HOMOSEXUALITY DRASTICALLY SHORTENS YOUR LIFE
Posted on April 7, 2007
All the research so far seems to lead to that conclusion but Indiana Libertarian Ken Gividen has found some powerful new evidence. Following is an excerpt from a recent post:
“Legally married gays have 24 less years to live than married non-gays. That’s the conclusion of a study presented to the Eastern Psychological Association’s annual convention March 23. The report was prepared by Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron
In Denmark, the country with the longest history of gay marriage, for 1990-2002, married heterosexual men died at a median age of 74 while the 561 partnered gays died at an average age of 51.
In Norway, married heterosexual men died at an average age of 77 and the 31 gays at 52. In Denmark, married women died at an average age of 78 compared to 56 for the 91 lesbians. In Norway, women married to men died at an average age of 81 vs. 56 for the 6 lesbians.
By comparison, smoking lessens one’s life by seven years. The gay agenda is dangerous. Encouraging young people to explore the behavioral options is an invitation to an early grave. If accepted, lawmakers may sympathize with insurance companies who view the gay lifestyle as a liability more serious than smoking or skydiving. Programs to help gays abandon homosexuality will be seen as important life-saving efforts.
People should have the right to live their lives however they choose, providing they hurt no one else. They may eat themselves to death, smoke themselves to death or indulge in other harmful lifestyles. Taxpayers have no obligation to straighten them out. However, believing in human rights does not presume we must retreat to ignorance concerning the effects of behavior.”
Unsurprisingly, that little bit of truth-telling got Ken condemned as “homophobic”. Yet again, the truth is “hate speech”. Anyway, Ken’s blog got removed from various blogrolls because of his truth-telling so pay him a visit to show that such censorship does no good. Ken recycles a lot of my posts so he is obviously a good guy!
(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)
» Filed Under ACLU
Trackback URL
Comments
51 Responses to “HOMOSEXUALITY DRASTICALLY SHORTENS YOUR LIFE”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Unfortunately the research is most-likely bogus, or at least should be looked at with great skepticism.
Dr. Paul Cameron, who wrote the report, stated in a press release that he “presented” his research during the annual Eastern Psychological Association Convention in Philadelphia.
Apparently that is not true. Dr. Cameron was NOT a speaker at the event.
The lengthy “research” which was posted on the Net (and subsequently reposted by you) is merely an op-ed piece he wrote based on flawed research he conducted several years ago. He listed the “East. Psyc. Assn.” to lend his work credibility.
I often ask people like Dr. Cameron; If your cause is so just – and you are right about your beliefs – why must you lie to promote them?
Putting the mark of a respected peer review body on your research – when you have not earned such a peer review – is a serious ethics violation.
Dr. Cameron apparently uses the magazine, “Psychological Reports” as a “medical journal” to claim he is “peer reviewed”. “Psychological Reports” will publish anyone – including you or me – for about 30 dollars a page. It does not fall under the category of a peer review magazine. Dr. Cameron’s “research” that has been presented for peer review has consistently been rejected because of slanted / flawed scientific methodology.
Dr. Cameron was also dropped from the American Psychological Association (APA) for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists.
This action was apparently taken because of his repeated misrepresentations of scientific data concerning human sexuality and his support for discrimination against gay men and lesbians. In other words, Dr. Cameron had a political agenda (right-wing conservatism) and he manipulated the data to get the results he wanted. That is not science – that is propaganda.
The American Sociological Association, also passed a resolution condemning Dr. Cameron for “consistent misrepresentation of sociological research” and for apparently in press releases claiming he was a sociologist – a field in which he has not had formal training.
In 1996, the Board of Directors of the Canadian Psychological Association condemned Dr. Cameron’s work on sexuality, stating that he had “consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism”.
I discovered that with one Lexus-Nexus search. And while that alone doesn’t necessarily derail any actual research he has done – it should give us pause before embracing his results.
Nonsense.
Gay people do nothing different that anyone else.
Who did these people interview? Crack addicts?
Gay people, like me, have lives like everyone else.
Sexual orientation is irrelevant. If all straight men were hooker addicts, and those hookers were crack addicts, we would see the same stats.
Straight men are not all crack-whore addicts, and neither are all gay men. Please move on.
Dr. Cameron was also dropped from the American Psychological Association (APA) for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists.
This action was apparently taken because of his repeated misrepresentations of scientific data concerning human sexuality and his support for discrimination against gay men and lesbians. In other words, Dr. Cameron had a political agenda (right-wing conservatism) and he manipulated the data to get the results he wanted. That is not science – that is propaganda.
Dr. Cameron had a political agenda (right-wing conservatism)
Do you know the difference between “political agenda” and “political ideology”?
Do you really want to rely on “Ethical Principles”(or lack thereof), “repeated misrepresentations of scientific data”, “political agenda “, “manipulation” and “propaganda”, when those are all descriptives of the APA?
Born Gay? – Not So Fast Say Homosexual Researchers!
Harvard.Edu
“Ethical Principles of Psychologists” have joined the “Ethical Principles of Lawyers, Scientists, and Politicians”.
This is not any new evidence. It is the same lies Cameron tried to push twice before
And while we are on the subject, conservative William Bennett went on record rebuking Cameron’s life span lie in 1992. Objectionis to Cameron is not some so-called liberal conspiracy.
loboinokay,
Thanks for your response. A few points -
The article you quoted from uses Dr. Cameron’s (Family Research Institute) flawed studies and information as it’s basis. So basically to defend Dr. Cameron – you used as a source someone who based an article on Dr. Cameron’s research. That’s sort of a problem from a logical rebuttal standpoint.
The APA is a scientific organization – and unless you show me some evidence that homosexuals “terrorized” the APA into ignoring scientific data I have to go with believing them.
The assertion that Simon LeVay claims that gay activism was the cause for the APA changing it’s position is just silly. He may have actually said that – he may actually believe that – but that does not make it a fact.
You failed to rebut the points that Dr. Cameron lied in his presentation of this particular research. Do you really wish to side with someone who has demonstratively lied in presenting his evidence against homosexuality?
Is that the best argument against homosexuality that you have – a “study” from someone who has been censured and expelled from mainstream scientific organizations and who has clearly lied about presenting these “studies” for serious peer review?
That seems fairly weak to me.
Cameron is shoddy in his work, even worse that the warming alarmists. For instance the sample he uses to determine the age of death for partnered lesbians in Norway was made up of six people. He determined the age of death for partnered gay men with a sample of 31. In another sample he took the ages listed in obituaries in a gay paper and in a mainstream paper. He assumed the people in the mainstream paper were all straight and that the people mentioned in the gay paper are representative of gays in general. Both assumptions are invalid.
In addition he looked at the deaths over a 10 year period. The straight group was already, on average, significiantly older than the gay group he compared. He did not adjust the groups for age to begin with. And the gay couples were younger on average. If you compare two groups like this you need to adjust for age so they are start at the same place. He didn’t thus skewing the results intentionally.
Harry Martian,
The article you quoted from uses Dr. Cameron’s (Family Research Institute) flawed studies and information as it’s basis. So basically to defend Dr. Cameron – you used as a source someone who based an article on Dr. Cameron’s research. That’s sort of a problem from a logical rebuttal standpoint.
Who said they were “flawed studies and information”?
The APA is a scientific organization
They were, up until 1973. Now they are a politicized organization that shills for the homosexual agenda.
– and unless you show me some evidence that homosexuals “terrorized†the APA into ignoring scientific data I have to go with believing them.
Of course you do… and I have to go with NARTH. The organization of psychologists and psychiatrists who exposed the APA in general and their article about pedophilia in particular, of which the APA have been trying to distance themselves from ever since.
You failed to rebut the points that Dr. Cameron lied in his presentation of this particular research. Do you really wish to side with someone who has demonstratively lied in presenting his evidence against homosexuality?
You failed to offer any proof that Cameron lied.
Is that the best argument against homosexuality that you have
Hardly! But since you brought it up and since homosexuality is not mainstream and never has been, it’s incumbent on you to show what homosexuality has to offer society.
- a “study†from someone who has been censured and expelled from mainstream scientific organizations and who has clearly lied about presenting these “studies†for serious peer review?
Serious peer review by whom? The same organizations who are supporting the agenda? Isn’t that tantamount to IDers presenting their “studies” to the evolutionary community for peer review?
Or perhaps the sane scientists who oppose global warming for sound scientific reasons,can present their facts to the idiots who believe in the pseudo-science of global warming.
The A.P.A. Normalization of Homosexuality, and the Research Study of Irving Bieber
Why Isn’t Homosexuality Considered A Disorder On The Basis Of Its Medical Consequences?
The Innate-Immutable Argument
Finds No Basis in Science
loboinok,
Hmmmm. Harry Martian – wow that was clever. Do you do comedy full time? To be honest, I haven’t heard that one since third grade – how old are you again?
Seriously, is that the best insult you can come up with because I think it shows a lot of desperation in your argument.
“Who said they were “flawed studies and informationâ€?”
That would be the peer review magazines that refused to publish Dr. Cameron’s work.
“Now they,” (The APA)”are a politicized organization that shills for the homosexual agenda.”
Why would a scientific organization made up of 132,000 professionals become a “shill” for the homosexual agenda? Science has been protested by far more angry and politically connected organizations than a handful of gays in the 1970’s.
The APA has no vested interest in pursuing a “homosexual agenda”. The fact is that empirical evidence in study after study showed that homosexuality was NOT a mental illness.
“I have to go with NARTH”
Which has somewhere around 1000 members compared to the 132,000+ of the APA. Science is built on consensus – you can find 1000 scientists who believe in creationism but that hardly makes creationism a good science. Although – if I had to guess I would venture to say you believe in “Creationism” as well. Now – and again I’m just guessing here – but you sound like some sort of right-winger who tends to disbelieve science in favor of mythology like the bible – which is certainly your prerogative – but if that is the case then logic will have very little use in convincing you of the error in your opinion. Religious people tend to prefer faith over facts.
“You failed to offer any proof that Cameron lied.”
No – I specifically gave proof. Dr. Cameron claimed he presented his study at a conference when he was not an invited lecturer – that was a lie.
“… since you brought it up and since homosexuality is not mainstream and never has been, it’s incumbent on you to show what homosexuality has to offer society.”
I did not say homosexuality was mainstream – neither is being left handed – what is your point?
There are a wide range of behaviors and people that are “normal” – even people like you who believe in an invisible omnipotent friend who lives in a make-believe place and oversees your life is “normal”. But… Don’t forget, loboinok that a few thousand years ago pretty much everyone was sure the earth was flat – and they killed people who claimed the earth revolved around the sun. Mainstream – is always changing. It tends to leave old religions and beliefs behind.
As for what homosexuality has to offer? Do you want to go over the contributions to society made by homosexuals? We could start with the concept of democracy and move forward from there -
Homosexuality is (most likely) a choice and a genetic predisposition. It is “normal” – certainly as much as believing that Jesus was the son of God and that the stuff written about in the bible could have really happened.
“Serious peer review by whom? The same organizations who are supporting the agenda?”
Just because science has gone with the evidence that homosexuality is not a mental illness – does NOT mean they have an agenda. YOU – however – do have an agenda. You want your mythological fantasies to be supported by scientific evidence. When that doesn’t happen – you blame science.
The APA bases their position on empirical evidence. If that evidence changes – so will the position of the APA. However, flawed studies and people like Dr. Cameron who LIE about being peer reviewed is not a great basis for change.
“Isn’t that tantamount to IDers presenting their “studies†to the evolutionary community for peer review?”
Yes. It is. Science has no vested interest in Evolutionary Theory – if another theory fit the facts and had the weight of evidence behind it that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution has – Science would embrace that theory.
Oh, and I guess that last question of yours sort of confirms my thought that you are someone who ignores science in favor of mythology. Hey – it’s your choice and I have nothing against you believing in whatever mythology you choose to believe in.
“Or perhaps the sane scientists who oppose global warming for sound scientific reasons,can present their facts to the idiots who believe in the pseudo-science of global warming.”
Well at least you understand the concept of pseudo-science – although you sort of have it backward. You see when say a hundred thousand scientists come to one conclusion – and 1000 scientists come to another – the SCIENCE supports the 100,000.
Global warming has been studied EXTENSIVELY by the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Program, not to mention the National Academy of Sciences – there were 923 papers peer reviewed and published between 1998 and 2003 – not one of them came to a different conclusion. To be sure there were arguments about various points here and there – that is the scientific method at work – but the conclusions were that Global Warming is real and humans are a cause of it.
Do you think that scientists from around the world just woke up one morning and said to themselves – “HEY Lets make life inconvenient for everyone and pretend that if we don’t make a lot of environmental changes life on earth will get really bad…”
You believe in a 2000 year old book – or something equally as ridiculous. That’s fine, bud. Good for you – but don’t pretend that science supports your fantasies. Science is the study of what can be verified by our senses. Mythology is a bunch of stories by people who lived a long time ago and believed a lot of crazy things which may or may not have to do with reality.
Unlike mythology, science can change – if the evidence changes. That was what happened in 1973 when the APA looked at the available evidence and removed homosexuality from their list of mental illnesses and disorders. You are just 34 years behind the times…
The articles you linked to – are a part of the scientific process – people debating and continually challenging the status quo in an effort to discover the roots of homosexuality. That is science. It changes based on the evidence at hand – unlike an ideology which ignores evidence in favor of a set belief.
It’s odd that you would try to use science to support your beliefs – science does not support them. If you use science as your guide – science believes that homosexuality is a normal occurrence in human behavior.
Better for you to stick to 2000 year old books and myths – that is what you believe in…. not science.
The blogger or a previous commentator wrote: ‘What they fail to admit, however, is that homosexual activists literally terrorized the APA into removing homosexuality as a disorder. Homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admits this. He notes: “Gay activism was clearly the force that propelled the APA to declassify homosexualityâ€â€™
This is a classic example of using selective quotation to twist the apparent meaning of someone’s words. Here is the complete quote, from pages 224-225 of my book ‘Queer Science.’ ‘Gay activism was clearly the force that propelled the APA to declassify homosexuality. Without the efforts of Kameny, Gittings, Littlejohn, and the rest, homosexuality might well still be listed as a disease today. But the APA’s decision was not a spineless capitulation to the mob, as Bieber and Socarides declared. Rather, the activists were successful in causing psychiatrists, singly and collectively, to question their time-honored assumptions and prejudices concerning homosexuality. The resulting dialogue, though rancorous by academic standards, was an intellectual process, much more than a political or emotional one.’ I go on to describe some of the scientific discourse within the APA that the gay activists’ efforts triggered. No one ‘terrorized’ the APA.
Sexual orientation—whether homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual—is a central, healthy, and valuable aspect of personhood. It develops in large part under the influence of biological factors such as genes and prenatal hormones, but social factors affect how it is expressed in behavior, relationships, and self-identification.
Seriously, is that the best insult you can come up with because I think it shows a lot of desperation in your argument.
That was a response to show the silliness of your “loboinokay”. I see you got it!
This site has two spam filters. All of your comments have been caught in one of the filters and I have approved them all. The filter has pulled all of your comments that I have approved, five times, and I re-approved them each time.
If I were “desperate” as you say, I would simply allow the filter to do its job.
I’ll respond to the rest of that drivel, when I get the time.
The unquestioning fervor with which the religious right accepts
Cameron’s contentions is indicative of two psychological quirks
that are in constant display among this demographic.
A) The insistance on believing that the APA was politically pressured
into changing its position on homosexuality is derived from the
right-wing willingness to dismiss any scientific facts with which
they disagree and/or modify those “facts” into a form more palatable
to their pre-existing beliefs (e.g.: twisting the precepts of geology
to give the Grand Canyon a biblically consistent origin); which
plugs right into…
B) The inability to accept the possibility that anyone could possess
greater moral or intellectual integrity than themselves. Because they
themselves are willing to arbitrarily dismiss facts, or change them
to suit their political or religious needs–they have to assume that
everyone else is willing to do that as well. The concept of true
intellectual integrity eludes them; they won’t see it when confronted
with it; and they “know” for a “fact” that scientific organizations
such as the APA are political pawns.
loboinok -
Actually I apologize – the name “loboinokay” was honestly an accident. I looked up quickly and memorized your name phonically and must have spelled out “OKAY” instead of “OK” (Which I assume is short for “Oklahoma” now that I look closer at it). I promise I didn’t even notice it until you mentioned it.
See how easy it is to start hostility when none is meant?
My bad.
******************
That’s a reasonable explanation… apology accepted.
Lobo
Larry Martin,
Here is a good example of “desperate”…
A fraud, posting a comment, falsely portraying him/herself as “Simon LeVay”.
Had this been Simon LeVay, He/she most likely would have posted, Dr. Simon LeVay, and would have used a legitimate email addy; ‘SLeVay@aol.com’ rather than ’slevay@aol.com’ that was used.
Furthermore, “Gay activism was definitely the result of the APAs change. That LeVay tries to limit the extent of the gay activism doesn’t mean LeVay is accurately representing what happened nor does it mean the “science†supporting the decision was valid. As one link says: “The scientific evidence is not decisive because it is irrelevant.â€
“Dr. Bieber describes the deletion of homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic and statistical manual as “the climax of a sociopolitical struggle involving what were deemed to be the rights of homosexuals.”
Gay activist groups believed that prejudice against homosexuals could be extinguished only if, as homosexuals, they were accepted as normal. “They claimed that homosexuality is a preference, an orientation, a propensity; that it is neither a defect, a disturbance, a sickness, nor a malfunction of any sort.” To promote this aim, Dr. Bieber reports, “Gay activists impugned the motives and ridiculed the work of those psychiatrists who asserted that homosexuality is other than normal.”
A task force was set up to study homosexuality, but the members chosen included not a single psychiatrist who held the view that homosexuality was not a normal adaptation. There followed riots at scientific meetings by gay activists who increased the pressure on the Psychiatric Association.”
Furthermore is it the proper domain of psychiatry to remove diagnoses to eliminate prejudice?
Dr. Bieber pointed out that there were several other conditions in the DSM-II that did not fulfill the “distress and social disability” criteria: voyeurism, fetishism, sexual sadism, and masochism. A.P.A.’s Dr. Spitzer replied that these conditions should perhaps also be removed from the DSM-II — and that if the sadists and fetishists were to organize as did the gay activists, they, too, might find their conditions normalized.
