual acts on male children as instances of
> > homosexual pedophilia in order to conclude there is no evidence of
> > homosexuals molesting boys.
>
> Hmmm you earlier in this very note made it clear that just because
> someone has had sex with someone of the same sex doesn't make them a
> homosexual. As I have shown you time and again, experts do not
That's not what I said at all. I said, and I have always said,
"Homosexual is as homosexual does." I do certainly believe that a
person can engage in homosexual behavior and repent, and change their
lives. When they do so, are they still homosexual? Nope.
Homosexual is as homosexual does -- just like any other crime against
humanity.
> consider the sex of pedophiles interest as indicitive of their sexual
> orientation. MOST pedophiles that have an adult sexual orientation are
> HETEROSEXUAL - they have wives, they have kids, they DON'T march in gay
> pride parades. Self-identifying gay men are not often pedophiles.
Again, homosexual is as homosexual does. If a male molests boys -
that male is committing homosexual acts.
As to "self-identifying gay men are not often pedophiles" - what a
load of garbage. Almost all of the Catholilc priests accused of
molesting boys are "self identifying gay men". Much has been written
about the overt gay culture in Catholic seminaries.
As to the Jenny study, where were these pedophiles asked to
"self-identify"?
They had brought a young boy into the hospital. The young boys were
being treated for damage to the anus. The police were called to the
hospital. These men were asked by the police, "Are you gay?" [e.g,
did you do this?] The men answered, "No.".
Dr. Jenny concluded that they must be heterosexual - despite the fact
they had molested a boy. Can we say, "Duh!" I might also mention
that Dr. Jenny is a militant homosexual activist. No wonder she
plundered the data!
>
> I can go dig up the references for you AGAIN if you want them but
> since we have had the watershed event of you having admitted that
> merely having sex with someone of the same sex doesn't make them
> homosexual there really isn't much need, is there?
Keep misquoting me. It won't make it true. Homosexual is as
homosexual does.
> >
> > I kid you not. And yet, her study was even used in the case against
> > Colorado passing their Proposition banning special homosexual rights
> > as evidence that homosexuals are not predophiles.
>
> Yep, because she, like you, knows that just because the pedophile might
> be of the same sex as their victim it doesn't make them a homosexual.
> You were making such progress Kevin, don't backslide now.
Yea, right. Just keep redifining the words, and homosexuality becomes
such a lovely lifestyle.
> >
> > > > Telling half truths is just as much a violation 'bearing false
> > > > witness' > as an out and out lie.
> >
> > I just quote the facts.
>
> But 'facts' that don't represent reality are lies kevin. Taking 99
> people who have had 1 sex partner and averaging them with 1 who has had
> a 901, and then saying the typical member of this group has had 10 sex
> partners is a misrepresentation. It's a lie no matter how 'factual' it
> might be.
But, again, the STDDEV for homosxuals is not in the hundreds, though
the average is in the 300-500 range (depending on the study). The
STDDEV is, as you admitted, about "20". So, when you speak of STDDEV,
it would be well to quote the average. So, with homosexuals we have
an average of 300, with a STDDEV of 20.
> >
> > > > > The lie that HIV/AIDS is not a gay disease. Some 65% of all
> > > > > HIV/AIDS > > cases are homosexual males -- even though they are
> > > > > only 2% of the > population.
> > >
> > > No the vast majority of HIV cases are heterosexual world wide. And
> > > again you are talking through out the history of the disease. As
> > > it stands now, a small percentage of the gay male community is
> > > HIV+, again rather remarkable considering the percentages that were
> > > just 10-15 years ago.
> >
> > We have already been over this. The reason that HIV/AIDS is spread
> > so wide in Africa and Asia is because: 1) receptive anal intercourse
> > is much more common among heterosexuals 2) tainted needles were used
> > by WHO to innoculate entire villages 3) In 1996, the WHO redefined
> > HIV/AIDs to include much more diseases 4) Cultural practices such as
> > scarring and spreading blood among villagers
>
> Actually we know no such thing and largely irrelevant Still the
> majority of cases are heterosexual.
Wrong. The majority of cases in the United States are homosexual
(over 65%). HIV/AIDS has *rarely* been transmitted via vaginal
intercourse. However, the main vector of HIV/AIDS transmission via
sexual intercourse is receptive anal intercouse.
> >
> > "A small percentage of the gay male community is HIV+"? You are a
> > disgrace to truth. That comment is so outrageous -- it doesn't even
> > deserve a reasoned response.
>
> Gosh they just did the study - here in Seattle they found only 2.2% of
> young gay men were HIV+, that's seems pretty low to me considering it
> was up to almost 30% back as late as the mid 80's. You should be
> praising their efforts. Even in San Francisco it was only 6.5% and
> they used to have an almost 60% prevalence rate.
What is the rate among heterosexuals? I notice you left it out. Why
did you leave it out? Because, the incidence of HIV/AIDS among
heterosexuals is less than 0.001%.
Now, let's compare an HIV/AIDs rate of 6.5% to 0.001% Now, who said
that HIV/AIDS is not a gay disease?
Now, please note I didn't even argue whether or not these studies used
self-selected populations, or what number they used to bound the
number of homosexuals. The data, as it is, is very compelling that
HIV/AIDS is a gay disease.
>
> Or do you not consider numbers less than 10% a 'small percentage'?
>
>
> > > > > The lie that homosexuals are not disproportionately pedophiles.
> > > > > > > Again, while they make up only 2% of the population - > >
> various studies > > have found that 35-60% of pedophiles are >
> > > > > > men who molest boys.
> > >
> > > yes but as has been shown to you, they are not homosexuals - most
> > > pedophiles don't care what the sex of their victims are as long as
> > > they are preadolescent children. Homosexuality as an adult sexual
> >
> > People who are attracted to both sexes are known as "bi-sexuals". The
> > vast majority of "homosexuals" are "bi-sexual". We both know about
> > the Kinsey scale of 0-6 - and that very, very, very few "homosexuals"
> > are a "6" - that is, they only have sex with the same sex.
>
> Now Kevin, you were making such progress. Again, pedophilia is NOT an
> adult sexual orientation.
What a crock! This would be laughable if it weren't so serious. We
actually have homosexual researchers who have redefined pedophilia to
exclude homosexual acts such that homosexuals are defined out of
pedophilia. That is, when a man commits a sexual act on a boy --
these militant homosexual researchers describe it as "heterosexual".
> >
> > So, what we have are men who have sex with both young boys and young
> > girls. These men are committing homosexual acts on these young boys.
> > They are, in fact, homosexual pedophiles.
>
> No, because homosexual denotes a sexual orientation. They might be
> pedophiles engaging in homosexual pedophilic acts, but they aren't gay
> or considered homosexual by the people who define the term.
So, people who are attracted to the same sex are homosexual if, and
only if, the homosexual community says they are?
Is this like the National Organization for Women claiming that Sen. K.
B. Hutchinson isn't a woman because she doesn't support abortion
rights?
Or, is this like the NAACP claiming that Justice Clarence Thomas isn't
black because he doesn't support quotas and affirmative action?
How dishonest. But how typical of the left. The left lies, lies, and
lies some more. They will say anything, do anything, write anything
to move their agenda forward.
Here, we have homosexual militants redifining pedophilia specifically
to exclude homosexuals.
> >
> > How convenient it must be to have a "closet" to go into and outof
> > when the subject doesn't fit into your agenda.
>
> No just using the terms correctly. AGain, you really shoot yourself in
> the foot on this subject because you lose all credibility. The experts
> say that the sex of the pedophiles victims has no relation to the adult
> sexual orientation of the pedophile, just reading news papers people
> can figure out it AIN'T the local gay activist that's getting his name
> in the paper for molesting children (usually its some heterosexual day
> care worker, or the nice old man and his wife that has still has all
> the children amusements in his yard, or old uncle ernie who really
> doesn't mind having your kids come over to say with his overnight.)
Reason states (not politically motivated homosexual militants posing
as researchers) that homosexuality is to be attracted to a person of
the same sex and to act on that attraction. There is no qualifier
there as to age of the person. It is attraction/acts to a person of
the same sex. When an adult male is sexually attracted to a young boy
and commits a sexual act upon him -- that is a homosexual committing a
homosexual act. Period.
No leftist propaganda in the world can say that a man molesting a boy
is a heterosexual act. Oh, I forgot, that is just what they are
saying in order to claim that homosexuals are not pedophiles. Those
homosexuals are really heterosexuals after all!
> >
> > > orientation is a world away from pedophilia. Might as well call
> > > someone who buggered rams a homosexual because his victims were
> > > male. :)
> >
> > Homosexuals disproportionately do commit acts of beastiality.
>
> Hahahahahahaha! Oh you are so funny.... ROLFing as we type.
>
> > So, if a homosexual has sex with Biff and with Bull -- does that mean
> > he is not homosexual?
> >
> > > > Again, presumptive heterosexuals are far more likely to molest
> > > > children > of all ages rather than out gay people.
> >
> > Tell that to the 32 boys murdered by John Wayne Gacey.
>
> A married man who had victims ranging up to 27 -not a gay man by any
> useful definition of the word - gotcha.
John Wayne Gacey was not gay? You know, God can't rewrite history --
only gay activists can.
So, a man who had sex with other men and boys is not homosexual? Can
anyone believe the stupidity that must be asserted in order to defend
the gay lifestyle?
>
> > Tell that to the 16 boys murdered by Jeffrey Dahmer.
>
> Gosh and you think I can't trot out a list of heterosexual loonies?
> that you are bringing these up just shows your desperation....
Well, actually, I can trot out a lot more homosexual loonies then you
can heterosexual loonies. You do know that the only woman serial
killer was the lesbian I-95 serial killer in Florida? Shall we go to
Adolf Hitler? Andrew Cunanan? "Uncle" Ed Smith?
Last time we did this -- I had a list of some 30 famous homosexual
mass murderers and serial killers. My homosexual opposition could
only list about 10 heterosexuals.
>
> > Tell that to the Dirkshire boy who was rapped to death by two
> > homosexual men.
>
> Gosh usually your references will at least pull up a hit or two on
> Google. And you mean that rape murders are unheard of in
> heterosexuals? Wouldn't it be more honest to say they are so common
> they barely get any press at all?
Well, I didn't remember his name correctly. Here, a story for you:
"While one of the convicted killers of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising
appeals his guilty verdict in the case all the way to the Arkansas
Supreme Court and another has withdrawn his guilty plea, three years
later there are few voices speaking out for the victim.
No local memorials have been held since his brutal death at the hands
of two homosexual predators who confessed to using the boy as a sex
toy while torturing him to death.
And even though the case received a flurry of publicity after first
being brought to the attention of the nation in WorldNetDaily, the
number of articles written pale in comparison to those written about
the murder of Matthew Shepherd – an adult homosexual brutally murdered
in Wyoming by heterosexuals. In fact, a Nexis search shows a disparity
in story counts of 18-1.
Dirkhising suffocated to death during the early morning hours of Sept.
26, 1999, after being bound, drugged, gagged and brutally sodomized by
Davis Don Carpenter, then 38, and Joshua Macabe Brown, then 22, at the
men's apartment in Rogers, Ark.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29026
Did you know a number of homosexual militants actually posted here
that this murder "never happened", that it was an "internet myth"?
Gosh, I guess these two men in jail are just a figment of Big Al's
imagination!
>
> > > > > Just > > look at the homosexual priests in the Catholic Church
> > > > > > > > who have > molested all those boys as an example of what
> > > > > > happens when homosexuals > > gain authority in an
> > > > > organization > > > that works with children.
> > >
> > > And as a simple google search will show you the under reported
> > > story is about the priests that are molesting girls. (check the
> > > boston papers for a series about same). That they have deliberately
> > > deflected the story to only the male victims is just damage control
> > > PR on the church's part. And I think its more a testimony about
> > > the effects of forcing a true perversion like celibacy on an entire
> > > caste of service workers. The sex drive is like steam in a boiler
> > > - its gotta have a release - never venting it cause lots of
> > > negative effects. But that's another discussion for another time.
> > > Out gay men are rarely child abusers of any ilk - the Washington
> > > state department in charge of foster parents has even said their
> > > gay ones are exemplary and they wish all their foster homes were of
> > > as high a caliber.
> >
> > Ah, yes, those self-selected "gay parents" are so much better than
> > the heterosexual ones, aren't they?
>
> Maybe not better, but as a group higher caliber. Some heterosexuals
> seem to become foster parents more as a source of income rather than a
> desire to help kids.
There we go: the next stage of societal downfall:
Step1: categorize homosexuality as not abnormal for those who
participate
Step2: categorize homosexuality as absolutely normal
Step3: force society to embrace it as being normal and possible for
all
Step4: Assert that homosexuality is actually superior to
heterosexuality
Step5: Open warfare on children by sexual predators
Step6: Society collapses
-Red Davis
Nathan Packer
>Bob <nos...@4me.com> wrote in message news:<be7nrs$1ih$0...@216.39.173.68>...
>> In article <fe6e030e.03070...@posting.google.com>, KDavis
>> <kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Another found that while fear of
>> > AIDS had lowered gay men's promiscuity, the average have male would
>> > still have fifty sexual partners in a given year (down from seventy)
>> > and altogether over six hundred sexual partners between ages 18 and 30
>> > [7] [8].
>>
>> > 7. A.N. Marco, "Same Sex Marriage," "Journal of Human Sexuality" (G.A.
>> > Rekers, editor) 1996, 45-64; p.55.
>> > 8. Study by American Psychological Association's Ethics Committee,
>> > reported in "USA Today," Nov, 21, 1984; cited in A.N. Marco, ref. 7 p.
>> > 54.