Summary
The factors that determined the decision of the APA to delete homosexuality from DSM-II were summarized as follows:
1. Gay activists had a profound influence on psychiatric thinking.
2. A sincere belief was held by liberal-minded and compassionate psychiatrists that listing homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder supported and reinforced prejudice against homosexuals. Removal of the term from the diagnostic manual was viewed as a humane, progressive act.
3. There was an acceptance of new criteria to define psychiatric conditions. Only those disorders that caused a patient to suffer or that resulted in adjustment problems were thought to be appropriate for inclusion in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.”
An excerpt from: Psychology’s sexual dis-orientation, by MIT Psychologist Gerald E. Zuriff, Ph.D:
“DIAGNOSING HOMOSEXUALITY
In 1952 the American Psychiatric Association formalized its system of diagnosis and published the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Today, a DSM listing has practical consequences; whether treatment for a problem is paid for by health insurance companies or a psychological problem qualifies as a disability under various laws often depends on whether it is listed in DSM.
Not surprisingly, given the psychoanalytic theory shared by most clinicians, the DSM listed homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder. Interestingly, it was classified as a sociopathic personality disturbance, meaning that the diagnosis could be made purely on the basis of the homosexuality alone, despite the absence of subjectively experienced distress. In the 1968 revision of the DSM, homosexuality was still included as a disorder but classified more descriptively under “sexual deviations” along with disorders such as fetishism and pedophilia. What followed is unprecedented in the annals of medicine.
The publication of DSMII coincided with the founding of a militant gay liberation movement whose goals included the normalization of homosexuality as a legitimate “lifestyle.” Gay activists mounted a furious attack on the American Psychiatric Association for designating homosexuality a disease. Their most effective form of protest consisted of demonstrations at several professional conventions, most critically the 1970 disruptions in San Francisco. Over the next three years, the association was forced to reconsider not only the inclusion of homosexuality in DSMII but also the entire conceptual basis for defining a mental disorder.
The gay liberation movement considered the psychiatric designation of homosexuality a major basis for antihomosexual attitudes in American society. It justified a wide variety of antihomosexual legislation, ranging from laws barring homosexuals from immigrating to the United States or serving in the military to regulations in New York requiring homosexual taxicab drivers to undergo semiannual psychiatric examinations. In a broader sense, the designation reinforced the prevalent attitude that homosexuality is an “illness.” According to the activists, this stigmatization not only justified bigotry but also caused gay men and lesbians to turn against themselves in self-hatred. The DSMII diagnosis was seen as a societal attempt to control human sexuality under the guise of a medical diagnosis.
After intense lobbying and debate, in December 1973, the Board of Trustees passed the proposal to remove homosexuality from DSMII. Because of the sharp disagreements within psychiatry, however, the board, as a compromise, replaced homosexuality with “sexual orientation disturbance” 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 compromise allowed homosexuality to be dropped as a disorder, giving the gay lobby what it wanted, and, at the same time, it allowed psychiatrists to treat homosexuality under the new diagnosis.
The board’s decision unleashed a storm of counterprotest from many psychiatrists. Opponents saw the board’s decision as a capitulation to gay activism rather than a reasoned judgment based on medical evidence. They forced the leadership to submit its decision to a referendum of the organization’s membership. After an intense campaign, of the approximately ten thousand votes cast, the proposal passed with 58 percent. In retrospect, it seems shocking that the question of whether a condition is a psychiatric disorder should be decided by a vote, but a closer look at the debate indicates that a vote is not as strange as it seems…
THE POLITICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY
Thus, the decision whether homosexuality is a psychopathology is really a social-cultural question rather than a scientific one, and settling the matter by debate and a vote is not as bizarre as it initially appears. Scientific studies may inform the discussion, but the final decision must be a societal value judgment. Accordingly, the continuing controversy in the mental health profession over this issue merely reflects the cultural divergences in our wider society over homosexuality, and politics within the profession have been critical in every stage of this debate.
With the decision voted upon, homosexuality was dropped in the seventh printing of DSMII, and “sexual orientation disturbance” was substituted. In DSMIII, further refinements were introduced. First, “sexual orientation disturbance” was replaced with “ego-dystonic homosexuality” as a term to diagnose clients persistently distressed by their homosexuality and wishing to have heterosexual relationships. This change clarified that only homosexuals were intended and emphasized the impairment in heterosexual functioning. Second, the stated causes of this disorder consisted of the negative attitudes of society toward homosexuality and/or desire for heterosexual life of family and children. Thus, contrary to psychoanalytic theory, the causes were presented as entirely social rather than internal conflicts or family dynamics.
Eventually, even this revised compromise was opposed. Critics charged that the new terminology singled out only homosexuality as an orientation that might lead to distress. Second, it suggested that homosexuality itself can still be considered a disorder rather than a normal variant of human sexuality. Third, it failed to recognize that in the United States, almost all people who are homosexual normally pass through a phase in which their homosexuality is ego-dystonic. Consequently, yet another compromise was devised. In DSMII-Revised, even ego-dystonic homosexuality was omitted. Clients with a “persistent and marked distress about sexual orientation” would now be diagnosed with “sexual disorder not otherwise specified.” The term homosexuality no longer appeared…”
(continued…)
Panelists Recount Events Leading to Deleting Homosexuality As a Psychiatric Disorder From DSM
Twenty-five years ago APA leaders, in the glare of a national media spotlight, took the controversial step of deleting homosexuality from the Association’s compendium of psychiatric disorders. That action launched APA on a quarter century of efforts to end discrimination against homosexuals and coincided with the increasing willingness of gay and lesbian psychiatrists to insist openly that APA must listen to them.
A panel of psychiatrists who played crucial roles in the fight to end the stigma attached to homosexuality both within and outside the mental health field came together at the APA annual meeting last month to provide insiders’ perspectives on that initiative and more recent efforts to alter how psychiatry views gays and lesbians and their sexual orientation.
Melvin Sabshin, M.D., a member of the APA Board of Trustees in the early 1970s and chair of the Scientific Program Committee at that time, described how the alienation gay psychiatrists felt from their APA colleagues led in 1970 to the start of a concerted push for APA to include them in decision making and address their concerns and those of gay patients.
If there was an official kickoff for APA’s newly energized gay psychiatrists, it was the 1970 annual meeting in San Francisco, Sabshin suggested, where Gay Liberation Front activists along with political protesters in support of other social and political causes disrupted the meeting. “It was guerilla theater” at that meeting and the one held in Washington, D.C., the next year, he said.
The onset in 1970 of a decline in psycho-analysis’s dominance of the field also contributed to the change of mood in psychiatry about pathologizing homosexuality, he noted.
In 1972, for the first time, the annual meeting featured exhibits and discussions spotlighting positive aspects of the lives of gay individuals. Also during that year well-known psychiatrists such as Richard Green, M.D., Judd Marmor, M.D., and John Spiegel, M.D., began openly challenging psychiatrists’ attitudes toward and treatment of homosexual patients, Sabshin observed. Marmor, a psychoanalyst who would soon be elected APA president, played a particularly significant role in trying to bridge the chasm that existed between his psychoanalytic colleagues and psychiatrists who were convinced that homosexuality was not an illness.
While many APA members welcomed the new openness and opportunities to reassess their thinking, the stubborn polarization and factionalism that dogged this issue did not suddenly retreat into a quiet corner.
Sabshin credited the chair of APA’s Committee on Nomenclature in the early 1970s, Robert Spitzer, M.D., with playing a pivotal role in propelling the evolution of APA’s position on homosexuality. That committee was charged with revising the initial version of DSM, and Spitzer-armed with research showing there were no valid data to link homosexuality and mental illness-advocated forcefully for the strategy of deleting homosexuality from the disorders list and replacing it with a new one called “sexual orientation disturbance.”
In a key vote in December 1973, the Board of Trustees overwhelmingly endorsed Spitzer’s recommendation. Opponents of the decision attempted to overturn it with a referendum of the APA membership in early 1974-just as Sabshin was beginning his 23-year tenure as APA medical director. The Board’s decision to delete homosexuality from the diagnostic manual was supported by 58 percent of the membership.
At the same time the debates over sexual orientation and psychopathology were occurring, a small group of gay psychiatrists was holding informal meetings to explore forming an organization that would heighten their visibility and that of gay patients. This event, unthinkable two or three years earlier, explained Robert Cabaj, M.D., to the overflow audience, culminated in 1978 in the establishment of the organization that eventually became the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists (AGLP), which now has more than 600 members.
Also in 1973 APA passed a position paper calling on psychiatrists to advocate for full civil rights for gays and lesbians and to work to end the discrimination they endure, noted Cabaj, who is medical director of the San Mateo County Mental Health System and coauthor of a textbook on homosexuality and mental health. He hailed that paper as “the cornerstone of everything that has happened since” in APA’s relationship to homosexuality.
Gay Psychiatrists More Visible
Through the rest of that decade, while issues affecting gay and lesbian psychiatrists and patients continued to achieve greater visibility in clinical and scientific forums, the voices of openly gay and lesbian psychiatrists were still rarely heard in APA policy discussions. That changed in 1982 when the APA Assembly granted a formal vote to gay and lesbian psychiatrists as a minority/underrepresented group, a status similar to that already achieved by other minority groups.
In the mid 1980s APA formed a task force on homosexuality issues, and by that time, Cabaj emphasized, it was able to focus not on the psychopathology battle but on homophobia, discrimination, and stereotyping. The task force was eventually elevated to a permanent component, the Committee on Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Issues. One of its earliest chairs was San Francisco psychiatrist James Krajeski, M.D., who this month became editor of Psychiatric News.
One of that committee’s earliest endeavors was to remedy once again a defect that gay psychiatrists and many others perceived in the way in which the latest version of the DSM labeled some homosexuals. With the introduction of DSM-III in 1980 the diagnosis of sexual orientation disturbance had been changed to ego-dystonic homosexuality, which applied to people persistently distressed by their sexual orientation and desperate to change it. With another revision under way in 1986, committee members focused their efforts on successfully convincing the DSM task force to remove any such designation that linked sexual orientation with psychopathology.
Next 25 Years
The next several years will likely be a time of “consolidation of gains as psychiatrists who are more comfortable and open about homosexuality come up through the ranks,” predicted Howard Rubin, M.D. A “gay-affirmative psychiatry” that has emerged over the last few years will become more commonplace “as long as we don’t become complacent,” he said.
While gay psychiatrists “now have a place at the table,” APA and psychiatry in general will still have to address several troubling issues related to homosexuality, said Rubin, a research fellow at UCLA and member of the APA Committee on Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Issues. Prominent on this list is the large number of psychiatry residency programs where nothing is taught about homosexuality or where the program is “gay for a day,” that is, where a few hours are devoted to this topic often via a guest speaker. In addition, psychiatrists will be called upon to take a leadership role in discussions of the relative influence of biological factors on the development of sexual orientation, he said.
With psychiatry having depathologized homosexuality, he said, the field’s next task is to acknowledge that there are real mental health consequences of being gay, but to address them as individual responses to homophobia and social prejudice.
Carolyn Robinowitz, M.D., who recently became dean of Georgetown University’s medical school and is a former senior deputy medical director of APA, has long been an advocate and ally on the many of the issues discussed by the other panelists.
“Let’s hope,” she emphasized, “that we have learned valuable lessons about the harm that comes from imposing a blanket of psychopathology over any group.”
Robinowitz added, “While the DSM action was but one of many changes in the past 25 years, and while many people still view homosexuality in value-laden and not always rational ways, the decision had a major impact on other health professionals and the general public. I wish it had more.
“We still have a long way to go,” she said, until gays and lesbians gain full acceptance.-K.H.
The above should tell you LeVay isn’t giving gay activism the credit it deserves!
The book “Destructive Trends in Mental Healthâ€, written by two liberals in the APA is an eye-opening book. Check out the comments at Amazon.com here: Destructive Trends in Mental Health
Checkout the NARTH page on this book here: “Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm”
Also, the APA has no disagreement with the treatment of unwanted homosexual attraction: President Koocher Says the American Psychological Association Has No Disagreement With the Treatment of Unwanted Homosexual Attraction
And the head of the Human Genome Project says “Homosexuality is not hardwiredâ€: “Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired,” Concludes Dr. Francis S. Collins, Head Of The Human Genome Project
“Now, as to what LeVay says after the quote… what this person says, that makes me think this really isn’t Simon LeVay.”
“He says: “I go on to describe some of the scientific discourse within the APA that the gay activists’ efforts triggered. No one ‘terrorized’ the APA.
Sexual orientation-whether homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual-is a central, healthy, and valuable aspect of personhood. It develops in large part under the influence of biological factors such as genes and prenatal hormones, but social factors affect how it is expressed in behavior, relationships, and self-identification.â€
“Do you know of any credible scientist who states the above? That is, stating homosexuality is “healthy†is not something a scientist would say. Plus, no credible scientist states same-sex attraction is in large part influenced by biological factors and genes. Nobody says that, so this person claiming to be Simon LeVay is making statements no credible scientist says. If you say otherwise, provide references to replicable studies.”
“If homosexuality is “healthy†why does the APA agree with the treatment of unwanted homosexual attraction?”
“Here is something Simon LeVay said about his work: Levay quote regarding his own research:
“[His 1991 research] made the unassuming LeVay one of the most misunderstood men in America. “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find,” he points out with the courtly patience of someone who long ago got used to waiting for the rest of the world to catch up. “I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are ‘born that way,’ the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain–INAH3 is less likely to be the sole gay nucleus of the brain than part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and women’s sexual behavior. My work is just a hint in that direction–a spur, I hope, to future work.” ”
Source: Interview with David Nimmons (March, 1994) “Sex and the Brain”, Discover, Vol. 15, No. 3, p. 64-71.
“So for someone claiming to be Simon LeVay and making the comments they’ve made, it is in direct contradiction to what scientists (including LeVay himself), some of them liberal in the APA have actually said about homosexuality and removing it from the DSM.”
“Also, it was Robert Spitzer who played a pivotal role in the APAs decision. Yet now Spitzer admits homosexuals can leave the lifestyle. There’s so much here and so little time…”
______________________
Thank you scrip!
“If homosexuality is “healthy†why does the APA agree with the treatment of unwanted homosexual attraction?”
For the same reason that handwashing is healthy but the APA recognizes the treatment of excessive handwashing?
loboinok,
Thank you for the response – I wish to respond to your rebuttal in full – but my wife and I are celebrating our wedding anniversary so please allow me an extra day so that I can respond properly.
Just briefly regarding the poster Simon LeVay. I – more often than not – do not use the title “Dr.” in front of my name. Most of the people I know in academics – except actual medical doctors – won’t use their “PhD” while writing informal letters and such. Also SLeVay@aol.com – is the same email addy as slevay@aol.com. Again – I often don’t use caps when I write out my email address – the mail gets there all the same.
You can always write and see if our poster was the actual Dr. Levay.
Like you, I tend to doubt it given the fact that their are far more people willing to pretend to be Dr. LeVay than there are actual Dr. Simon LeVay’s.
That said – the point the writer made was valid. The quote used to “admit” that homosexual politics was the cause of the APA’s change – when taken in context – shows that nothing could be further from the truth.
Again, if the cause is so just – if the position is so correct – then why is there a need to misquote people, or used flawed research studies.
I do not want to dismiss your email – I appreciate the fact that you responded fully and sincerely – however this is all the time I have at the moment… please allow me a day or so to read over and think about your post.
Best always,
Thanks.
Also SLeVay@aol.com – is the same email addy as slevay@aol.com. Again – I often don’t use caps when I write out my email address – the mail gets there all the same.
That’s true… but I haven’t found any instance where LeVay has given or used his addy in lower case, have you?
Congratulations to you both on your anniversary.
Robert Spitzer has said on numerous occasions that his study was being distorted by the religious rightg.
He also said in an interview last year with the Los Angeles Times that he now believes those referred to him by ex gay groups were either lying to him or themselves.
loboinok,
Thank you for allowing me to time to respond to your post and your kind comments about my anniversary.
Let’s jump right in:
“That LeVay tries to limit the extent of the gay activism doesn’t mean LeVay is accurately representing what happened…”
That is certainly true – however – in your post Dr. LeVay was quoted (out of context) “admitting” that gay activism was responsible for the APA change.
That was a misrepresentation.
Upon examination of the full quote, Dr. LeVay “admitted” no such thing.
I know you only clipped the quote from someone elses’ op-ed piece, but the person you quoted basically LIED to you. He twisted the facts to support his (and apparently your) beliefs.
If one’s beliefs are correct – then there should be no need to lie or misrepresent the truth.
Personally – I don’t care if I agree with a writer or not – if I discover someone I am reading twists the evidence to fit their beliefs – I stop reading them.
You go on to say,
“Dr. Bieber describes the deletion of homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic and statistical manual as “the climax of a sociopolitical struggle involving what were deemed to be the rights of homosexuals.â€
Dr. Bieber was one scientific voice.
There were several scientists who didn’t believe Darwin when he suggested man evolved from ape-like creatures. While there are still doubters, most every reputable scientist now-a-days accepts that Evolution is a fact (The “Theory of Evolution” refers only to the mechanics of HOW evolution happens – not IF evolution happens – “Evolution” is a fact.)
Science changes, loboinok.
Dr. Bieber held onto the old school Freudian ideas of homosexuality.
Most scientists now accept that homosexuality is NOT a mental illness. Science changed – Dr. Bieber didn’t.
Science changed because the data changed – not because a few Gays put pressure on the APA.
My point remains that gays couldn’t protest against science with a millionth of the strength and voice of conservative religion.
Why would gays in the 1970’s (not exactly a huge group) be able to sway the APA when religious organizations with hundreds of times the money and political influence – can’t?
The research that was conducted in the 50’s, 60’s and early 1970’s from multiple sources pointed to the fact that homosexuality was not a mental illness. Period.
Maybe Gay protesters got the APA to look at the evidence or vote on it quicker – but the fact remains (even from your clippings above) that the issues was discussed, debated and voted on by the members of the APA and several other organizations.
Currently 132,000+ scientists accept that homosexuality is not a mental illness – there are still about 1000 or so who don’t.