>>
>> Snarf. Just had to come back - I found this one turns out the
>> 'Journal of Human Sexuality' isn't a journal at all, its a
>> fundamentalist Christian collection of anti-gay works!
>> http://store.clm.org/4264.html
>
>Snarf back. So, are you stating that Dr. Jeffrey Satinover is not an
>expert?
Is he an expert? Please post any work of his on homosexuality that has
been peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal.
Or, do you describe everything as "anti-gay works" simply
>because they present an unbiased position? Especially given the fact
>you still have not *read* it.
>And Dr. Judith Reisman, Ph.D? Just another "anti-gay" bigot homophobe
>because she stands by actual unbiased research?
Judith Reisman. Please post any work of hers on homosexuality that has
been peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal.
>
>This respons is so typical of homosexual activists: they scream
>intolerance at any and all reasonsed research that concludes that
>homosexuality is harmful and unnatural.
Please, Kevin. Post any recent peer-reviewed research in a reputable
journal that says homosexuality is harmful and unnatural. Recent,
Kevin. We know that if you look back far enough into the dark ages,
you can find learned treatises on how to determine if a woman is a
witch.
>
>>
>> And at the author is the author of the infamous Colorado's Amendment 2
>> that was found unconstitutional by the SCOTUS!
>>
>> http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/marco.html
>
>So? What does that have to do with the price of AIDS in San
>Francisco?
This is the retort that one gets from a third-rate engineer.
>
>>
>> I mean, this reference is right up there with Paul Cameron's too - I
>> mean quoting a popular press newspaper instead of the real source
>> information = tacky!
>
>You quoted studies that you hadn't even read yet. I mean, when I
>posted the fact that Hooker *never* concluded that homosexuality was
>normal -- you must have went into a real tizzy screaming "homophobe"
>at the computer monitor.
Notice how Red projects his own lack of control. Everyone pounds the
table or goes into a tizzy when he presents his "facts." But the
Red/Kevin is delusional because when he says he has a "fact," every
other sane person smiles and roles their eyes. Yes, Kevin, we all role
our eyes and give a little half-smile when we see your "facts."
This is the citation given when Evelyn received the 1991 Award for
Distinguished Contribution to Psychology in the Public Interest
"When homosexuals were considered to be mentally ill, were forced out
of government jobs, and were arrested in police raids, Evelyn Hooker
courageously sought and obtained research support from the National
Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) to compare a matched sample of
homosexual and heterosexual men. Her pioneering study, published in
1957, challenged the widespread belief that homosexuality is a
pathology by demonstrating that experienced clinicians using
psychological tests widely believed at the time to be appropriate
could not identify the nonclinical homosexual group. This
revolutionary study provided empirical evidence that normal
homosexuals existed, and supported the radical idea then emerging that
homosexuality is within the normal range of human behavior. Despite
the stigma associated with homosexuality, she received an NIMH
Research Career Award in 1961 to continue her work. In 1967, she
became chair of the NIMH Task Force on Homosexuality, which provided a
stamp of validation and research support for other major empirical
studies. Her research, leadership, mentorship, and tireless advocacy
for an accurate scientific view of homosexuality for more than three
decades has been an outstanding contribution to psychology in the
public interest."
And she did much of her work during the McCarthy era.
Thank you Dr. Hooker.
BTW, I wonder if homophobia is an abnormal pathology?
cham
> Bob <nos...@4me.com> wrote in message news:<be7nrs$1ih$0...@216.39.173.68>...
> > In article <fe6e030e.03070...@posting.google.com>, KDavis
> > <kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Another found that while fear of
> > > AIDS had lowered gay men's promiscuity, the average have male would
> > > still have fifty sexual partners in a given year (down from seventy)
> > > and altogether over six hundred sexual partners between ages 18 and 30
> > > [7] [8].
>
> > > 7. A.N. Marco, "Same Sex Marriage," "Journal of Human Sexuality" (G.A.
> > > Rekers, editor) 1996, 45-64; p.55.
> > > 8. Study by American Psychological Association's Ethics Committee,
> > > reported in "USA Today," Nov, 21, 1984; cited in A.N. Marco, ref. 7 p.
> > > 54.
> > Snarf. Just had to come back - I found this one turns out the
> > 'Journal of Human Sexuality' isn't a journal at all, its a
> > fundamentalist Christian collection of anti-gay works!
> > http://store.clm.org/4264.html
http://www.clm.org/menus/pubsjhs.html
"The Journal of Human Sexuality is a one-time publication of Christian
Leadership Ministries exploring the many issues surrounding
homosexuality."
Gee, I wonder what the agenda is? Is that how science works?
> Snarf back. So, are you stating that Dr. Jeffrey Satinover is not an
> expert? Or, do you describe everything as "anti-gay works" simply
> because they present an unbiased position? Especially given the fact
> you still have not *read* it.
Jeffrey Satinover
Dr. Jeffery Satinover has practiced psychoanalysis for more than
twenty years. He is a former Fellow in Psychiatry and Child Psychiatry
at Yale University and past William James Lecturer in Psychology and
Religion at Harvard. He hold degrees from M.I.T., Harvard University,
and the University of Texas. Jeffery and his wife have three children.
Book
Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth
Paperback (January 1996)
Baker Book House; ISBN: 080105625X
Reviews
"Mr. Speaker, this is about the best book on homosexuality written in
our lifetime. It should be read from sea to shining sea. Read. Learn.
And pray"--Hon. Robert K. Dornan on the floor of the US House of
Representatives, May 9-10, 1996
He's Pretty heavily involved with NARTH isn't he? I think the most
insulting slur I found on his research is ;
"Satinover...and his co-authors distort and exaggerate more than 40
years of social science research." Peter M. Nardi, Professor of
Sociology, Pitzer College Claremont, Calif.
(To balance Dornan's praise)
> And Dr. Judith Reisman, Ph.D? Just another "anti-gay" bigot homophobe
> because she stands by actual unbiased research?
"in 1984, the US Justice Department had given Reisman a grant for
$734,371 to study pictures in Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler. She
claims that these magazines published 6,000 cartoons, photos and other
illustrations of children between 1954 and 1984. Subsequently,
Reagan-appointee Alfred Regnery, who commissioned the study, had to
admit that it was a mistake. Avedon Carol writes:
"It was a scientific disaster, riddled with researcher bias and
baseless assumptions. The American University (AU), where Reisman's
study had been academically based, actually refused to publish it when
she released it, after their independent academic auditor reported on
it. Dr Robert Figlio of the University of Pennsylvania told AU that,
'The term child used in the aggregate sense in this report is so
inclusive and general as to be meaningless.' Figlio told the press, 'I
wondered what kind of mind would consider the love scene from Romeo
and Juliet to be child porn'." (Carol, 1994, p.116) Carol, Avedon
1994, Nudes, Prudes and Attitudes: Pornography and Censorship, New
Clarion Press, Gloucester.
Marcia Pally cites Dr Loretta Haroian, cochair of the plenary session
on Child and Adolescent Sexuality at the 1984 World Congress of
Sexology, and one of the world's experts on childhood sexuality, as
saying of the Reisman study:
"This is not science, it's vigilantism: paranoid, pseudoscientific
hyperbole with a thinly veiled hidden agenda. This kind of thing
doesn't help children at all. ... Her [Reisman's] study demonstrates
gross negligence and, while she seems to have spent a lot of time
collecting her data, her conclusions, based on the data, are
completely unwarranted. The experts Reisman cites are, in fact, not
experts at all but simply people who have chosen to adopt some
misinformed, Disneyland conception of childhood that she has. These
people are little more than censors hiding behind Christ and
children." (Carol, 1994, p.116). Carol, Avedon 1994, Nudes, Prudes and
Attitudes: Pornography and Censorship, New Clarion Press, Gloucester.
"
source: Tacky website citing Carol's book
http://libertus.net/censor/refsC
> This respons is so typical of homosexual activists: they scream
> intolerance at any and all reasonsed research that concludes that
> homosexuality is harmful and unnatural.
Reasoned research- from these folks?? not likely.
> > And at the author is the author of the infamous Colorado's Amendment 2
> > that was found unconstitutional by the SCOTUS!
> >
> > http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/marco.html
>
> So? What does that have to do with the price of AIDS in San
> Francisco?
>
> >
> > I mean, this reference is right up there with Paul Cameron's too - I
> > mean quoting a popular press newspaper instead of the real source
> > information = tacky!
You post references to inflammatory biased reports regularly-- am I
missing something in this logic?
> You quoted studies that you hadn't even read yet. I mean, when I
> posted the fact that Hooker *never* concluded that homosexuality was
> normal -- you must have went into a real tizzy screaming "homophobe"
> at the computer monitor.
>
> Now, go get a brain.
>
> -Red Davis
Chuck
TheJordan6
>Date: 7/5/2003 2:27 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <fe6e030e.03070...@posting.google.com>
I used those specific words off the top of my head in a post to illustrate to
ARM readers how some ignorant Mormons like yourself believe that reports of the
Danites and their activities were inventions of "anti-Mormons."
Other examples:
On September 23, 2002, Woody Brison wrote:
"It is because the tribe of Dan became Danites, to yank the shorts of
antimormons up the back until they reach
their little pointed heads, which makes a convenient place to hook 'em. It's
been known to take 20 or 30 days for 'em to figure out what happened. This is
because the Danites are invisible. It's them rays
which you can see coming out of the Ark in the movie what makes 'em invisible.
But Mannasah is currently located in the state of Colorado. They've thought of
moving several times, but keep puttin' it off."
On March 29, 2000, Mormon apologist Russell McGregor wrote to ARM:
"For the "Ranty" Jordans of this world, the presumption of innocence is not
only set aside, it is actually reversed. They don't see a need to find
evidence sufficient to convict Porter Rockwell, Joseph Smith,
Brigham Young or the invisible "Danites;" any accusation *is* the proof."
It is obvious from statements like these from Russell McGregor, Woody Brison,
and yours (Red Davis') which I have quoted above, that you Mormon apologists
wish to believe that the Danites were the invention of "anti-Mormons," or that
reports of their activities are greatly exaggerated. To repeat your ignorant
assertion:
"The Danites are fictional gobbly-gook, whose legend has been embelleshed by
anti-Mormons for over a century and a half."
-----Red Davis, ARM post, January 16, 2003.
Now, Red Davis, did you or did not not write these words on January 16, 2003?
Do you or do you not believe that the Danites were "fictional gobbly(sic)
-gook, whose legend has been embelleshed(sic) by anti-Mormons for over a
century and a half"?
>And, given I have been on the Internet for
>over 15 years, you could only find my mention on the Danites twice,
>some several years ago?
I don't give a shit if you've mentioned the Danites two times or two hundred
times. What I care about is that you wrote:
"To the best of my knowledge, I have *never* posted on the subject of the
Danites - much less described them as "invisible Danites" or "non-existent
Danites".
And the two quotes of yours I re-posted were not from "some several years ago."
They were from November 19, 2001, and January 16, 2003.
You made those ignorant comments recently enough for me to remember that is was
you who made them. That is why I used you and Woody as examples of Mormons who
are ignorant of the facts of the origins and activities of the Danites.
>John Lemins said:
>> I doubt highly that you would have questioned the prophet, if you had, you
>> may have found a few Danites knocking at your door that night. Since
>Joseph
>> claimed to be speaking under the authority of the Holy Spirit, you should
>be
>> taking his teachings on God being a man and men becoming gods as scripture.
>I responded:
>"If I may, he asked to be guided -- he did not claim to have received
>guidance, much less such guidance for every word, thought, or comma.
>
>The old anti-Mormon legend of the Danites. I guess I could have
>challenged a Baptist minister or the freedom of a black man and had
>the KKK lynch me to a pecan tree anywhere South of the Maxon-Dixon
>line. Now, that is a reality. The Danites are fictional gobbly-gook,
>whose legend has been embelleshed by anti-Mormons for over a century
>and a half."
And there is one of your lies, Liar Red Davis. The Danites were NOT "fictional
gobbly-gook." The Danite band was first organized in June 1838 by Joseph Smith
Junior and Sidney Rigdon. Those two men gave the Danites speficic orders to
commit specific criminal acts. They were fully aware of, and in support of,
the Danites' criminal acts.
The Danites were NOT a "legend" which has been "embelleshed by anti-Mormons for
over a century and a half."
The Danites---whether acting in groups or alone, by secret orders of LDS church
leaders----committed numerous acts of crime and violence from 1838 to at least
the 1870s.
>As to my second mention, the complete quote is:
I know what your complete quote is, moron. I'm the guy who looked it up to
quote it here.
>"That is Hickman's unsubstantiated claim. A claim that he did not
>mention to Governor Harding (nor any of the other allegations of
>murder) when the two met to try and pin whatever they could on Brigham
>Young. It was only after Hickman met up with J.H. Beade (the first
>version of D. Michael Quinn - a historian who isn't afraid to forge
>history to meet his agenda) that his numerous and unbelievable stories
>came about. Murders everywhere. Danites everywhere. Why, alledged
>Hickman -- murmur a word about it -- and you'r dead, dead, dead.
>
>Then Hickman proceeds to write an odyssey of lurid tales of murder and
>Danite secrets, page after page, lurid accusation after lurid
>accusation. Murder after murder.
>
>Only anti-Mormons do not pay attention to the fact that there is
>Hickman supposedly spilling the beans on that which couldn't even be
>whispered -- yet he is never harmed, and lives out the rest of his
>life in Utah in perfect safety.
>
>Indeed, here is an anti-Mormon's accusation of what would happen to a
>person like Hickman:
>
>"While all the evidence seems to show that everyone who opposed
>the Mormon Church in early Utah risked the possibility of losing their
>property or even their lives, things are different today."
>
>Except, of course, Hickman (who certainly opposed the Church) didn't
>lose either his property or his life.
>
>Imagine that. An anti-Mormon makes a sensational accusation -- and
>their own evidence mitigates their accusation!?"
Four very brief responses to your ignorant ravings:
1. Bill Hickman, via Beadle, was far from the only "Danite" to have testified
to the band's origins and activities. Thus, your attempt to "debunk" Hickman
by alleging that his recollections were "embelleshed" by Beadle is futile, and
only serves to further demonsrate your abject ignorance of Mormon history.
2. The attempts of Mormon apologists to "discredit Hickman by discreding
Beadle" has been overwhelming refuted by the Tanners at
http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no77.htm
3. Your ignorant attempt to discredit Hickman by discrediting Beadle does not
refute nor even address the mountain of evidence from numerous sources of the
Danite band's origin and activities which I provided in my original post to
Kevin Simonson, to which you responded with your first lie on this subject.
4. The likely reason Hickman was not "blood atoned" for his confessions of
Mormon crimes is because most of his Mormon superiors who might have ordered
his "blood atonement" was dead or aged by that time, and because federal
overseers were close to succeeding in dismantling the Mormons' theocratic
dictatorship and its "law of God" which included "blood atonement."
However, the fact that Hickman was not "blood atoned" does not negate the
numerous other instances of Mormon "blood atonement" which occurred between the
early 1830s and at least the 1870s.
IOW, you are using Hickman's survival as a strawman to assert that no "blood
atonement" murders were ever ordered or took place in 19th-century Mormonism;
but the facts prove otherwise.
>So, Randy, I stated that "to the best of my knowledge" I had not
>posted those words, and such was true,
<guffaw> It obviously isn't true, seeing as how I posted two quotes of yours
which clearly demonstrate your belief that the Danite band and its activities
were fiction.
So tell us, Red----were the Danites fiction, or were they real? Were they
organized and approved of by Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon in 1838, or not?
>and through 15 years of posting
>on the Internet -- you could only find two posts where I even
>mentioned the word "Danite" - and those are several years ago.
Two quotes were all I needed to demonstrate to ARM readers that you are a liar.
And I don't believe that most readers would agree that posts from November 19,
2001 (20 months ago) and January 16, 2003 (6 months ago) could be accurately
described as "several years ago."
Readers, please note how I have demonstrated Red Davis to be a liar, and that
he is attempting to weasel out of his lies by parsing words and harping about
technicalities. Such defenses are typical of liars who get caught, e.g., Bill
Clinton's "Oral sex isn't sexual relations."
And your whining about the age of your quotes is highly amusing, seeing as how
your regularly delve into ARM archives to dig up quotes from posters like Kevin
Thurston to use in your silly arguments. So that means that you are a
hypocrite as well as a liar.
>Are you really this desperate to call me a liar? I think that speaks
>volumes about how accurate my posts truly are.
Red, please tell ARM readers how accurate the following statements are:
"To the best of my knowledge, I have *never* posted on the subject of
the Danites...."
"The old anti-Mormon legend of the Danites.....The Danites are fictional
gobbly-gook, whose legend has been embelleshed by anti-Mormons for over a
century and a half."
Of course, this is only one example of your lies which I am bothering to point
out to ARM readers at present. Your ARM postsin general are absolutely full
of lies, misrepresentations, misinformation, misinterpretations, and plain old
ignorance of facts. Various posters point out your lies on a regular basis.
The fact that you are in denial of your lies (much like on this particular
subject) does not mean that you are not in fact an habitual liar. It simply
means that you are in a mental and emotional state wherein you are unable to
distinguish truth from lies.
>BTW, I don't know where you get your dates from for my posts. You
>need to do a better job of documenting your false accusations.
>
>-Red Davis
I looked them up on google, Red.
Here are the references:
Re: Was Brigham Young a killer?
... ever breathed a word of it all - those old Danites would kill him. ... Red
Davis Steve
Lowther From: "newguy" <cerb...@saber.net> Date: Fri, Nov 9, 2001 12:17 ...
alt.religion.mormon - Nov 19, 2001 by KDavis - View Thread (114 articles)
Re: New book published on Mormon history
... The Danites are fictional gobbly-gook, whose legend has been embelleshed
by anti-Mormons for over a century and a half. ... Red Davis --
alt.religion.mormon - Jan 16, 2003 by KDavis - View Thread (175 articles)
How appropriate that you should end a post full of lies with yet another lie.
Randy J.
Nathan Packer
>Bob <nos...@4me.com> wrote in message news:<be7h5p$hte$0...@216.39.173.68>...
>> In article <fe6e030e.03070...@posting.google.com>, KDavis
>> <kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Bob <nos...@4me.com> wrote in message
>> > news:<bdqvav$2o8$0...@216.39.173.68>... > In article
>> > <fe6e030e.03063...@posting.google.com>, KDavis >
>> > <kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
[snip]
>>
>> OK. Observers please note that Kevin has just, possibly for the first
>> time, acknowledged that people who have had same sex relations are not
>> necessarily homosexual. When he wanders into one of his pedophile
>> rants remember he said this ;) I will reference this later I'm sure.
>
>Hey, Bob, I have never said anthing other then this: homosexual is as
>homosexual does. A person who engages in homosexual behavior is a
>homosexual. I believe quite strongly that people can change from
>being homosexual (i.e., a person who engages in homosexual behavior)
>to heterosexual. After all, there are literally ten of thousands of
>success stories.
>
>My view on homosexuality, as stated numerous times, is thusly:
>
>A person is not a homosexual because they are tempted by homosexual
>thoughts. We cannot choose what we are tempted by. Just as a person
>who is tempted by adultery is not an adulterer unless he acts on such
>temptations. We, as intelligent beings, can certainly choose how we
>behave, whether or not we act on temptations. A person who acts on
>their homosexual tempations is a homosexual. Just like a person who
>acts on their temptations of adultery is an adulterer.
>
>When a male adult commits a sexual act on a male child -- that male
>adult is a homosexual pedophile. Period.
And, if a male adult commits a sexual act on a female child - that
male adult is a heterosexual pedophile. Period, Comma, Questionmark.
Not really. Pedophilia is not quite that simple, but if we present the
description of pedophilia, it might not be grasped by a simple mind.
>
[snip]
>
>>
>> >
>> > 2. Ten Percent of American's Children Needlessly Suffer, Have No One
>> > to Turn To...and Are Gay, says Mary Ann Cantwell
>> > (http://www.guestfinders.com/nfgay.htm)
>> No such web page odd. ;)
>
>From a post several years back. The Internet is dynmaic.
Only a fouth-rate engineer would submit a non-existent web page in
support of his argument. You must give your diploma back.
>
>>
>> > 3. The Tri-College Ten Percent Society.
>> > (http://www.acm.ndsu.nodak.edu/Ten_Percent/)
>> Never claims that 10% of the general population is gay. odd. ;)
>
>Oh, yea, "Never claims that 10% of the general population is gay" --
>save the fact that this gay club calls itself the "Tri-College TEN
>PERCENT SOCIETY". So, I guess you just mised that.
>
>>
>> > 4. The Other 10% (http://www.ma.huji.ac.il/~dafid/asiron_.html)
>>
>> No such web page. odd. ;)
>
>Again, from a post a few years back.
Only a fifth-rate engineer would submit a non-existent web page the
second time in support of his argument. You must give your diploma
back and donate your earning to the college.
>
[snip]
>> > 7. Considering only sexual experiences after puberty, Kinsey found
>> > that 37% of the males and 20% of the females in his sample had at
>> > least one adult experience with a person on the same gender. He also
>> > found that 13% of the men and 7% of the women were predominantly
>> > homosexual for at least three years of their lives between the ages
>> > of 16 and 55. Put another way, this meant that more than 10% had a
>> > very significant homosexual dimension to their lives. [Shouldn't we
>> > say, "Make it up this way, this meant that more than 10%..."]
>> > (http://gaylesissues.miningco.com/library/weekly/aa072498.htm)
>>
>> No such page. odd.
Did this celebrated (in his own mind) engineer do this again.
>>
[snip
>> >
>> > 8. "According to national estimates, 10 percent of the population is
>> > gay/lesbian. Using this figure, there are approximately 3700
>> > gay/lesbian members of the NC State University community."
>> > (http://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/project/www/ncsu/housing/safe/whysafe.html)
>>
>> No such page. odd.
Oh, Kevin, not again. This is sad.
>
>Again, the Internet is dynamic. When I posted these pages a few years
>ago -- all of these pages were reachable.
>
>Here is another gay group spreading the lie that homosexuals are 10%:
>
>http://www.clubs.psu.edu/psupride/oneinten/
>
>>
>> > Here they take the faked "10%" figure wrongfully attributed to the
>> > Kinsey study and falsely claim that there are actually several
>> > "national estimates" that have also found the "10 percent" figure.
>> > Did they name any of these "national estimates"? Who made them?
>> > Answer: homosexual activists. Heck, here they even make up the fact
>> > that they are *several* such sources for the figure. Again - the Big
>> > Lie.]
>> >
>> > 9. Queer Resources - Ten Percent (http://echonyc.com:70/1/Queer)"
>>
>> No such server even! odd.
My goodness. Red doesn't have a clue
>>
[snip of Red]
Bob
> Bob <nos...@4me.com> wrote in message news:<be7h5p$hte$0...@216.39.173.68>...
> > In the since that 1 out of 10 people at this instant are gay, no I
> > don't. Do you? I know I never have - but then I knew what the
> > Kinsey study really said long long ago.
>
> Yet, you feigned no knowledge that the gay community repeatedly uses
> the "10%" figure to inflate and misrepresent their number in society.
> What a liar.
I know that many have stated the Kinsey study's 10%, just as many in
the straight community have. But it isn't a general population study.
> > OK. Observers please note that Kevin has just, possibly for the first
> > time, acknowledged that people who have had same sex relations are not
> > necessarily homosexual. When he wanders into one of his pedophile
> > rants remember he said this ;) I will reference this later I'm sure.
>
> Hey, Bob, I have never said anthing other then this: homosexual is as
> homosexual does. A person who engages in homosexual behavior is a
> homosexual. I believe quite strongly that people can change from
> being homosexual (i.e., a person who engages in homosexual behavior)
> to heterosexual. After all, there are literally ten of thousands of
> success stories.
>
> My view on homosexuality, as stated numerous times, is thusly:
>
> A person is not a homosexual because they are tempted by homosexual
> thoughts. We cannot choose what we are tempted by. Just as a person
> who is tempted by adultery is not an adulterer unless he acts on such
> temptations. We, as intelligent beings, can certainly choose how we
> behave, whether or not we act on temptations. A person who acts on
> their homosexual tempations is a homosexual. Just like a person who
> acts on their temptations of adultery is an adulterer.
Ahhh even more progress - homosexuality is no longer defined by the
deed but by the thought! Really Kevin, you have made much progress in
the years we
>
> When a male adult commits a sexual act on a male child -- that male
> adult is a homosexual pedophile. Period.
Absolutely! They are a homosexual pedophile NOT a pedophilic
homosexual! You are almost becoming coherent!
>
> Again, we both know that most "homosexuals" are actually "bisexual",
> that the Kinsey Scale of 0-6 (0 is exclusively heterosexual, 6 is
> exclusively homosexual) has found that 97% of all people are a "0",
> while about 2-3% vary in range from a 1-6, with very, very few being a
> "6".
Kevin only you use the term exclusively - that you can have both
heterosexual and homosexual attractions at the same time is hardly a
new idea or a conspiracy.
> > > Were they even normal given they resided in a nut house? Nope. Do
> > > men in prison have access to women? Nope.
> > >
> > Kevin its always fun to see you go off on a rant. After I said I know
> > of no gay people who say that 10% of the population is gay you go off
> > on this wild tangent spinning and rambling about things that weren't
> > said as if they were. You are very entertaining Kevin. :)
>
> You mean after you lied about knowing no gay people who claim that 10%
> of the population is gay, then you throw out there the Kinsey study to
> try and suggest that there is legitimate support for an idea you claim
> you know nothing about?
>
> You are simply unbelievable.
No you are simply incoherent again. The two statements
10% of the general population is gay right now
and
10% of the a study population has had significant gay experience
are not even close to meaning the same thing. The Kinsey report made
NO attempt to identify how many people were gay RIGHT NOW and it wasn't
even a population study! You are once again comparing apples and
oranges.
>
> > >
> > > So, again, we see how rediculous and far fetched homosexual
> > > propaganda is -- and why it is that homosexual activists must shout
> > > down those who oppose their agenda with shouts of "homophobe",
> > > "intolerant", "hateful", "narrow minded" - instead of addressing the
> > > issues.
> >
> > > Homosexuals cannot defend their lifestyle or their behavior. So, we
> > > get the "Big Lie" over and over and over again -- while all
> > > opposition is being muted by militants screaming "homophobe".
> > >
> > > Here, some gays Bob doesn't know claiming that homosexuals are 10% of
> > > the population:
> >
> > > (from a previous Red Davis post) 1. The Ten Percent Society
> > > (http://tps.stdorg.wisc.edu/) [Shouldn't that be "2.5%" :-O )
> >
> > Not at all, not if you are talking about the % of society that has had
> > significant same sex experience. Not if you are talking about a major
> > urban area where 9% of men are gay. Not if you are using the studies
> > that attempt to gage sexual orientation acted on or not (like the
> > University of Chicago study you turned me on to - they found that 10.1%
> > of men had same gender sexuality and 8.6% of all women.) Again, the 10%
> > figure is accurate as a round figure if you are talking about many
> > population aspects of gay issues. It just isn't the % of the
> > population that is engaged in gay sex at the current instant.