You can side with the minority – but when the “minority” has to use shoddy research standards, flawed statistical methodology, twist people’s quotes to make their points, and claim they have peer reviewed studies when in fact they don’t… then aren’t you just defending a lie?
There is no reason in the world that the APA would thwart religious beliefs and favor homosexuals in this matter.
In fact, the APA held the same views as most conservative religions until the 1970’s. Then – after looking at the studies they removed homosexuality as a mental illness.
Dr. Gerald E. Zuriff, who you quoted at length, gave a detailed description of how the APA changed it’s position – but that isn’t unusual within the realm of science – that is science in action. The clipping also failed to mention the multiple studies – on many different scientific fronts – that the APA looked at while debating the subject.
That is how science works; it’s messy. The APA didn’t come to the conclusion that homosexuality was “normal” overnight. It discovered it wasn’t a mental illness. It then reevaluated it’s position over the course of 21 years before it came to the conclusion that homosexuality was a normal way of sexual expression for a percentage of the population.
loboinok, if you’ve ever lived on a farm – you’ve seen animals behave in a homosexual manner. Homosexuality is a fairly normal occurrence.
I understand that you believe homosexuality should be classified as a mental illness – but why?
I mean what qualifies as a mental illness?
How about people believing in a all-powerful, invisible, God?
From where I stand, that sounds pretty crazy to me.
Don’t get me wrong – I don’t want to insult your beliefs after the politeness you have shown me – and I don’t wish to be rude but honestly – such a belief strikes me as absurd.
The Bible to me is a work of pure fiction – anyone who believes that giants actually and in fact roamed the earth and “David” killed one with a sling – ignores the fact that no evidence of such Giants has EVER been found.
World-wide flood – boat that held all the animals – never happened. No evidence supports it. It couldn’t have happened as it was described in Genesis – without the laws of physics being altered – and there is not a shred of evidence that such an event ever occurred.
It amazes me that Christians can be so skeptical of evolution with it’s multitudes of evidence – and yet not be skeptical of the unprovable, impossible to believe, “The Bible really happened”, mythology.
To me, that’s crazy.
Maybe to you homosexuality is crazy – but I have to think that to homosexuals – it must seem pretty normal.
You go on to dismiss the person who posted as Simon LeVay.
Like I said, I doubt Dr. LeVay actually interjected himself into this conversation – but what the writer said – regardless of his identity – is a valid refutation. He simply put the LeVay quote into context – which rebutted the use of Dr. LeVay as “admitting” that Gay protests were the cause of the APA changing it’s position.
(And again – even if Dr. LeVay “admitted” – came right out and said – “I secretly slept with every member of the APA and forced them through blackmail to change their position on homosexuality” – that would not mean it actually happened. Science / Logic doesn’t work that way.)
So let me summarize for a minute.
This debate started because a report was posted quoting research done by Dr. Paul Cameron.
I suggested that the research be looked at skeptically because Dr. Cameron misrepresented himself in a press release and has been censured by several scientific organizations including the APA.
You responded by saying the APA was corrupted and was forced into change by a handful of Gay activists. Does that also account for all the other organizations that now agree with the APA?
The APA based their positions based on these studies:
http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html
I have looked over Dr. Cameron’s research (very briefly) posted at:
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_obit.html
The research is – shall we say – shoddy at best (To quote CLS from an above post)I am not a statistician nor do I hold any degree in any sort of mathematical field. However, what I looked at doesn’t look very reliable to me.
I had to turn to others for analysis. I think that these folks do a fairly good job of pointing out the flaws in his research:
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/category/activists-anti-gay/paul-cameron/
loboinok,
Look – you obviously believe that the APA is wrong – but I suggest you direct your attention to the people who have to use flawed studies, and twist quotes to support their religiously founded positions.
If the cause is so right, why is there a need to distort the truth? Does God really need people to alter the facts to fit the theory?
Make a current study – get together a group of like minded individuals and all chip in to have a legitimate scientific / college group do a real study – using accepted norms and methodologies…
However – I have to warn you. It’s already been done. Science has been examining this issue for a long time – and the results of such studies all seem to say that homosexuality is not a “mental illness”.
I do appreciate your posts and appreciate the links / clips as well. Thank you.
loboinok,
I’ve read nearly everything here. There are too many points to address in one post but I’ll comment on a couple of points.
I have to disagree with Larry Martin that the LeVay quote is out of context, although I think I can understand from where he’s coming. Perhaps the blame is on Simon LeVay for using the loaded term gay activism. It is my belief that some use the LeVay quote to bring attention to what brought about the removal of homosexuality from the DSM. It certainly wasn’t science. Whatever the motive behind those who use the quote, it is quite apparent that gay activism and an ultra liberal agenda run rampant in “Psychology, psychiatry and social work.” So say liberals in the APA.
Dr. Paul Cameron was not “dropped from the American Psychological Association (APA) for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists.” He was investigated for violations, cleared, and then resigned in good standing. After getting cleared and turning in his resignation letter, the APA president didn’t understand his resignation, for he was cleared and wasn’t asked to resign. Unfortunately, gay radicals (Mark Pietrzyk and Andrew Sullivan, I believe) have pushed the blatant misrepresentation of Cameron for many years.
The International Journal of Epidermiology wrote an article that supports Cameron’s recent article: Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men.
I own LeVay’s book Queer Science, The gay radicals play book: After the Ball: How America Will Conquer it’s fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s by Kirk and Madsen and Destructive Trends in Mental Health by Wright and Cummings, some of which have been referenced here.
Bert Mills,
Thank you for joining the conversation.
You stated, “It is my belief that some use the LeVay quote to bring attention to what brought about the removal of homosexuality from the DSM. It certainly wasn’t science.”
I understand that is your “belief”. However, that isn’t what the evidence points to.
The APA looked at the evidence that was presented and came to the conclusion that homosexuality was NOT a mental illness. the evidence was based on multiple studies across several disciplines:
http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html
Also the World Health Organization, as well as psychiatric groups from China, Russia, the UK and other countries have all come to seperate but similar conclusions.
You can blame liberals, homosexuals or anyone else – but the evidence is very strong that the APA made the right choice.
As for Dr. Cameron… if he is the best evidence you have that homosexuality is a mental disorder – then you are in sad shape.
Dr. Cameron WAS in fact dropped by the APA.
His website claims otherwise – and perhaps he believes otherwise – but at the same time his own posting of the documents in question shows clearly that he was dropped.
Please see:
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/APA_Monitor-letter.html
and then,
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,010.htm
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/Cameron_apaletter.html
Most professional organizations refuse to allow a member to resign while he is being investigated. Cameron was being investigated – he sent in a letter of resignation which was replied to accepting his resignation and asking why he was resigning (because he was in good standing at the time) – and then after the investigation was completed Dr. Cameron was officially dropped by the APA.
You can’t resign while under investigation for ethical complaints. Sorry – he was dropped by the APA.
No where on his web page – or any other that I could find – can I find the claim that he was “cleared” by the APA. If you have that information please link to it.
The fact remains that Cameron does horrid work as a researcher. He bends facts to fit his theories. The opposite of good science.
While looking through gay magazines and newspapers for obituaries may be interesting – it is not a scientific sampling of a population – and any valid researcher would understand that.
You go on to say that an article in The International Journal of Epidermiology support Dr. Cameron’s research – you are incorrect. Cameron’s numbers are NOT held up by the The International Journal of Epidermiology. They came to radically different numbers and conclusions.
RS Hogg, SA Strathdee, KJ Craib, MV O’Shaughnessy, JS Montaner and MT Schechter of the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS at St Paul’s Hospital, Vancouver, Canada used proper methodology in their research – which is why they were published in peer reviewed magazines and Dr. Cameron – is not.
And although you link to their study – you didn’t understand the study – it’s conclusions – or link to the follow-up article they published:
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/6/1499
Which explains how people are misusing their research to promote a political agenda against homosexuals – which was NOT what their research showed.
Scientific studies, Mr. Mills, have very limited scopes and objectives. Using such information outside of those objectives is dangerous and unethical – which is how Dr. Cameron got dropped / censured by SEVERAL professional organizations.
Thanks for your thoughts, Mr. Martin.
It is indeed my belief and I specifically used that word because I cannot
read the minds nor the motives of those who use the quote. Simon LeVay is
a homosexual and a scientist and even he made the statement that gay
activism was the driving force behind the change. Yet he continues
and says it wasn’t as bad as Bieber, Socarides and others claimed.
What was the science behind the driving force of the change?
I have little interest in Cameron but don’t like witch hunts no matter who
is being hunted. I’m a little baffled at your comment in regards to
Cameron being “the best evidence [I] have that homosexuality is a mental
disorder.” Perhaps you have me confused with somebody else.
The International Journal of Epidemiology released a study that stated:
“In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and
bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men.” That aligns with
Cameron’s study. Pointing this out is not abusing their study as it is from
the study conclusion.
I don’t have to blame liberals nor homosexuals for anything in regards
to the APA. Wright and Cummings, both liberals in the APA, are perfectly
capable of demonstrating the liberal bias of the APA in their book Destructive Trends in Mental Health.. Here are some quotes from Amazon.com:
Those on the left have stated the left leaning politically correct APA is out
of control. That alone speaks volumes.
A. McEwen said “Robert Spitzer has said on numerous occasions that his study was being distorted by the religious right. ”
I’ve never seen this in reference to a specific quote. I can tell you what Spitzer has previously said:
I think that’s wonderful. It’s the position of NARTH to offer that help.
A. McEwen continued with: “He also said in an interview last year with the Los Angeles Times that he now believes those referred to him by ex gay groups were either lying to him or themselves.”
I did a cursory search and didn’t find the quote. I’ll look when I have more time. I’d appreciate you providing any additional information as you remember…
Mr. Mills,
Thank you for your reply.
“Simon LeVay isa homosexual and a scientist and even he made the statement that gay activism was the driving force behind the change.”
Unfortunately you don’t understand science. Science doesn’t care what Simon LeVay says or thinks.
Science works on evidence – the evidence I linked to previously which shows how the APA came to their conclusions.
That evidence – and much more – has led group after group in the scientific community to come to the same conclusion as the APA – that homosexuality is not a mental illness, or disorder.
““In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men.†That aligns with Cameron’s study.”
No – it does not (see below).
“Pointing this out is not abusing their study as it is from the study conclusion.”
Yes it is abusing the study – because you didn’t understand the study or it’s conclusion.
First off, the numbers do not “align” with Cameron’s study what-so-ever.
Dr. Cameron’s “study” (and I use the term loosely) showed an “Average” life expectancy of 24 years less for homosexual men.
That is certainly NOT verified or echoed in the study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology which showed a range of between 8 – 20 years less life expectancy based on several statistical ASSUMPTIONS.
The study presented in the International Journal of Epidemiology focused solely on men in an urban environment where many other factors must be taken into account; such as higher murder rates – increased vehicular deaths – higher rates of cancer – et cetera.
Most importantly – please note that the ranges given in the International Journal of Epidemiology (again between 8 – 20 years less life expectancy for males at the age of 20)are ESTIMATES only and are based on many factors which may or may not come to pass: thus in their conclusion the authors you quote from specifically state:
“IF (emphasis mine) the same pattern of mortality were to continue then…”
“If – Then”
So the estimates were extremely qualified – AND – in their follow up article the researchers reported that the patterns they based their life expectancy estimates on WERE NOT continuing.
Your rebuttal is an example of someone unfamiliar with the science behind statistical studies attempting to use statistics to support your point.
The bottom line is that the people who wrote the study you quoted from – disagree with your interpretation of their data.
“Wright and Cummings, both liberals in the APA, are perfectly
capable of demonstrating the liberal bias of the APA in their book Destructive Trends in Mental Health.. Here are some quotes from Amazon.com”
And again – science doesn’t care what Wright and Cummings say or publish.
The right-wing community places a LOT of importance on what people BELIEVE.
Science works off of evidence.
It doesn’t matter what Simon LeVay believes, it doesn’t matter what Wright and Cummings believe. People write books for lots of reasons – to make money – to push an agenda – to make themselves look important. Do you know why Wright and Cummings wrote their book?
Neither do I. (They may be right – they may be geniuses – but just the fact that they said it or believe it – does not make it true)
Science is about what can be proven and where the evidence leads. You have not debated the “evidence” regarding homosexuality at all.
Probably because you have to rely on others to interpret the data for you – (and in all fairness – I am in the same boat – for the most part much of this debate is beyond my area of expertise)
However, the difference between us is that my opinions are reflected by 99% of the scientific community. Now – logically speaking – that doesn’t mean I am right and you are wrong. It simply means that given the data that is available to us at the moment – science is on my side.
You are forced to defend people like Dr. Cameron – who has a history of violating professional ethics to promote his beliefs – or to believe people like Wright and Cummings who may simply be out to create controversy in an effort to sell books.
I find it interesting that you would mention Wright and Cummings – two “liberals” – who wrote a book which may or may not be an accurate look into the APA – and then you posted comments about their book that were left on Amazon.com as evidence that they echo your position.
Please forgive me, but I don’t find that really very compelling.
I understand that you believe these two authors show that the APA is somehow corrupted or wrong regarding homosexuality (or pushing some “leftist” agenda) – and the fact they claim to be “liberals” somehow makes their testimony all the more damning – but why do you only believe liberals when they side with your point of view?
There are literally a hundred-thousand plus psychiatrists in the profession who say the opposite of what you believe to be true.
If you have a quote from “Destructive Trends in Mental Health” which shows how scientific evidence was mis-collected, or how evidence was manipulated to show different results and fool the people who peer reviewed the research… then maybe we have something to debate.
So the bottom line here – is that the evidence collected and reviewed by not only the APA, but also the World Health Organization, and other psychiatric professionals in various countries around the world – has not been challenged.
You didn’t rebut the fact that Dr. Cameron was dropped from the APA (and censured by other professional organizations)which should lead one to be fairly skeptical of his “research”.
If you have insights into the evidence used by the APA and all of these other organizations – which spans several disciplines in science – that somehow any / all of those peer reviewed documents contained skewed / flawed data – then PLEASE let’s debate this further.
Otherwise – the evidence is conclusive.
It has been peer reviewed over many disciplines, examined, debated – it is continually challenged as all good science should be – but the fact is that from a scientific standpoint homosexuality is not abnormal or the sign of a mental disorder or illness.
You simply agree with the few remaining voices that still see homosexuality as a mental disorder. Which is fine – but science disagrees with you.
Mr Martin.
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you
didn’t understand what I wrote.
You are correct. Science doesn’t care. To be more precise, science can’t care.
On the other hand scientific evidence is interpreted by those with various
backgrounds, biases, worldviews and unfortunately, agendas.
Simon LeVay is a homosexual, a scientist and a former activist. I point this
out because he stated gay activism was the driving force behind the APAs
decision. Because of who he is, it is much more difficult to accuse Simon
LeVay of being biased against the APA’s decision.
I previously provided a reference to Destructive Trends in Mental Health, a book
by Wright and Cummings. Both authors are self admitted liberals. Both
are members of the APA. It is much more difficult to accuse Wright and
Cummings of being biased against the APA’s decision.
The Amazon.com quotes were provided as fodder to peak your interest. I own
this book, have read it and encourage you to read it as well.
You say you don’t know why Wright and Cummings wrote their book and all we
can infer are the reasons they’ve stated. We cannot read their minds.
Fortunately, their reasons are stated in their book which I encourage you
to read.
Here’s what Nicholas Cummings said in the preface:
You wrote:
So again I ask you, if science supported the gay activism behind
the change to the DSM, exactly what was that science?
Yes, the International Journal of Epidemiology study supports Cameron’s study.
Both studies, using completely different methodologies came to the same
conclusion that homosexuals live shorter lives. The numbers won’t match
exactly because of the varying methodologies.
What’s really interesting are your comments in regards to the followup article.
From Gay life expectancy revisited
Regarding your if/then:
The fact that antiretrovirals are now extending the life of those with HIV
does not remove anything from their original study that homosexuals live
shorter lives. To state otherwise would be disingenuous. Their study states,
according to their datapoint #4, that the patterns were not continuing due
to antiretrovirals.
That’s similar to saying
those who ingest crack live shorter lives. But if drug addicts are given
drug cocktails that help to prevent the deleterious effects of controlled
substances they’ll live longer.
Furthermore, the authors state:
I agree with that. You appear to think otherwise.
You wrote:
The bottom line is that the people who wrote the study you quoted from
- disagree with your interpretation of their data.
Not without antiretrovirals, something you failed to mention and a requirement
to extend the lives of homosexuals with HIV.
You wrote:
Science is about what can be proven and where the evidence leads. You have
not debated the evidence regarding homosexuality at all.
Okay, I’ll bite. What is the evidence regarding homosexuality?
What is the
science behind the APAs change in the DSM?
If the
evidence is so compelling then you should have no problem providing
references to replicable studies. The problem is you can’t.
Mr. Mills,
I appreciate your comments.
“Because of who he is, it is much more difficult to accuse
Simon LeVay of being biased against the APA’s decision.”
No it’s not.
Bias exists in many forms and it is no more difficult to accuse Dr. LeVay than any other single scientist of being biased. LeVay may resent the APA for taking so long to change it’s position on homosexuality – which again didn’t happen overnight with one group in 1973 as you seem to think – but rather it happened over the course of the last 40 years with multiple organizations and groups of scientists.
Dr. LeVay may very well be more of a “gay activist” than a scientist in this issue. His quote may be an attempt on his part to rally support from gay activists by claiming gay activism was the cause of change rather than the science behind homosexuality.
“…exactly what was that science?”
There were numerous studies done – since you don’t seem know of them – one can hardly think you’ve done any real research into this matter at all. Lets start with:
Kinsey (1948). http://kinseyinstitute.org/publications/ki-pubs.html
Ford and Beach (1951)
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html
Hooker (1957)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Hooker
Freedman (1971)
Those are a few to start with. I seriously doubt you’ll bother to look at those – much less others. However, if you do you’ll see that they were empirical and fairly straight-forward (pardon the pun).
The empirical nature and conclusions of these studies were at the forefront of the APA decision in 1973 to remove homosexuality form the DSM. They pretty much showed that from a mental health standpoint homosexuals are as “normal” as anyone else.