>
> Now, Bob only knows Bob as a person going around claiming that 10% of
> the population is homosexual. :-O
Kevin if you are so silly as to think that those statements mean the
same thing there's not much hope for you. Only you are so dense as to
not be able to realize that the statements:
10% of the population is gay
and
10.1% of men have (some aspect) of same gender sexuality
Are not congruent statements, i.e. they don't mean the same thing. The
first isn't true, the second is.
>
> Are "major urban areas" representative of the general population as a
> whole, such that a linear extrapolation of the data can be made as
> representative of the general population? No.
Of course not, but then who is saying that rual Wyoming is 10% gay?
> So, if you wonder into
> a major urban area such as San Francisco's gay district, or Houston's,
> or New York's -- you will find the incidence of homosexuality is much
> greater than elsewhere. But, when taken as a whole - the incidence of
> homosexuality in society is about 2-3%.
>
> Again, homosexual is as homosexual does -- and nine national studies
> conducted since 1980 have all found the incidence of homosexuality in
> society to be at about 2-3%. That is a very compelling grouping of
> data points.
Hmmmm, those data points are about how many men have engaged in
homosexual sex in the past 12 months, but still 3-4% of the general
population is about right. But then no one has disputed this. Who are
you arguing with, the voices in your head?
Real slow Kevin, I've never said that gays were 10% of the general
population. I've never thought they were 10% of the general
population. the topic under discussion is I didn't think that there
was a massive gay conspiracy to actively lie that was true.
<snipping>
>
> I now you reject anything that comes from the religious right, so
> let's hear the same thing from the immoral left:
>
> "This incident served as the catalyst for Dr. Uribe who then spent
> months putting together counseling advice from experts that
> subsequently formed the foundation of what is now Project 10 (the name
> comes from the Kinsey sex research theory that 10% of the population
> is gay)."
> http://www.project10.org/
>
Oops well you got me there. So some gays have said its 10%. But then
the APA site had too, and there were a number of studies in the past
that indicated that it could be true (I will cite them if you want)
> > You have a fear of a 10% figure don't you? Like it or not, numbers in
> > that general range really do show up in studies about same sex
> > orientation. Your strawman depends on them all referring to there
> > being 10% of the population being homosexual right now, which they
> > obvously don't.
>
> The 10% figure has been abused by homosexuals in order to gain
> political power. If the goal of homosexuality is so right, why must
> homosexuals lie to make it so?
But i don't see the 'political power' angle. What difference would it
have made if the group had been named Project 4?
> "Numbers in that general range" reporting the incidence of
> homosexuality in the general population do not show up in studies.
> Again, we have 9 studies that have been conducted on the incidence of
> homosexuality in the general population. All 9 have found the
> incidence to be about 2-3%. No exceptions.
> You can continue your game of denying the 10% figure was used, but
> doing all you can to support it being used, but it all boils down to
> one thing:
>
> You are a liar.
About what? I never said that 10% of the population was gay right now,
did I? Ever ever ever ever ever? No, ok then your presumptive apology
is accepted.
> > > Can you get any more dishonest or desparate? Trying to present this
> > > "9%" figure as representative of the population as a whole?
> >
> > No, if I was doing that I would have specifically avoided mentioning it
> > pertained to large urban areas. doh. Odd isn't it, when you want to
> > present gays in a bad light you have no problems using numbers derived
> > from people recruited at bathhouses or std clinics, but when you want
> > to minimize the gay presence you insist it being a population study.
>
> Excuse me. You used the 9% figure to imply that the use of the 10%
> figure was right on the mark.
No, I used the 9% to illustrate in some environments it close enough to
10 to be considered an acceptable rounding. You are the one fixated on
every reference to how many gays there are around reported *ONLY* in a
reference to those from the entire US population that have had sex.
(but oddly you have no qualms about using targeted studies when it
comes to number of partners. odd that)
> Then you state that studies have found
> that "numbers in that general range" and yet, the 9% figure is the
> only one you quote.
Because it was the one at hand. Its from your pet study, the
University of Chicago one. There are other studies that have found
higher numbers of same gender sexuality... We've gone through those
before.
>
> Why do you keep lying about lying about lying?
>
> You are very consistent in the fact that you are basically a dishonest
> person.
:) Kevin, you are the one who thinks that ranting about one stat
derived in one way some how invalidates all other stats. They don't
use them for your convenience.
You have shown that at least one ga-oriented project was claimed 10%
from a misinterpretation of what the Kinsey study said. (It would be
interesting to try and track back when the original mistake occurred)
Again, do you really think it would have been much different if the
lower figure had been used?
> > Really odd that you are that inconsistent, don't you think? ;)
> >
> > > You know, if I were to walk down the middle of the gay district in
> > > San Francisco (a major urban area) taking a survey -- I bet I would
> > > find 40-50% of the men would "self-identify" as being gay. Does that
> > > mean that 40-50% of society is gay?
> >
> > In that society, yeah. You'd have no problem with using them as your
> > sampling study for evaluating promiscuity, would you? ;)
>
> I think the HIV/AIDS surveillance data is a good indicator of the
> national promiscuity of gays, don't you? Given it is national data.
> What do we have? We have 65% of all HIV/AIDS cases being among
> homosexuals, though they are only 2% of the population.
Considering the epidemic started there in the US doh.
>
> You are so right: 90% of the gays are giving gays a bad rep as being
> promiscuious. Horses' laugh!
I am right? I've never mentioned 90% that's your fantasy number.
But we can figure that if even as a bare minimum 2% of the US
population is gay that means less than 0.3% of them were diagnosed with
HIV in 2001.
So you have established that 0.3% caught an STD - they might be
promiscuous. Where are you getting the other 89.7% of your
'promiscuous' number from? ;)
>
>
> > >
> > > What a liar.
> >
> > No you just have lied so long you can no longer recognize the truth -
> > that a large segment of society has same had same sex desire, behavior
> > and/or sexual identification, just about 10%. No one really thinks
> > that 10% of all people self-identify as 'gay' right this instance. No
> > one thinks that 10% of the people are having gay sex right now. This
> > strawman isn't even of any use as a scarecrow.
>
> There you go: the man who said he knows of no gay person who uses the
> "10%" figure doing all he can to justify the gay community's use of
> the "10%" figure!
No this is an 'new' 10% figure - derived from the, once again, the data
of the University of Chicago population study.
Sex in America A Definitive Survey, Robert T. Michael, John H. Gagnon,
Edward O. Laumann, and Gina Kolata ISBN 0-446-67183-5 page 176
Figure14.
> This in face of the fact that one of the biggest gay propaganda
> campaigns that was created to target children is called "Project 10"
> because gay sources state as fact that "10% of the population is gay".
>
> Wake-up, McFly!
You realize the guy who said that in the 'Back to the Future' movies
was a flaming idiot, right? is that your role in this discussion?
So they could have said 'about 10% of the population has some same
gender sexuality'. How would this be different?
> > Unfortunately for you there is not such things as a 'gay population'
> > study - you have to study the entire population and identify the gays.
> > Or are we now shifting from your preference for population studies for
> > 'targeted' studies derived from, oh I don't know, gay bathhouses, std
> > clinics, std suffers, etc? ;)
>
> Again, let's turn to the HIV/AIDS data, and what we find is that the
> number of homosexuals infected with an STD that is 100% deadly
> outnumbers those who were infected via heterosexual means by a factor
> of 10 - even though homosexuals are only 1-in-50 of the population.
And even those with it are a tiny fraction of all gay people. How
many mormons are polygamists? more than 0.3%? Should we condemn all
Mormons as criminals?
> The only way we can explain the fact is promiscuity is generally wide
> spread among gays. In fact, I have a brother who is a doctor. He
> tells me that 3/4 of the homosexuals that he has as patients have
> syphillis and Ghonarea, and most of those also have Hep B. He and his
> medical colleagues refer to gays as "STDS on legs". The rates of STD
> infections among heterosexuals aren't even on the radar screen --
> compared to the rates among gays.
So you have no actual reference - typical. Of course the obvious point
that well people don't go to the doctor that much probably escapes you.
Of course by saying 3/4 of their patients has syphilis could just be
used to show how skewed there data is. We know exactly how many
syphilis cases there are here in Seattle, using your figures that would
mean we could just divide by 3/4 to find out how many gay men there
were in Seattle's King county.
Hmmmmm, 1999 there were 96 cases of syphilis in gay men.... why that
means there are 128 gay men in King county!
No wait.... somethings wrong - according to even Kevin's minimum stats
there should be *at least* 16,000 gay men in King county. (1.6 million
poulation x .5 (males) * 0.2% gay)
good thing the doctors in King county don't have to worry about 3/4 of
their gay patients having syphilis and gonnorhea. Looks more like less
than 0.6% of them. (actually far less ;)
Your brother must be an STD carrying gay magnet. :)
hyperbole is spinning out of control Kevin.
> > > Here, some more reading for you:
> > >
> > > Corey, L. and Holmes, K. "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in
> > > Homosexual Men." New England J. Med., 1980, pp. 435-38.
> >
> > Gosh an STD clinic study. Wow. Bet we can get a good impression of
> > how straight people are from the ones that come to public STD
> > clinics too, eh?
>
> Out of touch with reality.
Finally you admit it - no sane person would think they could get
population study data from an STD clinic.
> > > Bell, A. and Weinberg, M. Homosexualities: a Study of Diversity Among
> > > Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978.
> >
> > A study that the authors clearly state IS NOT representative of all gay
> > people at the very beginning of the book and who's participants were
> > recruited at the cores of the gay meccas of the west coast even going
> > into gay bathhouses to recruit participants! Gee that really would
> > represent people who aren't in those venues.... NOT! ;)
>
> Ah, but where are the heterosexuals "recruited at the cores of the
> heterosexual meccas"? Oh, there weren't any orgy parties involving
> hundreds of different heterosexuals? Just another difference between
> the "gay culture of STDs" and the heterosexual culture of normalcy,
> right?
Orgy parties? Where have you seen those?
Again Kevin, the readers aren't confused about this - just because a
small fraction of gay men are promiscuous (as are heterosexual men)
they know it doesn't say a thing about those that aren't.
> > > Cameron et. al. ISIS National Random Sexuality Survey. Nebraska Med.
> > > Journal, 1985, 70, pp. 292-299.
> >
> > Yeah one of the studies he was kicked out of his professional
> > organizations for falsifying.
>
> That's a gay myth. Just click your heels together and say it three
> times, it might come true in la-la land.
You just keep thinking that.
> > > "Changes in Sexual Behavior and Incidence of Gonorrhea." Lancet,
> > > April 25, 1987.
> >
> > STD Clinic studies again.
>
> That's where the homosexuals are.
A tiny minority of them, sure. Just as a tiny minority of the
heterosexuals are. Your point?
> > > Kus, R. "Alcoholics Anonymous and Gay America." Medical Journal of
> > > Homosexuality, 1987, 14(2), p. 254.
> >
> > Self referral to 12 step treatment programs - another wonderful
> > sampling method.
>
> That's where the gays are.
Some of them, as are some of the heterosexuals. Your point?
> > > MsKusick, L. et. al. "AIDS and Sexual Behavior Reported By Gay Men in
> > > San Francisco." Am. J. Pub. Health, 1985, 75, pp. 493-96.
> >
> > Yeah, going to San Franscisco to try and do a popultion study about gay
> > men. Might as well go to Vegas to do a population study about
> > gambling. ;) Oh but wait - didn't you yourself say that would NOT be a
> > good sampling method? Hmmmm the contradictions in your POV are vexing.
>
> That's where the gays are.
Some of them, a minority of them.
> > > Here, some light reading: Promiscuity, described as "sexual freedom"
> > > and a core value of today's homosexuality, is the very opposite of
> > > Jewish fidelity. In 1948, homosexual promiscuity was described as
> > > relatively rare in this country [2]. The gay liberation movement of
> > > the 1970's totally reversed this situation. By the 1980's, many gay
> > > men were having sexual relations with several, sometimes anonymous,
> > > partners each week, especially in major cities. This transformation
> > > to gay life is mirrored in the medical records of venereal disease.
> > > The rate of syphilis among white males in the United States increased
> > > by 351 percent between 1967 and 1979, due in very large part to
> > > increased homosexual activity. Cases of gonorrhea increased from
> > > 259,000 in 1960 to 600,000 in 1970 to over a million in 1980 [3].
> >
> > Gosh looking at the statistics, it seems that everyone was getting a
> > bit randy during the sexual revolution. And the incredible increase of
> > syphilis cases in the deep south - who ever would have guess there were
> > such large hidden gay communities down there? ;)
>
> I have mentioned repeatedly that a number of epidemics, as defined by
> the CDC, began in the "gay community" and moved into the general
> population in varying degrees. Syphillis, Ghonarea, Hep
> B,....,HIV/AIDS are just a few of them. Please note that increases in
> STDs were attributable to "increased homosexual activity".
By an unnamed source - your brother again? Really Kevin, you don't
think the readers can spot another one of your spin articles here -
with all the loose footnoting (without the footnotes!) and the uncited
'gay' commentary jammed inbetween them.
>
> And now, the Supreme Court has ruled that states have no compelling
> reason to outlaw sodomy - even though the medical community has as
> accepted fact that sodomy is the leading vector of disease
> transmission in the United States.
Hmmmm, most sodomy in the US is performed by heterosexuals, or are you
again ignorant as to what sodomy means?
Really? and you base this on what? A few disgruntled bathhouse patrons
that got a couple inches of press? I wonder what what percentage of
the NYC gay population were members of 'Gay Panic!'. the articles says
about 60 showed up... lets see 60 divided by 2% of 1/2 of the
population of New York City would be.....