But – that certainly isn’t all the evidence that went into the “normalization of homosexuality. Science has evolved since the 1970’s and the research has grown. If you do a little research of your own – you will see literally dozens of legitimate studies which all point to the same thing.
Here is a link which in turn provides other links and data – by the dozens – showing that homosexuality is not a mental illness or a mental disorder.
http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gayhealth.html#relat
“Yes, the International Journal of Epidemiology study supports Cameron’s study.”
No sir, respectfully – it doesn’t.
Your lack of understanding regarding science and statistics is telling.
One study showing that IF current trends continued – THEN homosexuals in an Urban Canadian city at age twenty could expect to live 8 to 20 years less than non-homosexuals – is FAR FAR different from Dr. Cameron’s “study” which showed that – in fact, on average – homosexuals live 24 years less than their heterosexual counterparts.
There is a huge difference in those conclusions.
If you don’t understand that then we probably can’t hold an intelligent discussion on the matter.
Further – the study follow-up in IJE clearly stated that the assumptions of the health trends made by the researchers were NOT in fact continuing and thus their conclusions were incorrect.
“The fact that antiretrovirals are now extending the life of those with HIV does not remove anything from their original study that homosexuals live shorter lives.”
You didn’t understand the study.
NO WHERE in the study did it say homosexuals lead shorter lives than heterosexuals.
Again, (and I keep repeating this in the hope that you understand the differences) the Hogg et al study said that homosexuals were PROJECTED to live shorter lives. (20 year old men were PROJECTED to have between 8 – 20 years less life expectancy) due (in part) to HIV / AIDS.
That is no longer the case, and those projections are no longer valid.
NO WHERE does the Hogg (et al.) research confirm Dr. Cameron’s “study” that homosexuals in fact live on average 24 years less than heterosexuals.
In fact – no one has confirmed Dr. Cameron’s study because his methodology was FLAWED.
You can’t count obituaries out of a gay newspaper and say that your research has any real scientific value. If you don’t understand why please read this explanation:
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,018.htm
Mr. Mills, it wasn’t the fact that “different methodologies” were used as the reasons they came up with different numbers – one was a legitimate study using proper science and drawing honest (if now proven to be incorrect) PROJECTIONS regarding life expectancy – the other was a guy with a religious agenda using a clearly flawed study to support his belief systems.
Which is why Dr. Cameron was dropped by the APA and censured by other scientific organizations for ethical violations.
“That’s similar to saying those who ingest crack live shorter lives. But if drug addicts are given drug cocktails that help to prevent the deleterious effects of controlled substances they’ll live longer.”
No sir. It’s not. That is a false analogy and again shows that you are not a scientist – nor do you have a real grasp of scientific methodology. I don’t mean that to be offensive – although I am sure it seems that way – you have to have a lot more than just a class in general science in college to really appreciate how scientific research works. I wish we actually taught science in schools but that is another debate for another day.
You didn’t understand the study and so you drew a false conclusion from it.
“What is the science behind the APAs change in the DSM?
If the evidence is so compelling then you should have no problem providing references to replicable studies. The problem is you can’t.”
I not only can – I did.
Listed at the Kinsey Institute link and the other link I provided you with – are over 200 studies that support the APA position. The APA – and multiple other scientific organizations have researched this in depth over the last 40 years.
Science supports my position.
The problem seems to be that you don’t understand science and you wish to pick and choose what information you desire to support your position. That isn’t science.
Mr. Martin,
You wrote:
Bias exists in many forms…
Yes, it does. Science is interpreted by those with biases and agendas.
LeVay is a scientist, a homosexual and a former activist. When a scientist
who just so happens to be a homosexual who just so happens to be a former
activist says gay activism was the driving force behind the
APAs decision to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder, it is indeed
more difficult to accuse him of being biased against the APAs decision.
Then LeVay goes on to say the gay activism wasn’t as bad as Bieber,
Socarides and others claimed. This is a perfect example of what I’m talking
about and what you’re apparently trying to deny exists.
You wrote:
There were numerous studies done – since you don’t seem know of them
I asked a specific question which you did not answer. So again I ask you,
if science supported the gay activism behind the change to the DSM,
exactly what was that science?. The keyword is exactly. That
you provided a long list of unrelated articles tells me you probably don’t
know the science behind the decision.
Since I’m well aware of the history of the decision, perhaps it’s you with the
lack of understanding regarding science and statistics.
Saying there’s a huge difference between the conclusions to Cameron’s study
and International Journal of Epidemiology study is incorrect. There’s a
difference, yes. Huge, no. Both demonstrate homosexuals live shorter lives.
I’d say it’s you that doesn’t understand the IJE’s conclusion in regards to
drug cocktails.
You wrote:
Science supports my position.
The science that you claim supports you is the science that has been
“captured by an ultraliberal agenda, much of which we agree with as
citizens. However, we are alarmed with the damaging effect it is having
on our science, our practice, our credibility” and comes from “
well-intended but destructive forces [that] have invaded the very
foundation of mental health, threatening its credibility, distorting its
science, and exposing its patients to possible harm.”
So say liberals in the field. Since that’s the science you claim is valid
you’re welcome to it. The rest of us will work together for a less biased
agenda driven science.
Once again: If the
evidence is so compelling then you should have no problem providing
references to related and replicable studies. The problem is you can’t provide references to related and replicable studies and can only provide long lists of unrelated studies.
Once again Mr. Mills -
I provided links to specific empirical scientific studies which were used to determine whether or not homosexuality was a mental illness. They are not “unrelated articles” as you claim. The Kinsey Institute will send you copies of the original studies and data if you ask them nicely and send postage.
There are literally hundreds of studies in the Kinsey files alone.
If your position is intellectually honest – you will look at those studies and their conclusions before responding. The evidence is overwhelming that homosexuality is not a mental illness or disorder.
The other major link I provided lists study after study that supported the APA position AFTER the initial determination that homosexuality was not a mental disorder – with the names and dates of those studies and their authors / publishers.
You can certainly educate yourself – if you choose to – by simply Googling the studies / asking the people who conducted those studies to provide you with copies of them. Most will, for the cost of postage.
You seem to want some sort of single study to disagree with. I’m sorry – the case is not that flimsy.
In science there is seldom one “EXACT” study that determines anything, Mr. Mills.
Studies have to be repeated, examined, debated. The methodology is questioned as is their logical base. Studies are pieces of a puzzle that are viewed in context and interpreted by multiple scientists and organizations like the APA.
The APA looked at studies by Hooker / Kinsey / and others to make their decision to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973.
There is no debate in that, Mr. Mills.
It is factually what happened. You seem to wish to debate the issue again – which is fine if you bring some new empirical information to the table – but until that time the debate is over.
You may not agree with the APA decision – you may question their motivations – but in the end the decision was based on empirical evidence and their interpretation of it. That evidence – at the time – as I mentioned before, included the now famous reports of Hooker and Kinsey amongst others. I have to believe if you are as knowledgeable in this field as you claim – that you would know that.
Since that time – literally hundreds of other studies have supported the APA conclusions. Also, other scientific bodies have also debated the evidence and come to the same conclusion as the APA. You have yet to even acknowledge their existence.
As for the claims that the APA would fall victim to protests by gay activists – the APA stands up against the most powerful lobby in the world (Christianity) on a daily basis – it hardly would crumble because of a few shouting homosexuals in the early 1970’s.
The APA decision was based on evidence (Which again, I have previously linked to and is open for you to research in depth if you choose to).
As with all science – the issue is still open for further examination if you have new evidence – and over the last 35 years the evidence that has been presented has not only supported the APA position remove homosexuality as a mental disorder – but the evidence had led the APA to proclaim homosexuality as a normal behavior within a certain percentage of the population.
Homosexuality is a NOT a mental illness.
Homosexuality is a normal way that a certain percentage of the population expresses their sexuality.
That is the current scientific position – it is supported by hundreds of studies.
That you don’t understand the APA process – or why they would drop someone like Dr. Cameron from their ranks (who you initially claimed had been “cleared by the APA”) – means simply you have a lack of understanding regarding how science works.
Dr. Cameron, despite his degree – is not a scientist. He is an advocate. The fact that you can’t tell the difference between science and Dr. Cameron’s pseudo-science just means you haven’t been exposed to real science to any great degree.
I suspect that Dr. Cameron sells his pseudo-studies to boost his ego, to make himself a beacon to the religious right – to make a living – and maybe he even fools himself in the process (I certainly don’t know but that is highly possible).
The only thing I do know is that his work is flawed and he is unethical.
I provided a link which describes in detail the flaws in Dr. Cameron’s work – and how he dishonestly promoted his work as being peer reviewed. I can tell from your post you didn’t read it.
At first post you defended Dr. Cameron saying that he was victim of a “witch hunt” and had been cleared by the APA and then resigned. Your initial position was factually inaccurate – based on Dr. Cameron’s own posting of the documents and the links I provided – do you still claim that is true?
(Hopefully not)
You claimed that Dr. Cameron’s work was supported by the Hoggs et al study
published in the International Journal of Epidemiology. However as I have explained on multiple occasions now – they do NOT both show that homosexuals live shorter lives.
One showed a POSSIBLE shortening of life expectancy based on many assumptions – the other showed (at the very most) the average age of obituaries published in a couple of gay magazines.
I can see where you might want to think they are related – they both have the phrases, “homosexuality” and “Life Expectancy” – but other than that they have nothing in common.
(Hopefully you now understand the differences between the reports)
Conservative, fundamentalist, Christians want to “believe” in people like Dr. Cameron (and anyone else who supports their beliefs) – and apparently logic and science won’t change their belief system.
Faith (by definition) is an acceptance of information that is not backed by evidence. The more facts challenge beliefs – the stronger their faith.
Where do you stand. Did you honestly examine all of the studies that have been done that show homosexuality to be “normal” – or do you just pick and choose a few people who support you already in place belief system?
I have no dog in the “homosexual” hunt – Mr. Mills. I’m not gay. I don’t really even know too many gay people – and I don’t care about homosexuality one way or the other. It has a zero impact on my life.
I debate people like you in an effort to show what science is and isn’t and to defend against religious nut-cases who misuse science.
You keep quoting individual scientists , Mr. Mills.
While you place a great deal of weight in those people who agree with your position – Science is NOT interpreted by individual scientists.
So it really doesn’t matter what Simon LeVay thinks or says. It doesn’t matter that a Wright and Cummings claim to be liberal and think that the APA has been hijacked by super-liberals.
You don’t seem to get that.
The only thing science cares regarding Dr. LeVay is that his studies are peer reviewed, logical, and repeatable – unlike Dr. Cameron’s. The only thing science cares about is if Wright and Cummings have empirical evidence which contradicts the studies that have been presented in the past.
PS: They don’t.
The quote:
““captured by an ultraliberal agenda, much of which we agree with as
citizens. However, we are alarmed with the damaging effect it is having
on our science, our practice, our credibility†and comes from “
well-intended but destructive forces [that] have invaded the very
foundation of mental health, threatening its credibility, distorting its
science, and exposing its patients to possible harm.â€
Doesn’t mean anything, Mr. Mills.
It is meaningless in a scientific context. I appreciate the fact that you agree with it – and treat it like some sort of Gospel – but it is nothing from a scientific standpoint.
Again, if the authors have evidence of specific studies being distorted – then they certainly have an obligation to present that information to the scientific bodies that they belong to.
Otherwise – they are just out to sell books, sir.
If they conduct their own ethical – methodologically correct – research and draw different conclusions than have been drawn in the past – they certainly have an obligation to publish those findings.
To my knowledge, they haven’t done that.
I ordered their book and will read it as soon as I get the chance – but the bottom line is that science currently and very strongly supports the position that homosexuals are not mentally ill.
I doubt the Wright/Cummings book comes to any other conclusion because that would be quite amazing and make headlines all over the world. They would probably be awarded a Nobel prize because of such a huge breakthrough.
I have provided links to MULTIPLE studies which give evidence to support the APA position.
You have ignored those links, why?
Is your belief system so weak that it can’t handle reading the studies and conclusions posted by scientists that may show your preconceived beliefs to be in error? – or are you just intellectually lazy and want to have other people do your thinking for you.
I have read several studies in this field. I don’t pretend to understand everything but there is a strong body of evidence that shows the APA decision was correct.
There is not a single smoking gun, Mr. Mills.
Again, science does NOT work that way… there IS however a body of evidence which supports the current APA position. You ignore it at your own ignorance.
(And again – the APA is NOT the only organization in the world that has come to the conclusion that homosexuality is a normal human behavior – something you have yet to address.)
As for the Hogg et al study supporting Dr. Cameron you claim, “There’s a difference, yes. Huge, no. Both demonstrate homosexuals live shorter lives.”
NO THEY DON’T!
Mr. Mills, please understand this:
One study (Hoggs et al) “PROJECTED” – (at the risk of being rude – do you understand what the word “PROJECTED” means?)
The Hogg et al. study – PROJECTED that homosexuals at age 20 – living in an urban center in Canada – IF HIV/AIDS deaths continued at the growing rate that researchers predicted – and IF homosexuals continued to take the same risks sexually that researchers predicted – and IF their projected rates of exposure to HIV / AIDS held up – THEN – their research PROJECTED that homosexual men aged 20 years old could POSSIBLY expect to live between 8 – 20 years less than heterosexuals.
The other study – DETERMINED (based on flawed methodology) – that homosexuals live 24 years less than their heterosexual counterparts.
In science – that is a WORLD of difference.
You ask repeatedly for evidence that the APA based their decisions on – and I am not sure if you are just playing stupid or if you really don’t understand – but I have posted that information already.
I have already published links to studies done by Hooker / Kinsey and others I listed – including links to the APA which clearly explains the information they used to come to the conclusion that homosexuality was NOT a mental illness.
I have once again answered your question – the fact that you refuse to look at the answer – only shows your prejudice in the matter.
Mr Martin,
You wrote:
I provided links to specific empirical scientific studies which were
used to determine whether or not homosexuality was a mental illness.
Let’s take a look starting with the first link you provided from the
Kinsey Institute
Staff Publications. From the top of their page:
That doesn’t seem relevant. Let’s take a more detailed look:
The first listing:
Men With Broken Condoms: Who and Why? Sexually Transmitted Infections
Hmm. Nothing to do with the APAs decision.
The second listing:
Does oral contraceptive-induced reduction in free testosterone adversely affect the sexuality or mood of women?
Hmm. Nothing to do with the APAs decision.
And on and on continues the list of unrelated studies.
The second link you provided was entitled Facts About Homosexuality and Mental
Health from the psychology department at UC Davis. If we follow the
link backwards a little we see
Sexual Orientation:
Science, Education, and Policy. The page starts with:
An interesting page to say the least. Dr. Gregory Herek is a gay activist.
Since we apparently agree that biases and agendas exist, let’s look at
some of Dr. Herek’s work to check for any hint of biases or agendas.
I believe Dr. Herek wrote the brief on behalf of the APA for
Romer v. Evans. In it, Dr Herek referenced the extremely flawed Hooker study.
Even you referenced Dr. Hooker as a valid source. It appears your earlier
admission “for the most part much of this debate is beyond my area of
expertise” was a huge understatement.
At the outset, this is not looking too good for Dr. Herek.
Dr. Herek also referenced Dr. John de Cecco, who is a gay activist himself.
I met Dr. de Cecco when he was a professor and
psychologist at San Francisco State University. At that time Dr. de Cecco
was the editor of the now defunct Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia.
Dr. de Cecco used to teach students that paedophilia was not harmful to
children.
Dr. Herek also referenced Dr. John Money, who wrote about the positive
aspects of man/boy intergenerational intimacy in PAIDIKA: The Journal of
Paedophilia.
Dr. Herek also referenced lesbian and activist Dr. Charlotte Patterson, who
was cited for refusing to turn over her research notes in Lawrence v. Texas.
If I remember correctly she was citing her own work, but I may be confusing
Dr. Patterson with Dr. Susan Cochran. Either way Dr. Herek refenced both
Dr. Patterson and Dr. Cochran, both gay activists.
There wasn’t a single reference to the science behind the APAs decision
in the article from Dr. Herek that you provided. Those who seek a more
balanced approach to science are not going to find it from Dr. Herek.
Your third link from wikipedia was for Dr. Evelyn Hooker. From the page:
Finally we have one vague reference to the APAs decision but no references
to the actual science behind the decision. So, what was the science behind
Hooker’s study that contributed to the APAs decision?
My previous statement stands. Despite your repeated protestations and
affirmations, you still haven’t provided a reference to the science behind
the APAs decision. To be valid any studies you reference have to be related
and replicable.
Again I ask you: What was the science behind the APAs decision?
Mr. Mills,
“That doesn’t seem relevant…”
Since you apparently are unable to do proper research – despite being given a link to follow – here are a FEW of the publications listed by the Kinsey Institute which led to the APA deciding to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973.
For the record: They were listed exactly where I told you to look. What you would have needed to do – is click the link that was dated before 1973, for example:
http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/publications/ki-pubs.html#1956-1941
and then examine the list to find which titles could be relevant to the subject of homosexuality. I guess that was asking a lot – but it isn’t that hard to do – I promise.
Again, if you write the Kinsey Institute nicely and offer postage / reproduction costs – they will almost always send copies of their studies and publications to you. Then you can look at the same stuff the APA looked at while they were debating this issue 35 years ago.
(Or you could try to find these articles / reports at your local library. There is a lot of great information there if you really wish to find it)
Again, these are FEW of the reports and published studies / reviews of scientific literature prior to 1973 that were relevant to the APA decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM.
This is by NO MEANS the entirety of the evidence, Mr. Mills – this is simply from ONE organization:
Try reading:
Bell, A.P. (1972). Human sexuality: A response. International Journal of Psychiatry, 10(1):99-102.
Christenson, C.V. (1972). Kinsey revisited. The Review, 14(3):11-18. (Indiana University Alumni Association of the College of Arts and Sciences.)
Gebhard, P.H. (1972). Human sexual behavior. Biology Today, (pp. 837-857). Del Mar, CA: CRM Books.
Gebhard, P.H. (1972). Incidence of overt homosexuality in the United States and Western Europe. In J.M. Livingood, (Ed.), National Institute of Mental Health Task Force on Homosexuality: Final report and background papers, (pp. 22-29). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Pomeroy, W.B. (1972). Dr. Kinsey and the Institute for Sex Research. New York: Harper & Row.
Weinberg, M., & Bell, A. (1972). Homosexuality: An annotated bibliography. New York: Harper Row.
Gebhard, P.H. (1971). Human sexual behavior, (also preface and Appendix). In D. Marshall & R. Suggs (Eds.), Human Sexual Behavior: Variations in the Ethnographic Spectrum. New York: Basic Books.
Marshall, D., & Suggs, R., (Eds.). (1971). Human Sexual Behavior: Variations in the Ethnographic Spectrum. (Published as a volume in the Institute for Sex Research Monograph Series, Studies in Sex and Society.) New York: Basic Books.
Williams, C.J., & Weinberg, M.S. (1971). Homosexuals and the Military: A Study of Less than Honorable Discharge. New York: Harper and Row.
Return to Top
Bell, A.P. (1970). Role modelship and interaction in adolescence and young adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 2(1):123-128.
Gagnon, J.H., & Simon, W. (1970). Prospects for change in American sexual patterns. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 4(1):110-117.
Gebhard, P.H. (1970). Preface. In A. Shiloh (Ed.), Studies in Human Sexual Behavior: The American Scene. Springfield, Illinois: C.C. Thomas.
Gebhard, P.H., Raboch, J., & Giese, H. (1970). The Sexuality of Women. Translated by Colin Bearne. New York: Stein and Day. (Originally published as Die Sexualitat der Frau).
Weinberg, M.S. (1970). Homosexual samples: Differences and similarities. Journal of Sex Research, 6(4):312-325.
Weinberg, M.S. (1970). The male homosexual: Age related variations in social and psychological characteristics. Social Problems, 17(4):529-537.
Williams, C., & Weinberg, M.S. (1970). Being discovered: A study of homosexuals in the military. Social Problems, 18(2).
Williams, C., & Weinberg, M.S. (1970). The military: Its processing of accused homosexuals. American Behavioral Scientist, 14(2):203-217.
Bell, A.P. (1969). Adolescent sexuality and the schools. North Central Association Quarterly, 43(4):342-347.
Bell, A.P. (1969). Role modeling of fathers in adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 16(1):30-35.
Bell, A.P. (1969). The Sylla and Charydis of psychosexual development. Journal of Sex Research, 5(2):86-89.
Elias, J.E., & Gebhard, P.H. (1969). Sexuality and sexual learning in childhood: Research and Possible Implications for Education. Phi Delta Kappan, 1(7):401-405.
Weinberg, M.S. (1969). The aging male homosexual. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 3(12):66-67, 72.
Christenson, C.V. (1968). Kinsey, Alfred C. The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, (pp. 389-390). New York: Crowell-Collier.
Elias, J.E. (1968). Current research–sexual patterns and attitudes on campus. Proceedings of the Illinois State Deans Meeting. Southern Illinois University Press, April.
Gagnon, J.H. (1968). Sexual behavior: Deviation: Social aspects. The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 14:215-221. New York: Crowell-Collier.
Gagnon, J.H., & Simon, W. (1968). Sex education and human development. In P.J. Fink (Ed.), Human Sexual Function and Dysfunction. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis.
Gagnon, J.H., & Simon, W. (1968). Sex talk–public and private. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 25(2):173.
Gagnon, J.H., & Simon, W. (1968). Sexual deviance in contemporary America. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 376:106-122. Philadelphia.
Gagnon, J.H., & Simon, W. (1968). The social meaning of prison homosexuality. Federal Probation, np. March
Gebhard, P.H. (1968). Homosexual socialization. In J. Ibor (Ed.), Proceedings of the World Congress of Psychiatry, (pp 1028-1031). Excerpta Medica International Congress Series, No 150.
Gebhard, P.H. (1968). Human sex behavior research. In M. Diamond (Ed.), Perspectives in Reproduction and Sexual Behavior, (pp. 391-410). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Gebhard, P.H. (1968). Projects since the Kinsey Reports. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 2(4):51-55.
Gebhard, P.H., Raboch, J., & Giese, H. (1968). Die Sexualitat der Frau. Frinbeck bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Verlag.
Simon, W., & Gagnon, J.H. (1968). On psychosexual development. In D.A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sonenshein, D. (1968) The ethnography of male homosexual relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 4(2):69-83.
Gagnon, J.H., & Simon, W. (Eds.). (1967). Sexual Deviance. New York: Harper and Row.
Gagnon, J.H., & Simon, W. (1967). The sociological perspective on homosexuality. Dublin Review, 510:96-114.
Gebhard, P.H. (1967). Normal and criminal sexual behavior at older ages. Beitrage zur Sexualforschung, 41(2):83-87.
Pomeroy, W.B., & Gebhard, P.H. (1967). Human sexual behavior. Encyclopedia Britannica (pp. 299-301).
Pomeroy, W.B., & Christenson, C.V. (1967). Characteristics of male and female sexual responses. SIECUS Discussion Guide No 4, 11 pp. New York: Sex Information and Education Council of The United States.
Simon, W., & Gagnon, J.H. (1967). Femininity in the lesbian community. Social Problems, 15(2): 212-221.
Simon, W., & Gagnon, J.H. (1967). Homosexuality: The formulation of a sociological perspective. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 8(3):177-185.
Simon, W., & Gagnon, J.H. (1967). The lesbians: A preliminary overview. In J.H. Gagnon, & W. Simon (Eds.), Sexual Deviance, (pp. 247-282). New York: Harper and Row.
Simon, W., & Gagnon, J.H. (1967). The pedagogy of sex. Saturday Review, 91:74-76.
Christenson, C.V., & Gagnon, J.H. (1965). Sexual behavior in a group of older women. Journal of Gerontology, 20:3:351-356.
Gagnon, J.H. (1965). Sexuality and sexual learning in the child. Psychiatry, 28:212-228.
Gebhard, P.H. (1965). Situational factors affecting human sexual behavior. In F. Beach (Ed)., Sex and Behavior, (pp. 483-495). New York: John Wiley.
Pomeroy, W.B., & Gebhard, P.H. (1965). Sexual behavior. Encyclopedia Britannica, 20(3):351-356.
Pomeroy, W.B. (1963). Human sexual behavior. In Norman L. Faberow (Ed), Taboo Topics, (pp. 22-23). New York: Atherton Press.
Leser, Hedwig. (1961). The Hirschfeld Institute for Sexology. In A. Ellis, & A.R. Abarbanal, (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Sexual Behavior, 2:967-970. New York: Hawthorne Books.
Pomeroy, W.B. (1961). The Institute for Sex Research. In A. Ellis & A.R. Abarbanal (Eds.). Encyclopedia of Sexual Behavior, 2:970-975. New York: Hawthorne Books.
Pomeroy, W.B. (1960). An analysis of questions on sex. Psychological Record, 10:(3):191-201.
Kinsey, A.C., Gebhard, P.H., & Christenson, C.V. (1957). Hormonal faktorers betydning for den seksuelle adfared. In H. Hoffmeyer (Ed.), Samliv og Samfund, (pp 230-258). Copenhagen: Hassings Forlag.
Kinsey, A.C., Pomeroy, W.B., Martin, C.E., & Gebhard, P.H. (1953). Sexual Behavior in the Human Female Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders. (Paperback–New York: Pocket Books, 1965).
Kinsey, A.C., Pomeroy, W.B., Martin, C.E., & Gebhard, P.H. (1949). Concepts of normality and abnormality in sexual behavior. In P.H. Hock, & J. Zubin (Eds.), Psychosexual Development in Health Disease, (pp. 11-32). New York: Grune and Stratton.
Kinsey, A.C., Pomeroy, W.B., & Martin, C.E. (1948). Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Philadelphia: W.B.
Kinsey, A.C. (1947). Sex behavior in the human animal. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 47:635-637.
Kinsey, A.C. (1947). Sex behavior in the human male. In S. Bernard Wortis, et al., Physiological and psychological factors in sex behavior. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 47:603-664.
Kinsey, A.C. (1941). Criteria for a hormonal explanation of the homosexual. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology, 1:424-428.
Again sir, as you pointed out, those are just articles written by Kinsey Institute members / staff. There were other voices that added to the data – if you contact the APA and ask nicely I am sure they will send you a list.
Hooker, of course, provided more data to the discussion – and was one of the more “famous” studies regarding homosexuality – but she was by no means the only study looked at.
You see Mr. Mills, the APA had all of this information to look over for several years leading up to their decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM.
It was not ONE report – but a body of writing / research that led them to their conclusion.
You seem to want to debate the validity of a single study and a single organization.
I suppose the mentality behind your strategy is that you hope to shoot down a single study so that your views will triumph, but again, science doesn’t work that way, Mr. Mills.
As far as the Hooker study being “flawed” – you offer no evidence of that – and even if you did – it would mean very little. Did the flaws effect the conclusion? Were the conclusions logical / was the evidence legitimate and unbiased?
Science is built on multiple pieces of evidence. The evidence that homosexuality is not a mental disorder is overwhelming, sir. Regardless of your personal attitude towards it or the APA – the evidence is there to see if you are willing to examine it.
I am afraid that so far – you have chosen to play the part of ostrich and hide your head in the sand.
You fail to acknowledge the existence of the studies i linked to (or any of the dozens of others which can be discovered with just the slightest effort).
You claim these reports / articles are “unrelated studies”. How would you know – you never read them.
You are wrong, Mr. Mills, these are not unrelated studies – these are pieces of the puzzle.
In order to get the puzzle to say homosexuality is NOT normal – You must rebut ALL the research – not just Hooker / Kinsey.
You must show flaws in all of the studies and reports both before and after the 1973 APA decision.
That’s what it takes to reverse the science.
Either that or you must present new evidence that shows better methodology, clearer research and more logical conclusions.
Dr. Cameron’s best shot was to lie about being peer-reviewed / send out press releases to religious organizations and claim the average age of obituaries in a gay newspaper is a reliable indicator of homosexual life expectancy.
Thats the best argument he could come up using his PhD.
You seem to believe that science has a pro-homosexual agenda. (I know you have it on great authority – a couple of “liberal” scientists put something to that effect in a book they wrote) -
However in order to overturn the research / studies / articles that are listed above you have to do better than that.
Sadly, you believe that the critiques of the science involved / scientific organizations is proof that science doesn’t work. You are wrong, Mr. Mills – critiques of the science and the organizations is proof that science IS working. That is how science works – people challenge the methodology / results. They debate, argue, criticize – that isn’t a weakness sir – that is the strength of science.
After the debates and the critiques and all of that – science in multiple disciplines from around the world – in study after study – has shown that being gay is not a mental disorder.
I understand that you believe that the gay activists have corrupted the science. But – the evidence you have presented comes no where near showing such a massive corruption across multiple scientific disciplines, scientific organizations across the globe…
Mr. Mills, you are not a scientist – nor do you seem to have any education in the methodology of science. Otherwise you would understand how ludicrous your claim sounds.
I’m sure Rush Limbaugh and others try to convince their listeners of that it’s all just one study, a few corrupt academics – but that isn’t how science works.
You are an advocate – and you want desperately for science to be wrong so your religious / personal views can be right. Science must be sad to be you when it points in a different direction.
In your post you attacked several different scientists on a personal level – calling them gay activists / homosexuals with an agenda – but you have not looked at their research or debated their findings at all.
You simply have pointed your finger at them and declared their work “wrong” or “tainted”. You dismiss a mountain of evidence and pretended not to see it – because you read some religious pamphlet that claims such evidence doesn’t exist. You claim that the scientists you listed are gays / and gay activists – which may or may not be true (it’s irrelevant). But the question you should be asking is how are they in the standing of their peers – is their research valid, reviewed, repeatable? Does their work follow logical and methodical ideas?
That is what is relevant.
I see you’ve given up defending Dr. Cameron’s record of flawed research and ethical violations – which at least is a start; and you seem to have stopped claiming his research was supported by legitimate scientific research (which it wasn’t); so we are making some progress.
Now I suggest you send off for some of those publications listed – or find them in your local library – and look at them.
The evidence for the APA removal of homosexuality from the DSM started back in the 40’s with Kinsey – and built up over time and evidence. As you can see more and more evidence started coming forward in the late 60’s / early 70’s. That is why the APA acted when they did.
Look at it honestly and you’ll then start to see what the APA looked at when they made their decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM.
If you feel really strongly after reviewing all the evidence – if you have proof the methodology was flawed, the conclusions reached were untenable, then go back to school get a degree in psychology / psychiatry – join the APA and make your case.
However, no matter how much you complain here or on the web – the debate is over.
The APA looked at the body of evidence – which included many of the articles / studies / reports I listed above (and a whole lot more) – they debated the issue – and came to the conclusion that homosexuality was not a mental illness.
It really is that simple.
Since that time hundreds of other studies / articles / papers have been written / debated / published – and guess what – they SUPPORT the APA decision.
Again, you have failed to note that multiple other scientific organizations have also changed their minds regarding homosexuality. You are trying to debate one scientific institution and one scientific study – but the fact is there are dozens of scientific institutions and hundreds of scientific studies which support the removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder.
The bottom line Mr. Mills – is that the evidence is there if you want to see it. If you don’t want to see it… then you’ll stop looking after you find a couple of articles which have nothing to so with the subject at hand.
Oh wait – you already did that.
Mr. Martin,
I’m going to ignore your personal attacks and misdirection.
You wrote:
Again, these are FEW of the reports and published studies / reviews of scientific literature prior to 1973 that were relevant to the APA decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM.
I’m quite familiar with the history, when it happened and the extremely small number of studies behind the APAs decision. I’ve known all along what studies were used which is why I used the word exactly with you. From the outset it was very obvious you didn’t know what studies were used.
You wrote:
As far as the Hooker study being “flawed” – you offer no evidence of that – and even if you did – it would mean very little. Did the flaws effect the conclusion? Were the conclusions logical / was the evidence legitimate and unbiased?
That one paragraph speaks volumes. It is obvious to anyone with a cursory knowledge of the issues how flawed Hooker’s study is. Dr. Hooker demonstrated a blatant disregard for scientific principles. Did the flaws effect the conclusion? You’ve got to be kidding. Was the conclusions logical / was the evidence legitimate and unbiased? Stop. You’re killing me. Next you’ll be telling me tea leaves are part of legitimate science.
I hope it isn’t but if that’s what you call science then you’re welcome to it. I encourage you to get past the titles and actually read the studies.
Sorry a typographical error:
“You are an advocate – and you want desperately for science to be wrong so your religious / personal views can be right. Science must be sad to be you when it points in a different direction.”
should read:
“You are an advocate – and you want desperately for science to be wrong so your religious / personal views can be right. It must be sad to be you when science points in a different direction.”
I didn’t have a chance to proofread prior to posting earlier – my apologies for that and other smaller errors in grammar, punctuation and phrasing.
I think however, you get the general point.
Mr. Martin,
It’s interesting that you repeatedly mention my personal and religious views even though I’ve never brought them to the discussion. And your mention of Rush Limbaugh brought a smile to my face.
Yes, I’m an advocate. An advocate for the truth. The truth is something that has continued to elude you in this discussion.
I hope you read Wright and Cummings’ book, and I really hope you finally realize the blatant disregard for scientific principles that Dr. Hooker exhibited.
What I find really sad is you’ve bought the lie, hook, line and sinker from Mark Pietrzyk and Andrew Sullivan in regards to Dr. Paul Cameron. Everything you’ve posted in regards to Dr. Paul Cameron had it source from these two homosexual activists. I traced it years ago. And then to top it all off, you chastise Dr. Paul Cameron and yet have no clue as to the methods used by Dr. Hooker.
You’re probably thinking Dr. Hooker’s methods were valid because the APA used her study for their decision. Incredible. Perhaps Wright and Cummings will set you on the right track.
Mr. Mills -
If you knew what studies were used and pretended not to – then your debate has been intellectually dishonest and unethical. If you wanted to debate the Hooker study because you believed it to be the ’single flawed bullet used by the APA’ – then you should have just said so – but regardless of that…
The Hooker Study was only one small piece of a still being examined puzzle. That it had errors is not unusual – however, her study has been replicated on multiple occasions with similar results – using several different methodologies and many different researchers. And again, a fact you keep failing to address, more than one scientific body has examined the results of those studies and come to the same conclusions as the APA.
From a “scientific” standpoint – there is no debate, sir. That you fail to understand how science works – is sad – but ultimately this debate won’t solve that.
Homosexuality is a “normal” way that a certain percentage of humans express their sexuality. That is the what the scientific community has to say on the issue.
If you wish to condemn homosexual behavior – you can’t look to science to help you in your argument. It’s pretty much the same thing as if you wished to claim “Intelligent Design” is accurate and evolution is not.
I am sorry that science does not support your belief system. You can focus all you want on how “few” studies you believe were done and then debate them as a layman till the cows come home – but in doing so you are only lying to yourself and you are ignoring the vast amount of research that was done by many, many people all over the world and overseen by multiple scientific organizations both before and after the 1973 APA decision.
“…if that’s what you call science then you’re welcome to it.”
Yes, it is what I call science, and it’s also what the APA and hundreds of other scientific bodies call science.
I’ll take science that way – over mythology – any day.
I never pretended not to know what studies were used and I never said the Hooker study was the only study to discuss. Your lack of knowledge on the subject is not my problem. I merely asked you what studies were used because it was obvious you didn’t know even though you apparently thought you knew. Your statement that the Hooker study was only one small piece demonstrates you really have no idea what you’re talking about.
None of the studies used are either related or replicable, and that’s part of true science but don’t let bias or lack of knowledge of the facts get in your way.
I just wish I could see the look on your face when you realize I’ve been right all along. What you may not know is 4 years after the APA made their decision, 68% of the approximately 40,000 members disagreed with the decision when only 58% of approximately 10,000 members voted for the removal. You have much more to learn about the APAs decision than you realize.
You wrote:
science does not support [my] belief system.
You don’t even know what I believe but you have no problem telling me what I believe. That tells me a lot about you.
The mythology you project is yours.
Mr. Mills,
“Your statement that the Hooker study was only one small piece demonstrates you really have no idea what you’re talking about.”
Hooker WAS one small piece of the puzzle – along with the research and studies I posted – and many others.