How about you doing the math for me Kevin?
Never have, never will. An example that doesn't involve a misquote by
you would be refreshing....
>
> Again, here is the data with the source posted cause you deleted it in
> your response:
> "This is demonstrated by a host of studies - including some conducted
> by homosexuals themselves. Sex in America (1994) found that while 68%
> of men and 76% of women had only one heterosexual partner in the
> previous year, only 2.6% of homosexual men and 1.2% of lesbians had so
> limited themselves [5]. An earlier study estimated the number of
> lifetime partners for the American population as a whole at 7.15 (8.67
> for those who never married) [6]. Another found that while fear of
> AIDS had lowered gay men's promiscuity, the average have male would
> still have fifty sexual partners in a given year (down from seventy)
> and altogether over six hundred sexual partners between ages 18 and 30
> [7] [8]."
> http://www.jerusalemletter.co.il/archives/Jun22,2000/mask.htm
So you quoted a lying source - same thing.
> Here is another that draws from data in the study that confirms that
> heterosexuals are basically monogamous:
>
> "During the past year, 80 percent of Americans had no or only one
> sexual partner.
>
> Over a lifetime, the median number of partners for men was six and for
> women, two."
> http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/current/features/1994/120194/sexstudy.html
Very similar to gay men!
> And what do we have from studies on homosexual behavior?
Gosh since you asked...
35.9% of gay men had one male partner in their lifetime
45.8% had 2-4 male partners
7.9% had 5-9 partners
10.3% had 10 or more partners
J BIlly 1993 Family Planning Perspectives 25:52-60
in the previous 5 years
24% had no partners
41% had one partner
35% had >1 partner
D Binson -1995 Journal of Sex Research 32:245-54
Derived from the NORC GSS Population survey data 1972-1998
Partners since age 18
at XX% count of the population ranked by number of partners:
25% 50% 75%
gay 2 6 20
straight 2 5 15
(what this means is 25% of the gay men had had 20 or more sex partners,
as compared with 25% of the straight men having had 15 or more sex
partners.
conversely 50% of the gay men had and 6 or less partners, and 50% of
the straight men had had 5 or less partners.
Laumann, Edward "the Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices
in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1994.
> Homosexuals average "hundreds" of different sexual partners.
No they don't - as the above states show the fraction of the gay and
straight male populations that are promiscuous is very similar. Yes
pormiscuous gay men are FAR more effective at finding partners than
promiscuous straight men, but their relative presence in each
population is very similar.
So the median for gay men was 6 too! I know you are happy. ;)
> BTW, notice how the Guttmacher Institute found that heterosexual males
> averaged "7.3" over their lifetimes, and this study found "6".
> Meanwhile, every study on homosexual males has found "hundreds and
> hundreds".
No they have't because there are very few population studies and you
have not quoted a single one in the years we have been conversing. You
know you can't compare a population study to a target study. Real
slow - a study done in STD clinics/Bathhouses/etc ONLY tells you about
those that go to such places.
But as you can see when you look at population studies the median of
the number of lifetime sex partners of both gay and straights is around
5 or 6.
Consider your bubble officially burst.
> Homosexuality is not heterosexuality. Homosexuality is sexual
> deviancy.
From the average, sure. Just like left handedness is a handedness
deviancy. You're point?
> > > An earlier study estimated the number of lifetime partners for the
> > > American population as a whole at 7.15 (8.67 for those who never
> > > married) [6].
> >
> > > 6. "Adult Sexual Behavior in 1989: Number of Partners, Frequency and
> > > Risk," presented Feb., 1990 to American Association for the
> > > Advancement of Science, published 1990 by NORC, University of
> > > Chicago; cited in
> >
> > With a wide standard deviation with lots of 1 or less at one end and
> > +20 or more at the other. No honest person averages such widely
> > varient numbers together and presents time as useful criteria to judge
> > an entire group. Oh, but you do Kevin, or course.
>
> Blah-blah, blah-blah. Did it ever occur to you that the reason the
> standard deviation for heterosexuals was "1", and the standard
> deviation for homosexuals was "+20" was due to the fact that
> heterosexuals average less than 10 different sexual partners
> (specifically about 6-8), while homosexuals average hundreds and
> hundreds?
You don't understand what a standard deviation is? I wasn't saying the
standard deviation was 1!!!! or 20!! The SD and var of that group
would be statistically invalid!
> So, we have
some
> homosexuals averaging in the triple digits of different
> sexual partners with a high STD> > , and
some
> heterosexuals averaging in the
> single digits of different sexual partners -- and we certainly can
> conclude that the typical homosexual male is a sexual predator.
No you can't. Well you can, but not logically anyway.
> Indeed, an honest psychologist would have to conclude that such overt
> promiscuity is an obsessive-compulsive disorder.
yep there are lots of promiscuous gay and straight men, but the
majority are very much not (in either group)
Again, only a conartist would try and paint the majority of any group
by the actions of a minority.
> > > Another found that while fear of AIDS had lowered gay men's
> > > promiscuity, the average have male would still have fifty sexual
> > > partners in a given year (down from seventy) and altogether over six
> > > hundred sexual partners between ages 18 and 30 [7] [8]
> >
> > > 7. A.N. Marco, "Same Sex Marriage," "Journal of Human Sexuality"
> > > (G.A. Rekers, editor) 1996, 45-64; p.55.
> >
> > > 8. Study by American Psychological Association's Ethics Committee,
> > > reported in "USA Today," Nov, 21, 1984; cited in A.N. Marco, ref. 7
> > > p. 54.
> >
> > So we now have a study that cites newspaper report of an APA report.
> > Gosh no room for misinterpretation of what was really said there, is
> > there :)
>
> Why don't you go look it up.
Why? Its your cite.
> > > > > The difference is in the gay men of the opportunity to be VERY >
> > > > > promiscuous. But since we are on the topic of lying, only a liar
> > > > > of > the first degree would average together people with
> > > > > thousands of > contacts and those with a few and call that
> > > > > numerical average > 'typical'. Ditto with taking studies done
> > > > > specifically performed in > promiscuous subjects and presenting
> > > > > them as typical of the larger > unevaluated population.
> > >
> > > Speak for yourself, University of Chicago 9% Study Boy.
> >
> > Kevin, if that confused you I'm sorry. But the University of Chicago
> > study that found that 9% of males in major urban areas is the very one
> > you just fraudulently quoted above - what do you
> > think the 'Sex in America' book is all about?
>
> What you attempt to do is to take abnormal data points taken from
> atypical populations and posture them as being representative of the
> general population.
Never did that kevin. Remember, I'm the one who taught you what a
population study was. If anything I am the one who presents the most
population studies - you can't seem to find anything other than target
studies in STD clincs and Bathhouses (unless it suits your agenda of
course). ;)
> That is far different then the fact that many of
> these studies done on limited populations have re-affirmed what has
> been found in major studies across the general population.
>
> It is all about the clustering of data points and normalizing your
> data. You have a habit of presenting atypical data as generally
> descriptive.
Really? You can give a specific reference, yes? Please, give me an
example of where I have presented data from a target study as a
population study as you have.
>
> I just don't take you as a credible person.
hahahaha. From the man who tries to present all gay men as visitors
to STD clinics, Bathhouses, or residents of San Francisco ;)
>
> > >
> > > So, 90% of gay men are giving the other 10% of gay men a bad name
> > > when it comes to promiscuity.
> >
> > No actually, the few population studies we do have shows that they
> > precentage of promiscuous gay men is about the same as that of
> > heterosexual men 20-30%. Want me to trot them out for you again? I
> > have a couple more now...
>
> Oh, sure, and that is why 65% of all HIV/AIDS cases are homosexual --
> even though they are only 2-3% of the population. I guess they must
> have caught HIV/AIDS through toilet seats, huh? Sexual promiscuity
> had *nothing* to do with the fact that HIV/AIDS rate is 100 times
> greater in homosexuals, ehh?
Sure it does, for SOME gay men. the majority of gay men are about as
promiscuous as straight men. As I have demonstrated earlier, the
number of gay men in 2001 diagnosed with HIV disease USING YOUR gay
male population figures is less that a percent.
Again, what honest person would judge an entire group by the serostatus
of less than 1% of the group's members?
> > So, your approach is to simply exclude the 90% of gay males who are
> > > hypersexual -- and present the 10% as a valid sample.
> >
> > No, never suggested or implied especially since 90% of gay men are not
> > hypersexual. Just rather be honest and not try and
> > paint all gay men as a monolithic group that all act the same way.
> > (Did you realize that 16% of heterosexual men have paid for sex? - just
> > a tidbit to tittilate you ;)
> >
> > > Sounds like the Dr. Jenny study on pedophilia where she excluded male
> > > adults committing sexual acts on male children as instances of
> > > homosexual pedophilia in order to conclude there is no evidence of
> > > homosexuals molesting boys.
> >
> > Hmmm you earlier in this very note made it clear that just because
> > someone has had sex with someone of the same sex doesn't make them a
> > homosexual. As I have shown you time and again, experts do not
>
> That's not what I said at all. I said, and I have always said,
> "Homosexual is as homosexual does." I do certainly believe that a
> person can engage in homosexual behavior and repent, and change their
> lives. When they do so, are they still homosexual? Nope.
>
> Homosexual is as homosexual does -- just like any other crime against
> humanity.
Tsk. You are back sliding again. At least we have your admission that
you realize that homosexuality requires homosexual desire.
>
> > consider the sex of pedophiles interest as indicitive of their sexual
> > orientation. MOST pedophiles that have an adult sexual orientation are
> > HETEROSEXUAL - they have wives, they have kids, they DON'T march in gay
> > pride parades. Self-identifying gay men are not often pedophiles.
>
> Again, homosexual is as homosexual does. If a male molests boys -
> that male is committing homosexual acts.
yes but he isn't a homosexual. As you have stated, that requires
desire. As we know from many other notes Pedophiles are attracted
to children first, the sex of the child is secondary.
>
> As to "self-identifying gay men are not often pedophiles" - what a
> load of garbage. Almost all of the Catholilc priests accused of
> molesting boys are "self identifying gay men". Much has been written
> about the overt gay culture in Catholic seminaries.
I get the feeling you don't know what pedophilia means.
>
> As to the Jenny study, where were these pedophiles asked to
> "self-identify"?
> They had brought a young boy into the hospital. The young boys were
> being treated for damage to the anus. The police were called to the
> hospital. These men were asked by the police, "Are you gay?" [e.g,
> did you do this?] The men answered, "No.".
>
> Dr. Jenny concluded that they must be heterosexual - despite the fact
> they had molested a boy. Can we say, "Duh!" I might also mention
> that Dr. Jenny is a militant homosexual activist. No wonder she
> plundered the data!
Man when you fabricate you don't even try and pretty it up do you?
> > I can go dig up the references for you AGAIN if you want them but
> > since we have had the watershed event of you having admitted that
> > merely having sex with someone of the same sex doesn't make them
> > homosexual there really isn't much need, is there?
>
> Keep misquoting me. It won't make it true. Homosexual is as
> homosexual does.
Which means nothing....
>
> > >
> > > I kid you not. And yet, her study was even used in the case against
> > > Colorado passing their Proposition banning special homosexual rights
> > > as evidence that homosexuals are not predophiles.
> >
> > Yep, because she, like you, knows that just because the pedophile might
> > be of the same sex as their victim it doesn't make them a homosexual.
> > You were making such progress Kevin, don't backslide now.
>
> Yea, right. Just keep redifining the words, and homosexuality becomes
> such a lovely lifestyle.
No redefining needed - the terms are used as they are designed to be
used. Pedophilia(attraction to preadolescent children) and
Teleiophilia (attraction to post adolescent adults) are two separate
things. Psychologists have told us that the two groups don't interact
and don't change outside their group. So a pedophile is attracted to
children - he would accept any child before he would an adult
regardless of their sex.
Gay men who are homosexual teleiophiles don't become homosexual
pedophiles. Ditto for heterosexual ones.
> > > > > Telling half truths is just as much a violation 'bearing false
> > > > > witness' > as an out and out lie.
> > >
> > > I just quote the facts.
> >
> > But 'facts' that don't represent reality are lies kevin. Taking 99
> > people who have had 1 sex partner and averaging them with 1 who has had
> > a 901, and then saying the typical member of this group has had 10 sex
> > partners is a misrepresentation. It's a lie no matter how 'factual' it
> > might be.
>
> But, again, the STDDEV for homosxuals is not in the hundreds, though
> the average is in the 300-500 range (depending on the study).
No it isn't - show me a population study that demonstrates that. or
should I just take your words:
"What you attempt to do is to take abnormal data points taken from
atypical populations and posture them as being representative of the
general population. "
and toss them back at you :)
> > > > > > The lie that HIV/AIDS is not a gay disease. Some 65% of all
> > > > > > HIV/AIDS > > cases are homosexual males -- even though they are
> > > > > > only 2% of the > population.
> > > >
> > > > No the vast majority of HIV cases are heterosexual world wide. And
> > > > again you are talking through out the history of the disease. As
> > > > it stands now, a small percentage of the gay male community is
> > > > HIV+, again rather remarkable considering the percentages that were
> > > > just 10-15 years ago.
> > >
> > > We have already been over this. The reason that HIV/AIDS is spread
> > > so wide in Africa and Asia is because: 1) receptive anal intercourse
> > > is much more common among heterosexuals 2) tainted needles were used
> > > by WHO to innoculate entire villages 3) In 1996, the WHO redefined
> > > HIV/AIDs to include much more diseases 4) Cultural practices such as
> > > scarring and spreading blood among villagers
> >
> > Actually we know no such thing and largely irrelevant Still the
> > majority of cases are heterosexual.