“None of the studies used are either related or replicable, and that’s part of true science but don’t let bias or lack of knowledge of the facts get in your way.”
Mr. Mills – you have been brainwashed.
Hooker has been replicated on multiple occasions – using multiple methodologies. That is a fact, sir. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not – that particular study – because of it’s controversial nature has been replicated many times with similar results. (Freedman in 1971 was a replication of the Hooker Study – and was also looked at by the APA.)
Sometimes those pamphlets they give you with the little cartoons – contain false information.
Here are some other paper’s the APA had available at the time to consider as well – these are in addition to the ones I listed earlier -
Braaten, L., & Darling, C. (1965). Overt and covert homosexual problems among male college students. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 71, 269-310.
Dean, R. B., & Richardson, H. (1964). Analysis of MMPI profiles of forty college-educated overt male homosexuals. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 28, 483-486.
Horstman, W. R.. (1972). Homosexuality and psychopathology: A study of the MMPI responses of homosexual and heterosexual male college students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 33 (5-13): 2347.
Loney, J. (1971). An MMPI measurement of maladjustment in a sample of normal homosexual males. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 27, 486-488.
Manosevitz, M. (1970). Early sexual behavior in adult homosexual and heterosexual males. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 76, 396-402.
Manosevitz, M. (1970). Item analysis of the MMPI MF scale using homosexual and heterosexual males. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 35, 395-399.
Ohlson, E.L., & Wilson, L. (1971). Differentiating female homosexuals from female heterosexuals by use of the MMPI. Journal of Sex Research, 10, 308-315.
Chang, J., & Block, J. (1960). A study of identification in male homosexuals. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 307-310.
Evans, R. B. (1971). Adjective Check List scores of homosexual men. Journal of Personality Assessment, 35, 344-349.
Thompson, N.L., McCandless, B.R., & Strickland, B.R. (1971). Personal adjustment of male and female homosexuals and heterosexuals. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 78, 237-240.
Evans, R. B. (1970). Sixteen personality factor questionnaire scores of homosexual men. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 34, 212-215.
Visser, R. S. (1971). The 16 PF scores of a group of homosexual students. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Haarhologie en Haar Grensgebrieden, 26, 159-168.
Wilson, M.L., & Green, R. L. (1971). Personality characteristics of female homosexuals. Psychological Reports, 28, 407-412.
Again – you only have to look a little to find a LOT.
The research – even in 1973 – was painting a very clear picture as to whether or not homosexuality was a mental “disorder”.
Like I said – you not only have to debate and overturn Kinsey and Hooker – but also literally hundreds of other studies and respected researchers. The empirical research started coming in more and more in the late 60’s and early 70’s – until it left no other conclusion: Homosexuality is not a mental illness.
You seem to believe everything Wright / Cummings claim in their book – do they claim homosexuality is a mental disorder? Or do you just believe them when they agree with you.
Your arguments as to understanding the science of homosexuality would be far more compelling is you hadn’t claimed that Dr. Cameron was the victim of a “witch hunt” (and that he had been “cleared” by the APA), and had you known the difference between a legitimate study regarding age projections and Dr. Cameron’s paper which averaged the ages of obituaries he found in gay magazines and claimed that to be proof homosexuals lived shorter lives.
I didn’t buy into anyone else’s opinions of Dr. Cameron – I went directly to his website and read his “rebuttal” of being kicked out of the APA. Then I read the documents HE posted on his website… No where does it say he was “cleared” – in fact the documents he posted show that he was “clearly” dropped by the APA.
His only argument is that he quit BEFORE he was dropped.
Not exactly a strong rebuttal of the charges made against him.
Even giving him the benefit of the doubt – that STILL doesn’t address the fact that several other scientific organizations have censured him as well. Dr. Cameron’s work must be viewed with extreme skepticism. If you can find similar charges against Simon LeVay and the other homosexual gay activist scientists that you didn’t agree with – I would view their work just as skeptically.
“I just wish I could see the look on your face when you realize I’ve been right all along.”
I suspect you’ll have the opportunity to see that “look on my face” about the same time Jesus “comes back” and the earth is proven to be only 6000 years old.
“What you may not know is 4 years after the APA made their decision, 68% of the approximately 40,000 members disagreed with the decision when only 58% of approximately 10,000 members voted for the removal.”
What you may not realize is – that is unimportant.
In 1954 removing homosexuality from the DSM was not even a consideration. However, as new evidence emerges and gets circulated – science changes to reflect the new information.
Today – I imagine the percentage of APA members who would vote to remove homosexuality from the DSM is probably in the high 90 percentile. What’s your point?
As the information and research becomes better known – science changes – that is what makes science better than mythology.
As far as your “beliefs” – No, sir. I don’t know specifically what they are. I just know from our conversation thus far that you have no understanding of how science works and that you are willing to support people like Dr. Cameron (with a long record of ethical violations) over legitimate scientists who may be homosexuals.
I’ll honestly read the Wright / Cummings book.
Maybe they make a well documented case that deserves consideration. Maybe. But I doubt their book overturns 50 years or research by multiple scientists and dozens of scientific organizations from around the world.
Maybe they are just two old ex-liberals who are unhappy with where the profession is going and they wanted to write a controversial book so they could sell more copies.
I don’t know.
I do know – that it will be very hard to refute all those papers / publications I listed…
and I only listed the ones before 1973.
(and I didn’t list ALL of them by any means…)
Mr. Martin,
You have misrepresented what I’ve said, inferred and assumed incorrectly, built and attacked straw man arguments and attacked my character.
You wrote:
Repeating what you find on the internet without actually verifying what you find makes you look all the more ignorant on the subject. If you were even remotely aware of Dr. Hooker’s study you would realize this, but you aren’t. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. None. Zilch. Goose egg. Nada. The more you talk about the Hooker study the more you come across as profoundly ignorant on the subject. The good news is there’s a cure for ignorance.
You wrote:
Pot.
Kettle.
Black.
I go to the source verify and everything.
Start your education on the subject and read Wright and Cummings.
Well, I go to the source and verify everything.
Mr. Martin,
I need to comment on something else you said.
You wrote:
Perhaps you forgot about the additional links you provided.
To state the obvious: You can’t drop somebody from membership of any organization when they’re not a member.
So let’s review what we have learned thus far…
1) Mr. Mills, you claimed that Dr. Cameron was the victim of a “witch hunt” (post #23) and that he had been “cleared” by the APA before resigning.(Post #21)
Factually – you were unable to support those claims.
I linked to Dr. Cameron’s own website to show that was not the case even by his own account. The people who claimed that Dr. Cameron was censured for ethical violations were not incorrect nor on a witch hunt – but rather accurately reporting dr. Cameron’s past.
2) Mr. Mills, you also claimed that a report by Hoggs (et al.) supported Dr. Cameron’s “study” which found that homosexuals live on average 24 years less than heterosexuals.
Factually – the Hoggs (et al.) Study projected that under a specific set of assumptions (including a quick and almost sure death from AIDS which was spreading rapidly at the time) that homosexuals at the age of 20 in an urban Canadian center – could expect to live between 8 – 20 years less than their heterosexual counterparts.
They Hoggs (et al.)issued a follow up report (that you failed to link to) which explained that the assumptions they based their initial projections on – have significantly changed. No longer was AIDS spreading as quickly as they projected and no longer was death certain and quick due to medical breakthroughs.
Basically, at the height of a heath epidemic (HIV) – a group of scientists projected the impact that AIDS could have on their community. Their initial projection – at the height of that health epidemic – was STILL 30% longer than what Dr. Cameron claimed was the average homosexual life expectancy.
Not exactly a replication of his results.
Then, in a follow up report, the Hoggs group determined that their initial assumptions regarding the spread of AIDS was vastly overstated.
Add to that the use of anti-virals to increase the life expectancy of those who had contracted the illness, along with education regarding condom usage – and Dr. Cameron’s work is shown to be even more unreliable as a predictor of homosexual life expectancy.
You were incorrect in your belief that the Hoggs study – supported Dr. Cameron’s work.
3) Mr. Mills, you stated that two liberal (by their own “admission”) scientists claimed that there was an “ultra-liberal” movement in social science which had basically hijacked groups like the American Psychiatric Association. (Post #28)
You failed to make any link to studies that were corrupted – or to any evidence other than the opinion of these two “liberal” scientists – to support that supposition.
These same scientists who you believe to be an authority on the subject of the APA – both apparently, actively, support the current APA position on homosexuality.
Are they experts when they criticize the APA but wrong when they support it?
If so, then you need to document the flaws in their thinking. Otherwise you list as experts, two gentlemen, who – overall – support my position in this debate.
4) You claim – through a long drawn out process – that the APA used the Evelyn Hooker study as the major (and perhaps only) source of information in their decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM in 1973.
You give no evidence to that claim – but rather chastised me for thinking it was only a “small piece of the puzzle” (Post #36)
Factually – I listed at least 75 studies / publications regarding homosexuality that were available to the APA at the time they made their decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM.
I also made a phone call to the APA office; they claim there were several hundred publications and pieces of evidence used in the 1973 decision.
Unless you have some conclusive proof that these people lied to me – the evidence is fairly obvious that more than Hooker was involved in the APA decision.
5) You claim the other publications / links I provided were unrelated, or unrepeatable in their methodology (Post #36) – but offer no proof of that.
Indeed it’s hard to believe that you could even argue that – seeing as how you couldn’t find them to begin with – and that you certainly didn’t bother to examine them in any depth in the short time between our posts.
6) You claim to know “exactly” what information was used by the APA but you never reveal that information.
Instead “testing” to see if my list could match your secret list – and if it couldn’t that would mean I would know “nothing” about the subject.
Gosh – that isn’t even worth refuting.
7) You imply that Hooker was the only study used – and that Hooker was flawed. That scientists still cite it – only invokes your ire (post #30).
I showed that multiple studies and research were used.
Oddly, I agree with you that Hooker was flawed.
In the 1950’s – the techniques and research models for most social science were highly flawed. However, what the Hooker Study did show – despite the flaws – was that there was no real difference between heterosexuals / homosexuals from an intelligence / personality standpoint.
Multiple studies since that time, using multiple methodologies, have supported Dr. Hooker’s results.
Which brings us to your last post…
“Repeating what you find on the internet without actually verifying what you find makes you look all the more ignorant on the subject. If you were even remotely aware of Dr. Hooker’s study you would realize this, but you aren’t. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. None. Zilch. Goose egg. Nada. The more you talk about the Hooker study the more you come across as profoundly ignorant on the subject. The good news is there’s a cure for ignorance.”
You claim then claim you always go right to the source.
Okay – I’ll play along.
If you have evidence of the flaws in Hooker’s initial study – and (more importantly) have evidence that the multiple follow-up studies replicated those flaws – please post it. Start with Freedman (1971)
The Hooker Study tests were straight forward and elegant in their simplicity. The idea of Rorschach, TAT, and MAPS tests (while now largely dismissed) only showed that professionals were unable to note any differences based on personality / intelligence tests between homosexuals and heterosexuals.
Again, those results have continued to be the case even using modern methodology.
There is no scientific reason to assume homosexuals are “mentally ill” or suffer from a “disorder”. None.
Dr. Hooker’s study can be found at:
http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/hooker.htm
Freedman’s can be found at:
http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/25/4/385
(subscription required)
As for my limited knowledge of the subject?
I read mostly college texts on the subject. They are peer reviewed and generally very reliable.
For debates online – I try to quote passages that are easily found on the Internet – that’s a courtesy to the reader.
I apologize for “insulting” you, Mr. Mills and making attacks on your character. I do that because I don’t think you are intellectually honest.
You claim to be an advocate for the truth – but you ignore the facts that don’t fit your theories. You have failed in multiple posts to acknowledge that there are multiple sources that support the current APA position on homosexuality: including the American Medical Association, The World Health Organization, and various other scientific bodies from around the world.
You also claimed the websites I linked to failed to list any evidence the APA used – which was at best factually inaccurate.
For example the UC Davis site (in which you attacked the author on a personal basis – but ignored all the evidence on the site)
listed these publications which support the APA position.
Bayer, R. (1987). Homosexuality and American psychiatry: The politics of diagnosis (2nd Ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bérubé, A. (1990). Coming out under fire: The history of gay men and women in World War II. New York: Free Press
Bickley, J., & Beech, A. R. (2001). Classifying child abusers: Its relevance to theory and clinical practice. International Journal Of Offender Therapy And Comparative Criminology, 45, 51-69.
Bieber, I., Dain, H., Dince, P., Drellich, M., Grand, H., Gundlach, R., Kremer, M., Rifkin, A., Wilbur, C., & Bieber, T. (1962). Homosexuality: A psychoanalytic study of male homosexuals. New York: Basic Books.
Blanchard, R., Barbaree, H. E., Bogaert, A. F., Dickey, R., Klassen, P., Kuban, M. E., & Zucker, K. J. (2000). Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 463-478.
Boswell, J. (1980). Christianity, social tolerance and homosexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bryant, A. (1977). The Anita Bryant story: The survival of our nation’s families and the threat of militant homosexuality. Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell.
Cameron, P. (1985). Homosexual molestation of children/sexual interaction of teacher and pupil. Psychological Reports, 57, 1227-1236.
Cameron, P. (2005). Child molestations by homosexual foster parents: Illinois, 1997-2002. Psychological Reports, 96, 227-230.
Cameron, P., Proctor, K., Coburn, W., Forde, N., Larson, H., & Cameron, K. (1986). Child molestation and homosexuality. Psychological Reports, 58, 327-337.
Chauncey, G., Jr. (1982/1983). From sexual inversion to homosexuality: Medicine and the changing conceptualization of female deviance. Salmagundi, No. 58-59, 114-146.
Cochran, S. D., & Mays, V. M. (2006). Estimating prevalence of mental and substance-using disorders among lesbians and gay men from existing national health data. In A.M. Omoto & H.S. Kurtzman (Eds.), Sexual orientation and mental health: Examining identity and development in lesbian, gay, and bisexual people (pp. 143-165). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Cochran, W.G., Mosteller, F., & Tukey, J.W. (1954). Statistical problems of the Kinsey report. Washington, DC: American Statistical Association.
Coleman, E. (1982) Changing approaches to the treatment of homosexuality: A review. In W. Paul, J. Weinrich, J. Gonsiorek & M. E. Hotvedt (Eds.), Homosexuality: Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues (pp. 81-88). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Davison, G.C. (1991). Constructionism and morality in therapy for homosexuality. In J. Gonsiorek & J. Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy (pp. 137-148). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
D’Emilio, J., & Freedman, E.B. (1988). Intimate matters: A history of sexuality in America. New York: Harper & Row.
Duberman, M.B., Vicinus, M., & Chauncey, G., Jr. (1989). Hidden from history: Reclaiming the gay and lesbian past. New York: New American Library.
Elliott, M., Browne, K., & Kilcoyne, J. (1995). Child sexual abuse prevention: What offenders tell us. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19, 579-594.
Ellis, H. (1901). Studies in the psychology of sex: Volume 2: Sexual inversion. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis.
Erickson, W.D., Walbek, N.H., & Seely, R.K. (1988). Behavior patterns of child molesters. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 17 (1), 77-86.
Fay, R.E., Turner, C.F., Klassen, A.D., & Gagnon, J.H. (1989). Prevalence and patterns of same-gender sexual contact among men. Science, 243, 338-348.
Fenichel, O. (1945). The psychoanalytic theory of neurosis. New York: W.W. Norton.
Finkelhor, D. (1984). Child sexual abuse: New theory and research. New York: Free Press.
Finkelhor, D., & Araji, S. (1986). Explanations of pedophilia: A four factor model. The Journal of Sex Research, 22 (2), 145-161.
Ford, C.S., & Beach, F.A. (1951). Patterns of sexual behavior. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Freedman, M. (1971). Homosexuality and psychological functioning. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Freud, S. (1905). Three essays on the theory of sexuality. In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud. (Vol. 7, pp. 123-245). London: Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1905)
Freund, K., Watson, R., & Rienzo, D. (1989). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and erotic age preference. The Journal of Sex Research, 26 (1), 107-117.
Gonsiorek, J.C. (1982). Results of psychological testing on homosexual populations. American Behavioral Scientist, 25 (4), 385-396.
Gonsiorek, J.C. (1991). The empirical basis for the demise of the illness model of homosexuality. In J. Gonsiorek & J. Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy (pp. 115-136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Groth, A.N., & Birnbaum, H.J. (1978). Adult sexual orientation and attraction to underage persons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 7 (3), 175-181.
Groth, A. N., & Gary, T. S. (1982). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and pedophilia: Sexual offenses against children and adult sexual orientation. In A.M. Scacco (Ed.), Male rape: A casebook of sexual aggressions (pp. 143-152). New York: AMS Press.
Groth, A.N., Hobson, W.F., & Gary, T.S. (1982). The child molester: Clinical observations. Journal of Social Work and Human Sexuality, 1 (1/2), 129-144.
Haldeman, D.C. (1991). Conversion therapy for gay men and lesbians: A scientific examination. In J. Gonsiorek & J. Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy (pp. 149-160). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Haldeman, D.C. (1994). The practice and ethics of sexual orientation conversion therapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62 (2), 221-227.
Hart, M., Roback, H., Tittler, B., Weitz, L., Walston, B., & McKee, E. (1978). Psychological adjustment of nonpatient homosexuals: Critical review of the research literature. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 39(7), 604-608.
Hatfield, L. (1989, June 5). Method of polling. San Francisco Examiner, p.A-20.
Herdt, G.H. (Ed.) (1984). Ritualized homosexuality in Melanesia. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hooker, E. (1957). The adjustment of the male overt homosexual. Journal of Projective Techniques, 21, 18-31.
Jay, K., & Young, A. (1977). The gay report: Lesbians and gay men speak out about sexual experiences and lifestyles. New York: Summit.
Jenny, C., Roesler, T. A., & Poyer, K. L. (1994). Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? Pediatrics, 94(1), 41-44.
Johnson, R.L., & Shrier, D. (1987). Past sexual victimization by females of male patients in an adolescent medicine clinic population. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 650-652.
Jones, E. (1957). Sigmund Freud: Life and work (Vol. 3). London: Hogarth.
Katz, J. N. (1976). Gay American history: Lesbians and gay men in the USA. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company.
Kinsey, A.C., Pomeroy, W.B., & Martin, C.E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders.
Kinsey, A.C., Pomeroy, W.B., Martin, C.E., & Gebhard, P.H. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders.
Klassen, A. D., Williams, C. J., & Levitt, E. E. (1989). Sex and morality in the U.S.: An empirical enquiry under the auspices of the Kinsey Institute. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
Knight, R. A. (1989). An assessment of the concurrent validity of a child molester typology. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4(2), 131-150.
Krugman, R. D. (1994). Sexual politics and child protection: They don’t mix [Commentary]. Pediatrics, 94, 45-46.
Lauman, E.O., Gagnon, J.H., Michael, R.T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lever, J., & Kanouse, D.E. (1996). Sexual orientation and proscribed sexual behaviors. In G. Herek, J. Jobe, & R. Carney (Eds.), Out in force: Sexual orientation and the military (pp. 15-38). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lewes, K. (1988). The psychoanalytic theory of male homosexuality. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Marshall, W. L., Barbaree, H. E., & Butt, J. (1988). Sexual offenders against male children: Sexual preference. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 26, 383-391.
Martin, A.D. (1984). The emperor’s new clothes: Modern attempts to change sexual orientation. In T. Stein & E. Hetrick (Eds.), Innovations in psychotherapy with homosexuals (pp. 24-57). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
Mays, V. M., & Cochran, S. D. (2001). Mental health correlates of perceived discrimination among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 91(11), 1869-76.
McConaghy, N. (1998). Paedophilia: A review of the evidence. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 32(2), 252-265.
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674-697.
Newton, D. E. (1978). Homosexual behavior and child molestation: A review of the evidence. Adolescence, 13, 29-43.
Rado, S. (1940). A critical examination of the concept of bisexuality. Psychosomatic Medicine, 2, 459-467.
Rado, S. (1949). An adaptational view of sexual behavior. In P.H. Hoch & J. Zubin (Eds.), Psychosexual development in health and disease (pp. 159-189). New York: Grune and Stratton.
Riess, B.F. (1980). Psychological tests in homosexuality. In J.Marmor (Ed.), Homosexual behavior: A modern reappraisal (pp. 296-311). New York: Basic Books.
Robinson, P. (1976). The modernization of sex. New York: Harper & Row.
Rogers, S.M., & Turner, C.F. (1991). Male-male sexual contact in the USA: Findings from five sample surveys, 1970-1990. The Journal of Sex Research, 28, 491-519.
Rosenthal, R. (1966). Experimenter effects in behavioral research. East Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Sandfort, T. G. M., de Graaf, R., Bijl, R. V., & Schnabel, P. (2001). Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders: Findings from the Netherlands mental health survey and incidence study (NEMESIS). Archives of General Psychiatry, 58(1), 85-91.
Schroeder, M., & Shidlo, A. (2001). Ethical issues in sexual orientation conversion therapies: An empirical study of consumers. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 5(3-4), 131-166.
Shidlo, A., & Schroeder, M. (2002). Changing sexual orientation: A consumers’ report. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33(3), 249-259.
Silverstein, C. (1991). Psychological and medical treatments of homosexuality. In J. Gonsiorek & J. Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy (pp. 101-114). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Silverthorne, Z. A., & Quinsey, V. L. (2000). Sexual partner age preferences of homosexual and heterosexual men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 67-76.
Socarides, C. (1968). The overt homosexual. New York: Grune and Stratton.
Terman, L.M. (1948). Kinsey’s “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male”: Some comments and criticisms. Psychological Bulletin, 45, 443-459.
Villarroel, M. A., Turner, C. F., Eggleston, E., Al-Tayyib, A., Rogers, S. M., Roman, A. M., Cooley, P. C., & Gordek, H. (2006). Same-gender sex in the United States: Impact of T-ACASI on prevalence estimates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 166-196.
Voeller, B. (1990). Some uses and abuses of the Kinsey scale. In D.P. McWhirter, S.A. Sanders, & J.M. Reinisch (Eds.), Homosexuality/heterosexuality: Concepts of sexual orientation (pp. 32-38). New York: Oxford University Press.
Wallis, W.A. (1949). Statistics of the Kinsey report. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 44, 463-484.
Williams, W.L. (1986). The spirit and the flesh: Sexual diversity in American Indian culture. Boston: Beacon.
That is over 100 publications I have listed which – I am fairly sure at least a few APA members have looked at. None of which I am fairly sure – you have looked at.
Again, Mr. Mills – The APA is aware of all of these studies and hundreds more – it has looked at the evidence and come to the conclusion that homosexuals are as “normal” as you are.
– which may in itself undermine my whole point…
I’m sorry you think the science is flawed. The science is NOT flawed, sir. Respectfully your position is.
If you have some compelling evidence that all of the articles I listed are lies – or are all written by gay activists – and that all of the statistical studies are some sort of a massive conspiracy to promote homosexuality… please don’t keep it a secret along with what “exact” studies the APA used.
Let me know – so I can look at the “truth” for myself…
I asked Danish epidemiologist Morten Frisch to review the Cameron study and he called it flawed. You can read his
entire statement here. The study claims to say something authoritative about gays who are married. A law only in
effect since 1989 cannot say anything about life expectancies less than 20 years later. Further, looking a married
gays says nothing about the 95% of those who are not married. I am not a gay advocate but one who cares about
accurate use of research.
Mr. Martin,
I accept your apology for insulting me and attacking my character, although you insert yet another insult in post 41. Also, you continue to infer and assume incorrectly.
While I don’t agree with Dr. Cameron on various issues and think Dr. Cameron could learn something from the benefits of diplomacy, he has been misrepresented numerous times by those who disagree with his various conclusions. Almost all of misrepresentations stem from Mark Pietrzyk and Andrew Sullivan or other homosexual activists.
I haven’t followed the issues surrounding Dr. Cameron nearly as closely as other issues. What caught my attention was when the APA officially dropped Dr. Cameron from membership when he wasn’t a member. I believe it was 13 months after he resigned.
When this caught my attention I started digging into the strange issue of the APA dropping Cameron when he wasn’t a member which, at that time, was when I found most of the misinformation on Dr. Cameron’s stemming from Pietrzyk and Sullivan, thus the term witch hunt.
Yes, I stated the Hoggs study supported Dr. Cameron’s study. I never said it was exactly a replication of [Dr. Camerson's] results as you stated. And I am quite familiar with their follow-up comments and since I agree with it in regards to using the study as an attack against rights I didn’t see the need to reference it.
Drug cocktails do indeed extend the life of HIV victims, both homosexual and heterosexual. Still, according to the CDC in 2003, 2004 and 2005, the rate of HIV transmission is returning to numbers similar to that in the 1980s along with other STDs. See here as well. Unfortunately, some states do not report HIV infection.
Some of the growth in HIV transmission among homosexuals is due to gift givers and bug chasers. If you’re not familiar with the terms… they are in reference to those who spread HIV to those who seek HIV infection, respectively. Here is an About article on the subject: Bug Chaser & Gift Giver Parties. Checkout the link to the film at the bottom of the article.
So while drug cocktails increase the life-span of those infected with HIV, the number of HIV cases are not dropping. There was a report of a new strain a couple of years ago that drug cocktails couldn’t help but I haven’t heard anything about it recently. What I see is that HIV is deadly, the number of HIV infections aren’t dropping and HIV appears to discriminate against, but is certainly not limited to, the homosexual community.
Regarding Wright and Cummings, read their book.
I never made the claim the APA used the Hooker study as the major or only source of information in their 1973 decision. This is an incorrect inference on your part. Although the Hooker study, flawed as it was, was used by Robert Spitzer in the decision, it was more than slightly influential in Spitzer’s decision.
Yes, some studies were written at the time of the decision. Were they used to make the decision? I’ve talked to and read original statements from some people who were there and part of the decision and they state otherwise. Is the APA lying to you? I certainly hope not for that is a big charge. Perhaps you should talk to some of those who were there.
Again, I am quite familiar with the history of the decision. I asked for specific information and used the word exactly in my request. You responded with a general link which wasn’t what I asked for. Poking fun at your reply may not have been the best response but it seemed appropriate given the more caustic remarks in your posts.
We agree the Hooker study was flawed, but it was more than flawed and it’s been cited over and over despite being discredited again and again. It was a homosexual scientist, Bieber, I think, who made the “reading tea leaves” comment in regards to her study.
Dr. Hooker studied rats not humans.
Dr. Hooker had no experience interpreting the Rorschach test.
Dr. Hooker didn’t like the results of the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) nor the Make a Picture Test (MAPS) results so she tossed the results and used the ROR results, which while having standard responses, is flawed and unreliable.
Dr. Hooker created her own standards for the heterosexuals in the test.
Dr. Hooker (and Kinsey) lacked a random sample. She snowballed the study. That is, she deliberately requested her associates to recruit both homosexual and heterosexual participants who understood the experiment. And this to obtain a political goal to change how society looked at homosexuals. She wrote about this a couple of years before she passed away. I believe it was 1993 in American Psychologist where she said: “I knew the men for whom the ratings were made, and I was certain as a clinician that they were relatively free of psycholopathology.” Three words summarize her study: agenda, agenda, agenda.
That’s off the top of my head. There is indeed more.
Spitzer used the above Hooker study in his presentation to the APA. He also used:
1: Robins and Saghir, Male and Female Homosexuality which was as poor as the Hooker study and criticized by peers.
2: A claim based on Kinsey’s flawed data, which was more flawed than Hooker’s, that “Exclusive homosexuality” was a normal part of the human condition.
3: The idea that homosexuality didn’t meet the requirements of a disorder as “it doesn’t regularly cause subjective distress or is regularly associated with some generalized impairment in social effectiveness or functioning.”
Spitzer’s presentation was the rationale used in the APA decision.
Hooker’s study was the only detailed study used in the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas brief! As previously mentioned this was written by homosexual activist Dr. Herek who misrepresented other studies. With homosexuals making up ~2% of the population, Dr. Herek seems to find and quote plenty of homosexual scientists and activists to support his homosexual activist worldview.
When insults aren’t flying off your keyboard you seem quite rational. Start with Wright and Cummings.
Besides everything discussed so far and I’m bringing this up because I believe it is related… despite the claims by homosexuals that they are born that way, there is no scientific evidence to support their claim. Loboinok referenced Dr. Collins from the Human Genome Project who stated homosexuality is not hardwired. Rather, what we do see in study after study is that environment is very important.
It is truly sad that some people infer same-sex attraction from certain traits or gifts. These same traits or gifts are simply what they are, traits and gifts and imply nothing else. What some people try to imply is the predisposition causes same-sex attraction. It doesn’t. There is something else going on here and ex-gays offer us some evidence as to what that might be.
Mr Throckmorton,
I don’t know if you really are Warren Throckmorton but thank you for the link. I, too, care about accurate use of research.
I think the Frisch review of Camerons’ study along with Kirk Cameron’s response was very interesting. I would love to see the discussion continue.
Mr. Mills,
I enjoy sparring with you. We certainly disagree with each other over this issue and a great deal more. I am sorry – again – for any “insults”.
As for Dr. Cameron, again, it is a simple matter of historical fact both acknowledged on his website and written about by his critics…
Dr. Cameron had complaints filed against him by APA members claiming that he had misrepresented their work in his studies. Dr. Cameron quit the APA after he found out that these claims had been filed and that the APA was going to investigate him for ethical violations. You can’t officially quit a professional organization while under investigation (it’s in their charter). Because Dr. Cameron was a member in good standing at the time he submitted a resignation letter – they accepted his resignation and asked him why he was resigning.
Then, the APA followed through with the investigation (That was what was required of them to do by their own charter) – and because Dr. Cameron refused to cooperate with the investigation – thirteen months later he was officially dropped for “ethical violations.”
His tactic was sort of like pleading “nolo contendere” in court… and it accomplished the typical result from such a plea. He was found “guilty”.
AGAIN – you fail to mention Dr. Cameron’s censure other repremands from OTHER scientific organizations. He has a record – and it shows shoddy work and ethical lapses.
He clearly abused ethics claiming to have “presented” a paper at the Eastern Psychological Association – when he basically paid to put a poster on the wall during a convention and even then pulled a “bait and switch” with the subject matter. (see: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/04/11/288)
Dr. Cameron’s faults are not a matter of “diplomacy” as you suggest – but of abusing science for a promotion of his anti-homosexual agenda.
“Dr. Hooker studied rats not humans.”
Dr. Hooker wrote about behavior in rats as a master thesis subject. Her study regarding sexuality was based on human subjects. My wife wrote a study on snake genetics before tackling her DMD program, I wrote a thesis on King Arthur before exploring human neurology.
You can’t dismiss Dr. Hooker’s research based on research she did earlier.
“Dr. Hooker had no experience interpreting the Rorschach test.”
Dr. Hooker didn’t need any experience in this field. Her study, was a double bind study. The scientists (Dr. Klopfer and Dr. Mortimer Meyer) who interpreted the Rorschach test results (from both homosexuals and heterosexuals) WERE experts in that field. (pg. 21; http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/hooker.htm)
What Hooker determined was that trained psychoanalysts were unable to tell the difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals based on their own diagnostic tools.
“Dr. Hooker didn’t like the results of the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) nor the Make a Picture Test (MAPS) results so she tossed the results and used the ROR results, which while having standard responses, is flawed and unreliable.”
You see – when you say things like that – I wonder where you get such information.
Like Dr. Cameron being “cleared” – that is just boldly factually inaccurate.
Here is a quote from Dr. Hooker’s Study (pg. 25; http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/hooker.htm):
“The MAPS was used in addition to the TAT because of the opportunity it gives the subject for the selection of figures together with backgrounds with different situational pulls of particular importance in this study.”
So unless we are talking about a different study – I do not understand how you can make the claim that she threw out those test results.
“Dr. Hooker created her own standards for the heterosexuals in the test.”
Again, factually inaccurate – Dr. Hooker matched heterosexuals to homosexuals based on age, IQ and education. This was necessary because so few admittedly homosexual men were available to study at the time.
“Dr. Hooker (and Kinsey) lacked a random sample. She snowballed the study. That is, she deliberately requested her associates to recruit both homosexual and heterosexual participants who understood the experiment. And this to obtain a political goal to change how society looked at homosexuals. She wrote about this a couple of years before she passed away. I believe it was 1993 in American Psychologist where she said: “I knew the men for whom the ratings were made, and I was certain as a clinician that they were relatively free of psycholopathology.†Three words summarize her study: agenda, agenda, agenda.”
And off you go into the wild blue yonder….
Dr. Hooker selected men she had interviewed who showed no signs of psychosis. She eliminated subjects who were in some sort of therapy (5 homosexuals & 5 heterosexuals)Previous studies on homosexuality had come from prison populations / mental wards which of course skewed any test results.
Dr. Hooker interviewed her test subjects beforehand to determine if they met the criteria of her study. That is a requirement to conduct such a study and so she eliminated heterosexuals who had reported having homosexual experiences in their past (4 people).
Basically – all she did – was simply pair up 60 people based on age, IQ, and education.
The subjects were tested not knowing which answers were “right” or “wrong” – the scientists who gave the tests did not know who the participants were.
This is all explained in her published work (pg. 20: http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/hooker.htm)
Which leads me to believe you have never looked at the “source” as you claimed you always do.
Yes. The test did have issues. Many scientists critiqued her work, and challenged it. It withstood the challenges – and was replicated using different methodologies and random samples – which is why it is cited so often.
Pretty much every test in the 1950’s had errors. This was the beginning of the usage of empirical studies in social sciences.
However, the bottom line is – follow-up tests (which I also linked to in post #41) corrected those problems and showed the same results as Dr. Hooker’s study.
AGAIN – you fail to acknowledge that.
“That’s off the top of my head. There is indeed more.”
So far you have incorrectly stated that MAPS and TAT were not used in Dr. Hookers conclusions – you implied that Dr. Hooker was not trained enough to do the study (’she studied “rats”‘) and that she had no expertise in looking at the Rorschach test – when she in fact had experts interpreting the results of that test. Then you went on a rant screaming about some “agenda” without showing ANY evidence of such.
If you have more please list it – because right now you have nothing – and also AGAIN you have yet to explain the follow-up studies that supported Dr. Hooker’s findings.
OH – and by the way – in science it’s usually proper to cite only the original study done, not the follow-up studies that support the original work… which explains why so many people continue to cite Dr. Hooker’ study. It’s not that her study was the ONLY one – but rather the first of many to show this results that homosexuals are no different from heterosexuals from a mental health standpoint. Other studies simply replicated that result – and are not commonly cited.
“Spitzer’s presentation was the rationale used in the APA decision.”
Along with a body of evidence which had been published in medical and psychological journals. Doctors read (or at least should) those medical journals for a reason, Mr. Mills. They were aware of the literature and studies that supported Dr. Hooker’s study and some 23 years after Dr. Hooker showed that homosexuality was not a mental disorder – there was enough evidence to convince the membership of the APA to change it’s position on the matter.
YOU ignore all of that evidence. (Which may explain why you have a very different viewpoint on the subject – than say – almost every psychiatrist in the world.)
“Loboinok referenced Dr. Collins from the Human Genome Project who stated homosexuality is not hardwired. Rather, what we do see in study after study is that environment is very important.”
“Hardwired” is a very unscientific term regarding our behaviors and genetic predispositions. The truth is we simply do not understand enough at this time to say how much of a genetic role is involved in homosexuality.
Dr. Collins – while certainly respectable – is not the final word in this issue. We have much still to learn.
All that science has shown us – is that homosexuality is a way that a certain percentage of the population expresses affection.
Mr. Martin,
As I said at the outset, I’m not that interested in Dr. Cameron and as I recently posted: “I don’t agree with Dr. Cameron on various issues.” Still, you cannot drop somebody from an organization when they are not a member in the first place. This is a very strange action by the APA.
I don’t fail to mention anything as you put it. I’m simply not interested. You appear to have incorrectly inferred or assumed something here that doesn’t exist. The issue as I see it with the APA and Cameron is the APA was engaging in some very strange activity when they officially dropped him when he wasn’t a member.