>
> Wrong. The majority of cases in the United States are homosexual
> (over 65%). HIV/AIDS has *rarely* been transmitted via vaginal
> intercourse.
Happens all the time. The heterosexual man who infected 12 women in
his town in New Jersy is a tragic example of same.
> > However, the main vector of HIV/AIDS transmission via
> sexual intercourse is receptive anal intercouse.
Odd that no one has ever been able to demonstrate that in any study.....
> > > "A small percentage of the gay male community is HIV+"? You are a
> > > disgrace to truth. That comment is so outrageous -- it doesn't even
> > > deserve a reasoned response.
> >
> > Gosh they just did the study - here in Seattle they found only 2.2% of
> > young gay men were HIV+, that's seems pretty low to me considering it
> > was up to almost 30% back as late as the mid 80's. You should be
> > praising their efforts. Even in San Francisco it was only 6.5% and
> > they used to have an almost 60% prevalence rate.
>
> What is the rate among heterosexuals?
What difference does that make?
"A small percentage of the gay male community is HIV+"
Do you say that is true or false?
If true, your apology is accepted.
If you say it is false, where are you getting your data from? Shoot in
San Francisco it was 6.5% what do you consider a small percentage to
be?
Readers, what do you think? Do you think over 90% of gay men being
HIV- would make the statement 'the vast majority of gay men are not
HIV+" just as true?
> I notice you left it out. Why
> did you leave it out? Because, the incidence of HIV/AIDS among
> heterosexuals is less than 0.001%.
What difference does it make, it has no relevance to the statement you
made.
> Now, let's compare an HIV/AIDs rate of 6.5% to 0.001% Now, who said
> that HIV/AIDS is not a gay disease?
You mean the disease is homosexual? How is that possible?
>
> Now, please note I didn't even argue whether or not these studies used
> self-selected populations, or what number they used to bound the
> number of homosexuals. The data, as it is, is very compelling that
> HIV/AIDS is a gay disease.
Cervical cancer is very much a heterosexual STD, do we call that a
'straight' disease?
> > Or do you not consider numbers less than 10% a 'small percentage'?
Odd he didn't answer that question.
> > > > > The lie that homosexuals are not disproportionately pedophiles.
> > > > > > > > Again, while they make up only 2% of the population - > >
> > various studies > > have found that 35-60% of pedophiles are >
> > > > > > > men who molest boys.
> > > >
> > > > yes but as has been shown to you, they are not homosexuals - most
> > > > pedophiles don't care what the sex of their victims are as long as
> > > > they are preadolescent children. Homosexuality as an adult sexual
> > >
> > > People who are attracted to both sexes are known as "bi-sexuals". The
> > > vast majority of "homosexuals" are "bi-sexual". We both know about
> > > the Kinsey scale of 0-6 - and that very, very, very few "homosexuals"
> > > are a "6" - that is, they only have sex with the same sex.
> >
> > Now Kevin, you were making such progress. Again, pedophilia is NOT an
> > adult sexual orientation.
>
> What a crock! This would be laughable if it weren't so serious. We
> actually have homosexual researchers who have redefined pedophilia to
> exclude homosexual acts such that homosexuals are defined out of
> pedophilia. That is, when a man commits a sexual act on a boy --
> these militant homosexual researchers describe it as "heterosexual".
yes. the militant homosexual researchers are out to get you Kevin.
There there.
Again, common sense - pedophiles are attracted to the age of the child
primarily, not their sex. The problem is that Kevin is obsessed with
the sex and not the child themselves.
>
>
> > >
> > > So, what we have are men who have sex with both young boys and young
> > > girls. These men are committing homosexual acts on these young boys.
> > > They are, in fact, homosexual pedophiles.
> >
> > No, because homosexual denotes a sexual orientation. They might be
> > pedophiles engaging in homosexual pedophilic acts, but they aren't gay
> > or considered homosexual by the people who define the term.
>
> So, people who are attracted to the same sex are homosexual if, and
> only if, the homosexual community says they are?
We don't define the term, your mental health professionals do.
Teleiophiles and Pedophiles are not the same thing and they both come
in heterosexual and homosexual flavors. You're trying to lump them
together when they have don't overlap
> > > How convenient it must be to have a "closet" to go into and outof
> > > when the subject doesn't fit into your agenda.
> >
> > No just using the terms correctly. AGain, you really shoot yourself in
> > the foot on this subject because you lose all credibility. The experts
> > say that the sex of the pedophiles victims has no relation to the adult
> > sexual orientation of the pedophile, just reading news papers people
> > can figure out it AIN'T the local gay activist that's getting his name
> > in the paper for molesting children (usually its some heterosexual day
> > care worker, or the nice old man and his wife that has still has all
> > the children amusements in his yard, or old uncle ernie who really
> > doesn't mind having your kids come over to say with his overnight.)
>
> Reason states (not politically motivated homosexual militants posing
> as researchers) that homosexuality is to be attracted to a person of
> the same sex and to act on that attraction. There is no qualifier
> there as to age of the person.
YES Kevin, there is. Teliophiles are not attracted to children
whether they be heterosexual teleophiles or homosexual teliophiles.
The researchers have found, even the straight ones, that pedophiles are
attracted to the age of the child first, not their sex! Pedophilia
trumps any sex preference they might have.
> It is attraction/acts to a person of the same sex.
No.
Teleiophiles are not attracted to children.
Pedophiles are not attracted to adults.
> When an adult male is sexually attracted to a young boy
> and commits a sexual act upon him -- that is a homosexual committing a
> homosexual act. Period.
Only by redefining the terms to your liking and to fit your agenda.
But you've pretty much exposed your own deception here so its over.
>
> No leftist propaganda in the world can say that a man molesting a boy
> is a heterosexual act.
No, no one (other than you and the voices) have said that.
> Oh, I forgot, that is just what they are
> saying in order to claim that homosexuals are not pedophiles. Those
> homosexuals are really heterosexuals after all!
No most pedophiles have no teliophilic attraction at all. the ones
that do go with the majority heterosexual....
> > > > orientation is a world away from pedophilia. Might as well call
> > > > someone who buggered rams a homosexual because his victims were
> > > > male. :)
> > >
> > > Homosexuals disproportionately do commit acts of beastiality.
> >
> > Hahahahahahaha! Oh you are so funny.... ROLFing as we type.
> >
> > > So, if a homosexual has sex with Biff and with Bull -- does that mean
> > > he is not homosexual?
> > >
> > > > > Again, presumptive heterosexuals are far more likely to molest
> > > > > children > of all ages rather than out gay people.
> > >
> > > Tell that to the 32 boys murdered by John Wayne Gacey.
> >
> > A married man who had victims ranging up to 27 -not a gay man by any
> > useful definition of the word - gotcha.
>
> John Wayne Gacey was not gay? You know, God can't rewrite history --
> only gay activists can.
Gay as in a self-identifying man with same sex attractions? Nope. he
thought he was straight - man he had a wife just like you!
>
> So, a man who had sex with other men and boys is not homosexual?
Sure, and with a wife he is heterosexual too. Gay implies to me
someone who accepts their sexual identity - Gacy was a bisexual man
with serious issues.
> Can
> anyone believe the stupidity that must be asserted in order to defend
> the gay lifestyle?
Or the stupidity that must be asserted to try and demonize gays?
> > > Tell that to the 16 boys murdered by Jeffrey Dahmer.
> >
> > Gosh and you think I can't trot out a list of heterosexual loonies?
> > that you are bringing these up just shows your desperation....
>
> Well, actually, I can trot out a lot more homosexual loonies then you
> can heterosexual loonies. You do know that the only woman serial
> killer was the lesbian I-95 serial killer in Florida? Shall we go to
> Adolf Hitler? Andrew Cunanan? "Uncle" Ed Smith?
> Last time we did this -- I had a list of some 30 famous homosexual
> mass murderers and serial killers. My homosexual opposition could
> only list about 10 heterosexuals.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/index.html
such silliness. YOu can fantasize about murders later when we're
done. ;)
Well if you misspelled it then too that could have been a problem.
I found the ABCNews article about it. Horrible.
But then there are heterosexual rape murders all the time - why is this
one exceptional other than the UNUSUAL fact it was done by 2 gay men?
How many straight men rape and murder women?
You always leave me with a smile Kevin, you're so silly ;)
Bob
> Bob <nos...@4me.com> wrote in message news:<be7nrs$1ih$0...@216.39.173.68>...
> > In article <fe6e030e.03070...@posting.google.com>, KDavis
> > <kdavi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Another found that while fear of
> > > AIDS had lowered gay men's promiscuity, the average have male would
> > > still have fifty sexual partners in a given year (down from seventy)
> > > and altogether over six hundred sexual partners between ages 18 and 30
> > > [7] [8].
> >
> > > 7. A.N. Marco, "Same Sex Marriage," "Journal of Human Sexuality" (G.A.
> > > Rekers, editor) 1996, 45-64; p.55.
> > > 8. Study by American Psychological Association's Ethics Committee,
> > > reported in "USA Today," Nov, 21, 1984; cited in A.N. Marco, ref. 7 p.
> > > 54.
> >
> > Snarf. Just had to come back - I found this one turns out the
> > 'Journal of Human Sexuality' isn't a journal at all, its a
> > fundamentalist Christian collection of anti-gay works!
> > http://store.clm.org/4264.html
>
> Snarf back. So, are you stating that Dr. Jeffrey Satinover is not an
> expert?
actually this is the very first time you've brought him up. How could
I have said anything about him?
> Or, do you describe everything as "anti-gay works" simply
> because they present an unbiased position?
No especially considering that the work you quoted had no research to
back up its claim - it is your standard ploy - citing a source that
cites another source that alludes to the orginal study.
Marco's 'facts' are the same target studies you misuse that are taken
out of context and presented as valid about the general population
which they specifically aren't! He even quotes them without proper
references. To quote this trash is pathetic!
> Especially given the fact you still have not *read* it.
Silly boy - of course I've read it - the entire book is posted at that
website. I've not only read it I've pdfed it. Its light reading,
really.
> And Dr. Judith Reisman, Ph.D? Just another "anti-gay" bigot homophobe
> because she stands by actual unbiased research?
Huh? Now it seems you haven't read her article in the book - it is a
dissection about Kinsey's research, she offers no 'actual unbiased
research' in the entire paper...
>
> This respons is so typical of homosexual activists: they scream
> intolerance at any and all reasonsed research that concludes that
> homosexuality is harmful and unnatural.
This response is so typical of flaming homophobes: they lose when they
present one reference, bring up an entirely different subject, put
words that were never spoken in their adversaries mouth and then
declare victory.
>
> >
> > And at the author is the author of the infamous Colorado's Amendment 2
> > that was found unconstitutional by the SCOTUS!
> >
> > http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/marco.html
>
> So? What does that have to do with the price of AIDS in San
> Francisco?
Well, he has an obvious agenda - like you.
> > I mean, this reference is right up there with Paul Cameron's too - I
> > mean quoting a popular press newspaper instead of the real source
> > information = tacky!
>
> You quoted studies that you hadn't even read yet. I mean, when I
> posted the fact that Hooker *never* concluded that homosexuality was
> normal
> -- you must have went into a real tizzy screaming "homophobe"
> at the computer monitor.
Huh? I never said she did say that 'homosexuality was normal'. Though
you did quote her as saying it may fall in the normal range of sexual
expression. Good enough for me. It was a 1958 after all.
>
> Now, go get a brain.
That's the note your wife slipped in your pocket, right? Don't lose
it. :)
Bob
<caha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> kdavi...@hotmail.com (KDavis) wrote in message
> news:<fe6e030e.03070...@posting.google.com>...
> > Bob <nos...@4me.com> wrote in message news:<be7nrs$1ih$0...@216.39.173.68>...
> > > I mean, this reference is right up there with Paul Cameron's too - I
> > > mean quoting a popular press newspaper instead of the real source
> > > information = tacky!
>
> You post references to inflammatory biased reports regularly-- am I
> missing something in this logic?
I do? any examples? or did you think kevin posted this?
Woody Brison
can issue when he gets going. I'd hate to let him lose
steam, so Randy, why don't you document -- in your best
Rantin' Randy style -- this statement by you:
Rantin' Randy wrote, in message
news:<20030706192746...@mb-m06.aol.com>...
> The Danite band was first organized in June 1838 by Joseph Smith
> Junior and Sidney Rigdon. Those two men gave the Danites speficic orders to
> commit specific criminal acts. They were fully aware of, and in support of,
> the Danites' criminal acts.
My information says that the Danites were organized by
one Doctor Avard who claimed that he was acting under
the direction of Joseph Smith, but when Joseph heard
about it he came down and disbanded them, and Avard
was excommunicated. The Danites got to hold a total
of two meetings, and most of the brethren who went to
the first one were not enthusiastic and didn't go to
the second one, feeling that it was not in accordance
with the Spirit of the Lord to go around killing people
and burning barns and stuff.
When you get done writin' a ream about that, how about
favoring us with a more ample documentation of
> The Danites---whether acting in groups or alone, by secret orders of LDS church
> leaders----committed numerous acts of crime and violence from 1838 to at least
> the 1870s.
I -- and several dozen pretty little butterflies with
wings still on -- would appreciate it if you would
please, be voluminous! and go ahead and vent, so that
one and all may see what kind of motivation you are
motivated by, as if they couldn't already.
Clovis Lark
> I'm impressed at the block of text that Rantin' Randy
> can issue when he gets going. I'd hate to let him lose
> steam, so Randy, why don't you document -- in your best
> Rantin' Randy style -- this statement by you:
> Rantin' Randy wrote, in message
> news:<20030706192746...@mb-m06.aol.com>...
>> The Danite band was first organized in June 1838 by Joseph Smith
>> Junior and Sidney Rigdon. Those two men gave the Danites speficic orders to
>> commit specific criminal acts. They were fully aware of, and in support of,
>> the Danites' criminal acts.
> My information says that the Danites were organized by
> one Doctor Avard who claimed that he was acting under
> the direction of Joseph Smith, but when Joseph heard
> about it he came down and disbanded them, and Avard
> was excommunicated. The Danites got to hold a total
> of two meetings, and most of the brethren who went to
> the first one were not enthusiastic and didn't go to
> the second one, feeling that it was not in accordance
> with the Spirit of the Lord to go around killing people
> and burning barns and stuff.
> When you get done writin' a ream about that, how about
> favoring us with a more ample documentation of
Once woody denied there were any Danites. Now Woody expressly writes that
there were danites. But he quibbles that Doc Avard was the founder. But
any fool knows that Avard would never have had the authority to form this
band on his own. We turn to the research of Elder John Hyde:
“"When the citizens of Carroll and Davies counties, Mo., began to
threaten the Mormons with expulsion in 1838, ‘a death society’ was
organized under the direction of Sidney Rigdon, and with the sanction of
Smith. Its first captain was ‘Captain Fear-naught,’ alias David Patten, an
apostle. Its object was the punishment of the obnoxious. Some time elapsed
before finding a suitable name. They desired one that should seem to
combine spiritual authority with a suitable sound. Micah iv. 13 furnished
the first name: ‘Arise and thresh, 0 daughter of Zion; for I will make thy
horn iron and thy hoofs brass; and thou shalt beat in pieces many people;
and I will consecrate their gain unto the Lord of the whole earth.’ This
furnished them with a pretext; it accurately described their intentions,
and they called themselves the ‘Daughters of Zion.’ Some ridicule was made
at these bearded and bloody ‘Daughters,’ and the name did not sit easily.
‘Destroying Angels’ came next; the ‘Big fan of the thresher that should
thoroughly purge the floor’ was tried and dropped. Genesis xlix. 17
furnished the name that they finally assumed. The verse is quite
significant: “Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path that
biteth the horse’s heels so that his rider shall fall backward.’ The ‘Sons
of Dan’ was the style they adopted, and many have been the times that they
have been adders in the path, and many a man has fallen backward and has
been seen no more."
Later, Brother Brigham (a kind, gentle and fatherly man, by Woody's
account of last year--the year he avowed no knowledge of East Canyon,
Haight, Kanosh, Yates, Aiken) stated in the Deseret News:
“"If men come here and do not behave themselves, they will not only find
the Danites, whom they talk so much about, biting the horses’ heels, but
the scoundrels will find something biting their heels. In my plain remarks
I merely call things by their own names."
--Deseret News, vol. 7., p. 143.
>> The Danites---whether acting in groups or alone, by secret orders of LDS church
>> leaders----committed numerous acts of crime and violence from 1838 to at least
>> the 1870s.
> I -- and several dozen pretty little butterflies with
> wings still on -- would appreciate it if you would
> please, be voluminous! and go ahead and vent, so that
> one and all may see what kind of motivation you are
> motivated by, as if they couldn't already.
Since, today, Woody admits to Danites, after not admitting to them, and
before denying to ever having used the term, we wait for the next
metamorphosis...
TheJordan6
>Date: 7/7/2003 12:56 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <f36171a3.03070...@posting.google.com>
>
>I'm impressed at the block of text that Rantin' Randy
>can issue when he gets going. I'd hate to let him lose
>steam, so Randy, why don't you document -- in your best
>Rantin' Randy style --
Readers, I trust that you took note of how Woody Brison characterizes my
documentation of historical facts from legitimate historical sources as a
"rant."
>this statement by you:
>
>Rantin' Randy wrote, in message
>news:<20030706192746...@mb-m06.aol.com>...
>> The Danite band was first organized in June 1838 by Joseph Smith
>> Junior and Sidney Rigdon. Those two men gave the Danites speficic orders
>to
>> commit specific criminal acts. They were fully aware of, and in support
>of,
>> the Danites' criminal acts.
>My information says that the Danites were organized by
>one Doctor Avard who claimed that he was acting under
>the direction of Joseph Smith, but when Joseph heard
>about it he came down and disbanded them, and Avard
>was excommunicated.
You get your information from Mormon church leaders and apologists who are paid
to slant the facts to make Joseph Smith and the church he founded appear to be
honest and inocent of all nefarious acts. Those church leaders and apologists
are liars, and you are naive enough to believe that they are telling you the
truth.
>The Danites got to hold a total
>of two meetings,
"The contemporary Mormon accounts of this period indicate that the Danites
operated frely and openly in Far West and Diahman. John Smith, the Prophet's
uncle and the stake president at Adam-ondi-Ahman, recorded five different
instances in which the Danites met:
Saturday August 4. This day the Danites met the third time in Adamondiahman
since the 22 July.....
Saturday, Aug 18. The Danites met.
Saturday, September 1. George [Smith[ has gone to Far West. The Daughters of
zion meet today. Had a lecture on the consecration by President [Lyman]
Wight."
("The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri," Stephen Le Seuer, p. 44.)
>and most of the brethren who went to
>the first one were not enthusiastic and didn't go to
>the second one, feeling that it was not in accordance
>with the Spirit of the Lord to go around killing people
>and burning barns and stuff.
The orders to "go around killing people and burning barns and stuff" were given
to the Danites directly by Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, as attested to by
numerous participants. The Mormon men who refused to obey Smith and Rigdon's
orders to raid and pillage non-Mormon towns were labeled "apostates" and
"traitors," and either left or were forced to leave Mormon communities.
>When you get done writin' a ream about that, how about
>favoring us with a more ample documentation of
>> The Danites---whether acting in groups or alone, by secret orders of LDS
>church
>> leaders----committed numerous acts of crime and violence from 1838 to at
>least
>> the 1870s.
>I -- and several dozen pretty little butterflies with
>wings still on --
That sounds a little gay to me, Woody.
>would appreciate it if you would
>please, be voluminous! and go ahead and vent, so that
>one and all may see what kind of motivation you are
>motivated by, as if they couldn't already.
I have provided documentation on the issue probably 30 times over the last five
years. I have posted the information in threads to Russell McGregor (who has
departed), Glenn Thigpen (who has departed), Diana Newman (who comes and goes
but remains in denial of the facts), and to Remedial Red Davis (who has thus
far declined to acknowledge or comment on the documentation), and to numerous
other passers-by on ARM.
You, Woody Brison, have been on ARM at least as long as I have, so you have
been here to read the documentation I have provided as well. But you have also
claimed that you don't bother to read everything I write, so I can picture you
pretending that that you haven't read my documentation, so that you can pretend
I haven't provided it.
The last time I posted this documentation was June 11, 2003 (less than one
month ago) in the thread "Mountain Meadows Massacre postscript."
Here once again is the documentation which shows that the Danite band was
organized by Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon in 1838, and that they were fully
aware of, and in approval of, their acts of crime and violence:
In the
spring of 1838, LDS leaders Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, having been run out
of Ohio because of the failure of their 'Anti-Banking Safety Society' and their
'United Order' communitarian system, escaped to the only other significant
group of Mormons, in western Missouri. Upon arriving, they immediately
attempted to institute a new version of a communistic system among their
Missouri disciples. Many of those disciples had been settled in Clay County,
after having been driven from Jackson County in 1834, and had bought land and
begun farms. Several of them, including leaders such as David Whitmer, W. W.
Phelps, John Whitmer (who were the Missouri stake presidency), Oliver Cowdery,
Lyman Johnson and others, were not interested in joining another communitarian
plan, perceiving that it would produce the same failures and financial disaster
that plagued the Kirtland attempt. Smith and Rigdon realized that if they
failed to gain full cooperation from them, that their dream of building their
"New Jerusalem", with them at the head of both 'spiritual' and 'temporal'
affairs of a hoped-for financial empire, would be dashed.
To prevent the same failures and apostasy that had plagued the Kirtland plan,
Smith and Rigdon implemented policies that called for unquestioning obedience
to leaders. Those who dissented from orders of superiors would be punished by
being driven from the area and/or "cut off" from the church.
In his "Brief History of the Church," former Mormon bishop John Corrill
recounted the situation:
"The Church in Caldwell had been doing well, with the exception of these
little difficulties among themselves, until the First Presidency came to
the Far West, and began to move things to their own notions. Many of the
Church had settled in Davies [Daviess] County, and to all appearance,
lived as peaceably with their neighbors as people generally do; but not
long after Smith and Rigden [Rigdon] arrived in Far West, they went to
Davies [Daviess] County and pitched upon a place to build a town.
L.[Lyman] Wight was already on the ground with his family. They laid out
a town and began to settle it pretty rapidly; Smith gave it the name of
Adamondiaman [Adam-ondi-Ahman], which he said was formerly given to a
certain valley, where Adam, previous to his death, called his children
together and blessed them. The interpretation in English is, "The valley
of God, in which Adam blessed his children." Many of the Church became
elated with the idea of settling in and round about the new town,
especially those who had come from Kirtland, as it was designed more
particularly for them. This stirred up the people of Davies [Daviess] in
some degree; they saw that if this town was built up rapidly it would
injure Gallatin, their county seat, and also that the Mormons would soon
overrun Davies [Daviess], and rule the county, and they did not like to
live under the laws and administration of "Joe Smith." Lyman Wight also
would frequently boast in his discourses of what they would do if the
mob did not let them alone,--they would fight, and they would die upon
the ground, and they would not give up their rights, etc.; when, as yet,
there was no mob. But this preaching inspired the Mormons with a
fighting spirit, and some of the other citizens began to be stirred up
to anger."
On Sunday, June 17, Sidney Rigdon delivered what has become known as his
infamous "Salt Sermon": "He mounted the speaker's stand in the town square and
exhorted his listeners to crush dissension and apostasy with cruel
determination....Selecting for his oration the theme, 'Ye are the salt of the
earth,' Rigdon, in a thinly-veiled threat to the dissenters, warned: 'if the
salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth
good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under the foot of
men.'...
"[Reed] Peck fills in the details of Rigdon's rhetoric: 'From this
scripture (Rigdon) undertook to prove that when men embrace the gospel and
afterwards lose their faith, it is the duty of the Saints to trample them under
their feet that have dissented from the church and were doing all in their
power to destroy the presidency...(he) called on the people to rise en masse
and rid the country of such a nuisance He said it is the duty of this people to
trample them into the earth and if the county cannot be freed from them any
other way I will assist to trample them down or to erect a gallows on the
square of Far West and hang them up---and it would be an act at which the
angels would smile with approbation.' ('Reed Peck Manuscript', pp. 24-25.)
"John Corrill sought out John Whitmer and warned him that trouble was in the
air. But the former church historian, unconvinced the Saints would turn on
him, refused to flee Far West...The following day the dissenters were handed an
ultimatum, drafted by Rigdon, demanding they pack and leave Far West."
("Orrin Porter Rockwell: Man of God, Son of Thunder," Harold Schindler, pp.
38-39.)
Rigdon then persuaded some 84 loyal Mormons to affix their signatures to a
"Warning Against Dissenters," which read in part:
"To Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, John Whitmer, William W. Phelps, and Lyman
E. Johnson, greeting: Out of the county you shall go, and no power shall save
you. And you shall have three days after you receive this communication...for
you to depart with your families peaceably;...and unless you heed us,...there
shall be no escape; for there is but one decree for you, which is depart,
depart, or a more fatal calamity shall befall you...we will put you from the
county of Caldwell: so help us God."
"The document was signed by 84 men, more or less prominent in the
church....those 84 citizens of Caldwell County were not justified in taking the
law into their own hands and under threats of vengeance driving these
dissenters from Far West..." (B. H. Roberts, "Comprehensive History of the
Church," vol. 1, 439.)
"In all probability, the eighty-three signers of the ultimatum comprised the
charter members of the Danite Society which grew to include an estimated four
hundred men. Ebenezer Robinson, a close associate of Joseph's during these
troubled times, said, 'The above manifesto was signed by 83 determined men.
Among the names we recognize some of the members of the high council, and
others holding high positions in the church, including that of Hyrum Smith, one
of the First Presidency.' Robinson himself was one of the letter's
signatories." (Schindler, p. 39.)
Those 83 signers of Rigdon's letter was a virtual "who's who" of prominent,
insider, leading Mormon men, including apostles Lyman Wight and David Patten,
and others later known to be deeply involved as "Danites" in later periods,
including Rockwell, Hosea Stout, and Bill Hickman.
Other known Danites were:
*George Harris, Far West High Councilor
*Dimick Huntington, brother of JS' plural wife Zina Huntington (the same Dimick
Huntington who recorded Brigham Young's gifting of the "cattle that had gone to
California the south route" in 1857)
*Oliver Huntington, Dimick's brother
*Jabez Durfee, husband of JS' plural wife Elizabeth Durfee
*John Smith, JS' own uncle
*Vinson Knight, bishop of "Adam-ondi-Ahman" (the man who received and stored
"consecrated" plunder)
*Cornelius Lott, father of JS' plural wife Melissa Lott (a Danite "general")
*Stephen Winchester, father of JS' plural wife Nancy Winchester (Apostle and
Danite David Patten died in his home from wounds at Crooked River)
*Jared Carter
*George W. Robinson
*John D. Lee
David Whitmer added his own account of those times:
"In the spring of 1838, the heads of the church and many of the members
had gone deep into error and blindness. I had been striving with them
for a long time to show them the errors into which they were drifting,
and for my labors I received only persecutions. In June, 1838, a secret
organization was formed, Doctor Avard being put in as the leader of the
band; a certain oath was to be administered to all the brethren to bind
them to support the heads of the church in every thing they should
teach. All who refused to take this oath were considered dissenters from
the church, and certain things were to be done concerning these
dissenters, by Dr. Avard's secret band."