I found Gay Pressure Threatens Counseling from the NARTH website. At that link, Warren Throckmorton (who supposedly posted above) wrote:
It’s an interesting article on the APAs “plans to re-examine its policy on therapy for gay men and women seeking change.” Is it true the APA is bowing to political pressure? Was the APA bowing to political pressure when they engaged in the strange activity of dropping somebody from membership who wasn’t a member? Perhaps. From everything I’ve read it seems the APA could very well have been responding to political pressure in regards to Dr. Cameron. I certainly understand the need to follow through with an investigation.
You said because Dr. Cameron refused to cooperate with the investigation. From where does this information come? Did the APA contact Dr. Cameron after he resigned and ask him to cooperate in an investigation with an organization in which he wasn’t a member? Something doesn’t add up.
Dr. Hooker leaned to the left of most leftists. And as we’ve seen with some scientists, political bias tends to trump science with those pushing an agenda. This tells me to take a detailed look at everything which is why I try to verify information with first person accounts if at all possible. Sometimes this isn’t always possible but I do what I can.
Dr. Hooker befriended a homosexual man introduced to her by her husband. It was at this point that Dr. Hooker was studying rats when she started her project. As you keep digging and reading you should see she started with an agenda.
Of course Dr. Hooker didn’t work alone on her study. I even said she didn’t earlier. Still, it is Dr Hooker who is responsible for the final results of her study. It was Dr. Hooker who requested action that snowballed the study. You refer to this as the wild blue yonder. I suggest you keep digging as I have for years. From page 19 of the Hooker study:
If you do some digging you’ll find The Mattachine Society was an organization with an agenda. Dr. Hooker stated her project “would not have been possible” without them. What she did is called snowballing. It isn’t random and it blows the results out of proportion.
I question everything and don’t unquestionally accept anything anybody says based on professional reputation.
Regarding the APAs change, perhaps you should talk to people who were there. The four flawed sources I listed were the only sources used in Spitzer’s presentation to the APA.
You wrote:
I believe we agree. What we’ve seen up to this point is genetics plays a small part in same-sex attraction with environment playing a role as well. We don’t know everything but we do know environment plays a role. And since environment plays a role then perhaps we should stop and take a look at what’s happening in our culture today. Now, when I say genetics plays a small part that does not imply homosexuals are born that way which has been pushed on us and printed in the media for years. The genetics, the disposition, the traits and gifts are not causal, for, as Dr. Satinover says:
We have to look at all the available evidence and all the available evidence, including the existence of ex-gays, tells us homosexuals are not born that way as claimed in the various media outlets.
You wrote:
Science cannot be led by political bias or political correctness and must include ex-gays, LUGs (Lesbian Until Graduation), those who admit to choosing homosexuality (Queer By Choice), Hasbians, people like Ann Heche, bug chasers, HIV infection rates, etc. It’s an extremely complex issue, so perhaps we shouldn’t encourage homosexual behavior in today’s youth or any age until we have a better grasp on the science behind same-sex attraction.
You should checkout the NARTH site in detail. That’s about all I have time for today.
Two new posts on my blog discuss this research study:
Part 5
Part 4
The first link is to additional comments from Danish epidemiologist Morten Frisch and the second to my evaluation of the Cameron’s study.
Dear powers that be – my response seems to be lost in your filter again…
Mr. Mills,
“The issue as I see it with the APA and Cameron is the APA was engaging in some very strange activity when they officially dropped him when he wasn’t a member.”
The APA was NOT engaging in “strange” activity at all. Let’s try this as a step by step process and see where your understanding breaks down.
1) Dr. Cameron accepted and agreed to abide by the APA charter when he became a member. Do you understand that?
2) Becoming a member of a professional organization is a privilege and it requires it’s members to uphold certain ethical standards. Do you understand that?
3) If you are accused of ethical violations – an investigation will take place – and you are required to cooperate with that investigation. Do you understand that.
4) You can “quit” after being accused of ethical improprieties – but the organization can, and will, still investigate any charges made against you while you were a member and – if they find you guilty – they will punish you. Do you understand that?
5) The most severe punishment that a professional organization can direct at it’s members is to “drop” them as a member / refuse to allow them to become a member of their organization. Do you understand that?
6) Dr. Cameron was accused of ethical violations in Febreuary of 1982. Do you understand that?
7) Dr. Cameron was notified of those charges. Do you understand that?
Dr. Cameron then resigned in November of 1982. His resignation was accepted and he was given the opportunity to explain why he resigned. Do you understand that?
9) The APA continued its investigation into the charges made against him because that is what their charter requires them to do. Do you understand that?
10) The APA repeatedly asked for Dr. Cameron’s cooperation but he refused to cooperate. Do you understand that?
11) So in December of 1983 – after over a year of non-cooperation by Dr. Cameron – according to the rules of membership that Dr. Cameron agreed to when he became a member – Dr. Cameron was officially “dropped” from the APA. Do you understand that?
12) I think maybe you don’t understand the word “droppedâ€. It means to terminate an association. The APA had a relationship with Dr. Cameron – even after he resigned. He was (by virtue of holding a valid PhD) STILL automatically eligible for membership in the APA – even though he had quit.
So maybe it will be better for you if you think of being “dropped†by a professional organization – as meaning simply that you are no longer eligible for membership in that organization. The APA “dropped†him from eligibility and further told him that he could not reapply for membership for at least 5 years.
Do you understand that?
So, please, I’ve tried my best to break this down as simply as I could for you. I even went over it with my 13 year old and he understood it – if you still don’t understand what happened please just write out which part don’t you understand.
You came into this discussion claiming that,
“[Dr. Cameron] was investigated for violations, cleared, and then resigned in good standing. After getting cleared and turning in his resignation letter, the APA president didn’t understand his resignation, for he was cleared and wasn’t asked to resign.”
That is what we politely refer to as an “alternate reality”. You were wrong and you have yet to admit to any error.
When facts are inconvenient for you; you claim, “I’m simply not interested.” In a debate – or in logic – if information is presented against your case and you fail to refute it – then you lose.
You lose.
Your lack of interest in facts that are inconvenient for you – explains why you have come to some bizarre beliefs.
Dr. Cameron has a history of unethical behavior. He has been censured and reprimanded by several professional organizations. In the scientific world – that is a big deal. Now – I didn’t ask you to defend the guy – you jumped in and did it all on your own, claiming that Dr. Cameron was the victim of a homosexual “witch hunt”.
It was not a “witch huntâ€. Dr. Cameron presents himself as a scientist. His scientific credentials are fair game to discuss. Period.
Dr. Cameron’s scientific credentials are bad. He has a history of ethical violations, shoddy research habits, and misuse of other’s work…
Now – logically, as I claimed in my fist post, that doesn’t necessarily mean that his research is automatically “wrong†– it simply means that it needs to be looked at skeptically.
Looking at his work skeptically – Dr. Cameron is a moron. He claimed that by averaging the age of obituaries he found in gay newspapers – he could determine the life expectancy of a group of individuals.
That’s bad science.
As for Dr. Hooker – who you DON’T support.
She has a long distinguished scientific record. She won many, many prestigious awards in her lifetime and was highly praised by the scientific community. She also studied homosexuality back in the 1950’s – when it was HIGHLY unpopular to do so. Her work was vehemently attacked when it came out – and yet it withstood all scientific challenges. That’s why it is still quoted to this day.
Why do you believe a discredited scientist over a highly regarded one?
The word that comes to my mind is “bigotryâ€.
So let’s look at your post point by point.
“Dr. Hooker leaned to the left of most leftists. And as we’ve seen with some scientists, political bias tends to trump science with those pushing an agenda.”
The ONLY person who we have seen ANY evidence of allowing their political beliefs to trump science is Dr. Cameron. He uses obviously flawed research methodology, unethical principles (claiming to be peer reviewed and such), and he has been censured by SEVERAL scientific bodies… to further his anti-homosexual agenda.
You have shown NOTHING that supports that charge regarding Dr. Hooker. Her research has been upheld under intense scrutiny and when she died she was herlded for her courage and bravery in her pursuit of scientific excellence.
The only claim against her character you made – was not that she falsified research or used unethical methodology – but rather that she befriended a homosexual. Gasp!
Oh, and that she is, “left of most leftists” – whatever the hell that means. Logically it means nothing. Show me how she skewed her research if you have such a claim. Otherwise – her research and conclusions stand.
You quote from her research thanking the Mattachine Society – which in the 1950’s was one of a very few organizations that was openly gay. Where else would she find gays to participate in a study. Of course she thanked them for helping her.
What you don’t understand was the point of her studies. It rings very untrue – that you ever looked seriously at her work – because you simply don’t get it.
The study wasn’t looking at homosexuals. The study was looking at science.
Dr. Hooker determined that social scientists could not tell homosexuals from heterosexuals based on the results of psychological testing.
Let me repeat that – it’s important:
Dr. Hooker determined that social scientists could not tell homosexuals from heterosexuals based on the results of psychological testing.
One more time – please try to grasp the concept:
Dr. Hooker determined that social scientists could not tell homosexuals from heterosexuals based on the results of psychological testing.
In other words – there was no real difference between the two groups from a psychological testing point of view. That is true to this day. Matched for age, IQ and education a homosexual will score within the same range on a psychological evaluation as a heterosexual.
Do you understand that?
Moving on, “I question everything and don’t unquestionally accept anything anybody says based on professional reputation.â€
Then you are an idiot. (Fortunately, I don’t think you mean that.)
If that was the case – you would accept the word of first year medical student over that of world-renowned specialist. Would you really take the word of a doctor who was kicked out of the AMA over a doctor who had a sterling reputation amongst his peers? Somehow I just don’t think so – but like I said, if that is the case, then you ARE an idiot.
“The four flawed sources I listed were the only sources used in Spitzer’s presentation to the APA.â€
HOWEVER – there was a BODY of evidence in journals and other scientific publications that ALL of the members had access to and were aware of (or at least should have been aware of) , You act as if these people lived in a vacuum and never read a professional journal before. These are highly educated people – who understood the subject matter – honestly much better than you do.
“It’s an extremely complex issue, so perhaps we shouldn’t encourage homosexual behavior in today’s youth or any age until we have a better grasp on the science behind same-sex attraction.â€
Just because you don’t understand it – doesn’t mean it is all that complex. It really doesn’t matter WHY some men are attracted to other men. They have a right to exist and enjoy life as much as anyone else. I don’t understand WHY anyone with an IQ over 50 would believe in Jesus… are you folks BORN that way, were you raised that way, did you just go nuts one day after daddy beat you? It doesn’t matter WHY… you made a choice, or you didn’t have a choice… none of that really matters to me. You are who you are. I can co-exist with you and let you live your life in peace, even if I disagree with you. You get to marry and enjoy life without groups trying to limit your freedoms – I say let homosexuals have the same choices.
IF (and that’s a big “if) they live shorter lives… so what. That doesn’t effect you one iota.
As for spreading homosexuality – or “encouraging†it – where the hell does that happen at?
I’ve never had a homosexual come to my door and try to convert me to believing in their fantasies. I don’t see billboards everyday – or buildings on every other street corner – proclaiming, “Come in and be Gayâ€. I don’t see a list of 10 reasons to be Gay being carved into marble and forced into a courthouse square… when homosexuals start doing those things – THEN, I will oppose gays as much as I currently oppose Christians.
Until then, the most obnoxious people I have ever met are right-wingers who try to enforce their moral choices on others. They are the ones who need to be stopped in my opinion.
As for you, Mr. Mills, you are a bigot, pretty much by definition.
It’s okay – I am a bigot as well.
We all dislike one group or another I suspect based on religion or race or sexual preference. We all have prejudices. The trick, and I suspect the difference between us, is that I don’t care how you live your life as long as you stay out of mine. I give you that freedom, and I demand from you that you return the same freedom to me.
I debate people like you to help protect the weakest groups. Why? Because, if people like you get your way, you will prevent gays from marrying or being allowed to hold jobs or whatever stupid legislation you can pass… and that would be bad. You’ll take on another group after that. First it was blacks, then women, now gays… the religious nut-cases have always tried to make some group their bitch.
By the way, if you check out Dr. Cameron’s response to the APA – he rails on about the ERA too.
Leave people alone Mr. Mills. Let them live their lives and you live yours. All that science has shown us – is that homosexuality is a way that a certain percentage of the population expresses affection.
No one can really debate that, sir. It is pretty self-evident.
Mr. Martin,
I’m not biased against anybody. You’ve admitted to having a bias against Christians who don’t even fit into the discussion. Your attempts to denigrate those who disagree with you demonstrate the weakness of your position.
You wrote:
If you say so.
Many people allow their political and personal beliefs to trump science. That you continue to defend Dr. Hooker and her study, which you admitted was flawed, demonstrates the truth of that statement. And you continue to misrepresent, obfuscate, assume and infer incorrectly.
The Mattachine Society provided Dr. Hooker the biased sample she needed to promote her agenda. Apparently valid samples aren’t necessary when Dr. Hooker’s agenda fits your bias. You ask “Where else would she find gays to participate in a study”. Science would respond: “From a valid sample, Mr Martin, from a valid sample.”
I wrote: “I question everything and don’t unquestionally accept anything anybody says based on professional reputation.”
You responded:
Why thank you. Once again you assumed incorrectly. I much prefer looking up original sources and talking to as many experts as possible. According to you that makes me an idiot. Thank you.
I wrote: “The four flawed sources I listed were the only sources used in Spitzer’s presentation to the APA.”
You responded:
You are assuming here again and that “however” speaks volumes. You’ve railed on and on about the plethora of studies used by the APA in their 1973 decision. It turns out as I’ve been saying all along, that you had no idea what you were talking about the entire discussion. Four flawed sources were used in Spitzer’s presentation which was the rationale behind the 1973 decision.
You wrote:
That very well may be true, but that doesn’t mean same-sex attraction isn’t complex. It is very complex.
You wrote:
I can’t believe you said that. Have you no heart? If homosexuals live shorter lives that does indeed effect me. It grieves my spirit, my heart, the center of my being.
You wrote:
I’m so glad you asked. There’s a group called GLSEN that promotes and encourages homosexuality in schools today. They handed out a questionaire with one question asking: “How do you know you wouldn’t like homosexual sex if you haven’t tried it?”
Donna Minkowitz wrote an article entitled Recruit, Recruit, Recruit in the Advocate
“It’s time for us to abandon this defensive posture and walk upright on Earth… Maybe you didn’t choose to be gay – that’s fine. But I did.”
At the City Council meeting October 2, 1980, Davis, California, Minkowitz said:
Minkowitz claimed the best demonstration she had ever seen in her movement was outside the Republican convention in Houston: “Queer Nationals from around the country chanted, ‘Ten percent is not enough! Recruit, recruit, recruit!’”
Apparently Minkowitz believed the 10% myth.
Lesbian author Tammy Bruce who wrote The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values (another book I own) and co-author of The New Thought Police: Inside the Left’s Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds said:
Two years ago GLSEN handed out “The Little Black Book–Queer In The 21st Century” to children at Brookline High School. Regarding this book, Dr John Diggs, author of The Health Risks of Gay Sex said:
Click this link and read the book that was given to children, Mr. Martin, if you have the stomach for it.
Read what Warren Throckmorton wrote about it here: GLSEN Allows Pornographic Material to Be Distributed at School Event
Read a confidentiality agreement given to students at Deerfield High School before listening to a panel discussion by gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgendered students. The class was mandatory. What are they hiding that they don’t want students talking to their parents about? In reference to this topic, read District gags 14-year-olds after ‘gay’ indoctrination
In Michael Swift’s Gay Manifesto he writes:
Then there’s the entire David Parker situation in Lexington, MA where Mr. Parker wanted to opt his 6-year-old out of classes on homosexuality. The school refuses to notify parents when children in kindergarten are exposed to the more adult topic of homosexuality.
You asked.
Perhaps you should read Nightmare at Franklin.
Out of concern for his family, Robert Spitzer had to cancel a speaking engagement at the National Press Club. Radical homosexual activists gave him cause for alarm so he cancelled due to fear of his family. An email by James Minter, Associate Director at Columbia University reads:
Mr. Minter was referring to Spitzer’s report that homosexuals can change their orientation. Apparently Mr. Minter feels threatened. Perhaps you and Mr. Minter should checkout: Root Causes, Homosexual Consequences.
Changing Minds is always an informative read.
There is no scientific evidence that anybody is born homosexual. As a blogger once said:
Summarizing from the CDC in 2003, 2004 and 2005, homosexuality is anything but healthy.
You wrote:
Why thank you. I’m for client autonomy. That is, if somebody is struggling with same-sex attaction and wants help then they should have that opportunity, especially considering the growing ex-gay population.
Ex-gays exist. LUGs (Lesbian Until Graduation), those who admit to choosing homosexuality (Queer By Choice), Hasbians, and bug chasers exist. Science must include this group and not ignore them due to politics.
You continued another non-related rant and ended with:
You apparently can’t help but misrepresent my position. If somebody struggles with same-sex attaction and wants help then they should have that opportunity. People are attracted to members of their same-sex, of that there is no doubt. What science has shown is environment is a key factor in same-sex attraction. Science has yet to find a gay gene or any physical reason for same-sex attracion. No one can debate that with any credibility, sir.
I’m a bigot and advocate for the truth, Mr. Martin.
Everything people are complaining about FRI’s study was noted at some time in the report. This is what science is, or rather, what is should be. Work with the data you have, while noting any variables. The scientific method requires that studies be replicable. FRI has done this with gay obituaries in the U.S. and age distributions reported in sexuality studies from 1858 through 1993 (published in Omega, 1994), as well as 4 other lines of evidence published in Pyschological Reports, 1998 – 1) additional obituaries from the gay press, 2) findings from two national random-samle surveys, 3) the age distributions of registered homosexual couples in Scandanavia, and 4) the age distributions oh homosexuals and drug-abusers taking HIV tests in Colorado. As recent as ‘02, FRI published another study in Psychological Reports using additional obituaries from the gay press and findings from two large, nationwide random sexuality surveys – both of which were consistent with a shortened lifespan (in one of these, the CDC study, the oldest woman who reported sex with a woman in the previous 12 months was 49 yr., the oldest man who reported sex with a man in the previous 12 months was 54 yr.) No one has produced any empiracle evidence to refute their conclusion, only complaints, and I predict no one will.