"...they issued a decree organizing what was termed the 'Danites', or
'Destroying Angels,' who were bound by the most fearful oaths to obey the
commandments of the leaders of the church. The Danites consisted only of those
selected by Smith and Rigdon. They threatened myself, John Whitmer, Oliver
Cowdery and Lyman Johnson with the vengeance of the Danites....."
(David Whitmer, letter to the "Kansas City Daily Journal," June 5, 1881.)
David's brother and counselor John, who was also the official church historian,
concurred with David's account:
"Joseph Smith, Jr., S. Rigdon and Hyrum Smith moved their families to
this place, Far West, in the spring of 1838. As soon as they came here,
they began to enforce their new organized plan, which caused dissensions
and difficulties, threatenings and even murders. Smith called a council
of the leaders together, in which council he stated that any person who
said a word against the heads of the Church, should be driven over these
prairies as a chased deer by a pack of hounds, having an illusion to the
Gidionites, as they were termed, to justify themselves in their wicked
designs. Thus on the 19th of June, 1838, they preached a sermon called
the salt sermon, in which these Gideonites understood that they should
drive the dissenters, as they termed those who believed not in their
secret bands, in fornication, adultery or midnight machinations."
After the end of the Missouri conflict, several former Danites revealed the
wording of the secret initiation oath to which David Whitmer referred:
"In the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, I now promise and swear, truly,
faithfully, and without reserve, that I will serve the Lord with a perfect
heart and a willing mind, dedicating myself, wholly, and unreservedly, in my
person and effects, to the upbuilding of His kingdom on earth, according to His
revealed will. I furthermore promise and swear that I will regard THE FIRST
PRESIDENT OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, as the SUPREME
HEAD OF THE CHURCH on earth, and OBEY HIM the same as the Supreme God, IN ALL
WRITTEN REVELATIONS given under the solemnities of a 'Thus saith the Lord,' and
that I WILL ALWAYS UPHOLD THE PRESIDENCY, RIGHT OR WRONG. I furthermore
promise and swear that I will never touch a daughter of Adam, unless she is
given me of the Lord. I furthermore swear that no Gentile shall ever be
admitted to the secrets of this HOLY INSTITUTION or participate in its
blessings. I furthermore promise and swear that I will assist the Daughter of
Zion [Sons of Dan] in the utter destruction of apostates, and that I will
assist in setting up the kingdom of Daniel in these last days, by the power of
the Highest and the sword of His might. I furthermore promise and swear that I
will never communicate the secrets of this degree to any person in the known
world, except it be to a true and lawful brother, binding myself UNDER NO LESS
PENALTY THAN TO HAVE MY BLOOD SHED. So help me God and keep me faithful."
(Schindler, pp. 46-47.)
Upon Smith's arrest and incarceration in Liberty Jail, he claimed in his legal
defense that Sampson Avard, not himself or Rigdon, was the instigator of the
Danite band and its violent acts. While in jail, Smith wrote a letter in which
he purported to disavow "secret combinations":
"I would further suggest the impropriety of the organization of bands or
companies, by COVENANT OR OATH, by PENALTIES OR SECRECIES; but let the time
past of our experience and sufferings by the wickedness of Doctor Avard suffice
and let our covenant be that of the Everlasting Covenant, as contained in the
Holy Writ and the things that God hath revealed to us. Pure friendship always
becomes weakened the very moment you undertake to make it stronger by PENAL
OATHS AND SECRECY." ("Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 146.)
Research reveals that Smith's denial of responsibility for the Danites
was an outright falsehood, designed purely to shift blame for his insurrection
in Missouri onto the subordinate Avard. Note that in his defense, Smith
purportedly disavowed "covenants or oaths....penal oaths and secrecy," while to
the contrary, those familiar with Mormon culture are well aware that Smith's
temple endowment ceremony, which he introduced a mere three years later in
1842, included what he had publicly purported to discourage---"penal oaths and
secrecy." Also, the Danite initiation oath quoted above reveals similiarities
to wording, concepts, and oaths in Smith's later temple ceremony, which further
indicates that the two oaths originated in the same mind--Joseph Smith's.
In addition, Smith's own journal reveals that he spoke approvingly of the
"Danites," from his entry of
"27 July 1838--Friday--Some time past the brethren or saints have come up day
after day to consecrate, and to bring their offerings into the store house of
the lord, to prove him now herewith and see if he will not pour us out a
blessing that there will not be room enough to contain it, They have come up
hither (p. 60) Thus far, according to the (Revelater) [revelation] order of
the Danites, we
have a company of Danites in these times, to put right physically that which is
not right, and to cleanse the Church of very great evils which hath hitherto
existed among us inasmuch as they cannot be put right by teachings and
persuasions, This company or a part of them exhibited on the fourth of July
They come up to consecrate, by companies of tens, commanded by their captain
over ten."
("The Papers of Joseph Smith," vol. 2, p. 262, Deseret Book, 1992, ed. by Dean
Jessee.)
LDS historian Jessee's footnote to this entry reads:
"The part of this entry following 'p. 60' has been crossed out in the original
manuscript, evidently by a later hand."
The crossing out of Smith's favorable reference to the "company of the Danites"
is proof positive that someone---likely Smith himself---did so to eliminate
evidence of Smith's involvement with the criminal band. Fortunately, Dean
Jessee has restored the entry to its original, so we can see that Smith lied in
Liberty Jail when he attempted to cast Avard as the founder of the Danites.
A lifelong faithful Mormon, Allen Stout, told of the founding and purpose of
the Danites in his journal:
"The Church was organized under captains tens, fifties, one hundreds, and one
thousands. This made the inhabitants mad to see us making ready to defend
ourselves. They called our organization the Danite band. I belonged to the
third fifty led by Reynolds Cahoon. On the 4th of July [1838], Sidney Rigdon
delivered his declaration of independence, which enraged the mob worse than
ever, so that by fall the whole country was under arms."
Note Stout's confirmation that "the Church" itself organized the Danites,
rather than the alleged "renegade" Avard. The organization into "tens,
fifties, one hundreds, and one thousands," is the same setup that the Mormon
military units continued into Illinois and then Utah, and was still in force
during the Utah War, and the MMM. IOW, "Danites" was really just the Missouri
period secret name for the military arm of Smith's organization. LDS historian
Leland Gentry wrote that some members of the "Danite" band also served in the
state-run militia:
"The so-called 'Armies of Israel' created at Far West and Adam-ondi-Ahman by
order of General Alexander Doniphan were later confused with the Danites. The
confusion was natural, since both groups were broken down into smaller units
and since many Danites also belonged to the legitimte militia." ("A History of
the Latter-Day Saints in Northern Missouri," p. 362.)
Thus we see that while some Mormon men served in the official state militia,
they
simultaneously and surreptitiously held membership in the underground
"Danites," who swore complete obedience to the "First Presidency of the
Church." The "Danites" were in effect, Joseph Smith's private army. It was
those "Danites" who drove off Mormon dissenters such as David and John Whitmer,
Oliver Cowder, Lyman Johnson, etc.; it was "Danites" who brought out oaken
clubs during the August 8 election in
Gallatin, beating "Gentiles" senseless; it was "Danites" who burned and looted
"Gentile" towns of Millport and Gallatin that fall; and it was "Danites," led
by Mormon apostles David Patten, Lyman Wight, and Parley P. Pratt, who attacked
state militiamen at Crooked River, which spurred Governor Boggs to issue his
"Extermination Order."
Apostle Patten was mortally wounded in the battle, and
as he lay dying on October 28, he was treated by none other than Dr. Sampson
Avard---with Joseph Smith standing by his side. That fact further makes
Smith's later assertion that he excommunicated Avard as soon as he found out
what the "Danites" were doing a complete lie. Smith and his top leaders were
arrested on October 31, and Avard was still treating wounds from the "Danite"
battle of October 28, just three days earlier. That makes it obvious that
Smith concocted the idea to blame the "Danites" on Avard only after he had been
arrested and was facing charges of treason and murder.
Contrary to Joseph Smith's assertion that he excommunicated Avard as soon as he
discovered what he was doing, the timeline actually shows that Smith was
arrested on October 31; Avard did
not testify against him until November 13; but Avard, along with other
witnesses who testified against Smith and Rigdon,
was not excommunicated until March 17, 1839-----almost five months
after Smith's arrest. That timeline reveals that Avard was NOT excommunicated
because he organized and led the Danites, but because he turned states'
evidence and testified against Smith and Rigdon.
"One of the great controversies surrounding the Sons of Dan concerns the
question of whether Joseph knew and approved of its existence prior to the
society's public exposure in November, 1838. The point is relevant because if
his denials of such knowledge are true, it marked the only occasion in Orrin
Porter Rockwell's life when he strayed from the dictates of the church by
entering into an unauthorized doctrinal venture. His close relationship and
devoted obedience to the prophet maked it inconceivable that he would have
failed to inform Joseph of the Danites. Even so, the prophet's absolute grip
on the church precludes the possibility that Avard could have carried out an
undertaking of such magnitude in secrecy. Finally, the argument presents
itself that the prophet probably encouraged the concept, since it played a dual
role of preventing a recurrence of the Kirtland rebellion by uncovering
potential apostates almost immediately while at the same time protecting the
Mormons against their Gentile enemies.....John Corrill, a prominent Saint
during the Jackson County persecutions, described a gathering of the Sons of
Dan at which the entire First Presidency was introduced to officers of the
order and 'pronounced blessings on each of them.' Corrill added that Joseph
arose and 'made some general remarks...relating to the oppressions members had
suffered, and said they wanted to be prepared for further events.'
"Reed Peck, adjutant of the band, substantiated Corrill's statements on this
point...And John Cleminson added, 'Dr. Avard called on Joseph Smith, Jr., who
gave them a pledge, that if they (the first Presidency) led them into
difficulty he would give them his head for a foot-ball, and that it was the
will of God these things should be so. The teacher and active agent of the
society was Dr. Avard and his teachings were approved of by the presidency."
("Orrin Porter Rockwell," Harold Schindler, p. 44.)
"Mormon historians have cited Joseph Smith's condemnation of the Danites in the
'History of the Church' as evidence that the Prophet did not know about and
did not approve of the organization's activities and teachings. Smith's
statement credits Sampson Avard with responsibility for organizing and
directing the Danite band. The statement implies that the group had little
influence among the Mormons and asserts that Avard's schemes were 'manfully
rejected' by the Danite officers. 'When a knowledge of Avard's rascality came
to the Presidency of the Church, he was cut off from the Church, and every
means proper used to destroy his influence,' states that passage attributed to
the Mormon prophet. Because Smith's denial of complicity with the Danites is
so explicit, assertions that he knew about the Danite activities have been
regarded as tantamount to calling him a liar.
"Joseph Smith, however, did not write this passage. The statement was actually
written by Morris Phelps, a Mormon resident of Caldwell County, but was edited
and inserted in the 'History of the Church' as if written by Smith. Neither
Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, nor any of the prominent Mormon leaders criticized
or condemned the Danites in their writings or recorded statements. After the
Mormon War, Smith denounced the 'false and pernicious' teachings of Sampson
Avard, the leader of the Danites, and recommended against reorganizing the band
in Illinois---but he did not criticize the Danites. Thus, Smith's own
statements regarding the Danites do not contradict the evidence linking him
with the group."
("The 1838 Mormon War In Missouri," Stephen LeSeuer, pp. 43-44.)
Many years after the Missouri War, in Utah, Brigham Young was still threatening
to use the Danites to punish dissenters or the church's opponents:
"If men come here and do not behave themselves, they will not only find the
Danites, whom they talk so much about, biting the horses' heels, but the
scoundrels will find something biting THEIR heels. In my plain remarks, I
merely call things by their right names."
---Brigham Young, "Journal
of Discourses," vol. 5, p. 6.
"And if the Gentiles wish to see a few tricks, we have 'Mormons' that can
perform them. We have the meanest devils on the earth in our midst to keep
them, for we have use for them.....(JOD, vol. 6, p. 176.)
"....we have some of the meanest men that ever disgraced God's footstool right
in the midst of the Latter-Day Saints. Do not be startled at that, because it
is true. I have told the people many a time, if they want anything done, no
matter how mean, they can find men here who can do it, if they are to be found
on the earth."
(JOD, vol. 15, p. 226.)
"I have, many a time, in this stand, dared the world to produce as mean devils
as we can; we can beat them at anything. We have the greatest and smoothest
liars in the world, the cunningest and most adroit thieves, and any other shade
of character that you can mention."
(JOD, vol. 4, p. 77.)
It is obvious that Brigham Young was speaking of such "Danites" as Porter
Rockwell, Bill Hickman, Lot Smith, John D.Lee, Howard Egan, Dimick Huntington,
and others.
And the fact that Brigham Young used the threat of "Danite" violence means that
the confessions of former Danites such as John D. Lee and Bill Hickman are
reliable.
And the fact that Brigham Young was still threatening to have "Danites" act
against people many years after the Missouri War, in Utah, shows that Mormon
apologists' assertions that the Danites were a short-lived, unapproved band
organized by the "renegade" Sampson Avard to be utter lies.
And these facts make you, Woody Brison, an ignorant fool for believing the lies
told by those Mormon apologists.
Not that we didn't already know you are an ignorant fool 100 times over.
Randy J.
cham
I thought Kevin posted the "tacky" note response to newspaper reports on Cameron.
If I misread, I apologize.
Chuck