Being gay is in your genes

[Catolico65]

God doesn’t always remove that which burdens us. Again we can look to St. Paul.

And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure. 8 Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me. 9 And He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

I see some improvement, at least now God can heal people of SSA but chooses not to. I don’t expect that this would be an effective or correct pastoral policy for all though.

 

[frobert]

In seeking truth, one needs to consider the source.

You probably did not read Post 165, my reply to another poster. In it I listed Dr. Nicolosi and company (NARTH) as one of the few professional organizations people with unwanted same sex attraction can approach, that does not fold to the gay affirming ideology of the APA. So, I am not giving NARTH a free ride – I defend NARTH. The topic you introduced is about disagreement by one of its members with the parents who decided to enable their “transgender” 6 year old child in coming to school as a boy and have the whole school regard her as of the opposite gender she was born with. The other issue you brought up is about his comment on slavery (no, I do not think the Africans were better off as slaves), which is irrelevant in this thread.

If a struggling homosexual or struggling parent of a child with homosexuality or GID issues want the truth, he or she is better served by checking and considering the source of information. TWO’s name is misleading. Gay Propaganda Must Win is a more apt name than Truth Wins Out. If a Catholic seeks truth about marriage, he can check authentic Catholic sources, not Catholics for (Marriage) Equality, for example. That’s another group that TWO endorses.

Yes of course, if you distrust the source then its natural to check the veracity of the content and refute it if it needs to be. Arguing that it is not valid on the basis of the url is ad hominem, as such it has nothing to do with the discredited organization. I apologize for being lazy and not compiling the information personally, in my defense, I already was familiar with it from other sources and chose an easy path.

Even though we are on opposites sides of the divide when you go to TWO and I go to NARTH we share the same feeling.

I introduced the topic of NARTH in response response to a post by buffalo. (Post #160)

I did read your post #165 and responded to it. In my response I was quite favorable to a publication by a supporter of NARHT even though he and I are at odds re: treatment.

I also included 2 articles from Scientific American on treatment attempts.
**
What does the APA say about conversion treatment in its guidelines?**

Psychologists understand that same-sex attractions, feelings, and behavior are normal variants of human sexuality and that efforts to change sexual orientation have not been shown to be effective or safe.

Source Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Clients

The guidelines are based on the vast experiences of all its members, not just a few. Please read them and judge their reasonableness for yourself.

We may disagree on a number of issues but I believe that both of us want the best for our neighbors with SSA.

 

[Catolico65]

Yes of course, if you distrust the source then its natural to check the veracity of the content and refute it if it needs to be. Arguing that it is not valid on the basis of the url is ad hominem, as such it has nothing to do with the discredited organization.

With all due respect pointing out a few issues with NARTH does not mean they are discredited.

 

[buffalo]

For the sake of argument. If SSA was a gene defect should we spend money to fix it?

 

[SMGS127]

For the sake of argument. If SSA was a gene defect should we spend money to fix it?

If it were a fixable biological error, I would think it would be up to the individual whether they wished to spend the money or not. I can’t imagine there’d be a cure developed for SSA that wouldn’t cost thousands of dollars minimum (after insurance). Certainly they couldn’t be forced to fix it.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Homosexuality wasn’t deliberately included in the DSM I, it was a carry over from a prior work which had it as a carry over from a prior work which had it as a carry over from a prior work which had it because of bad Freudian psychology and American puritan morality. The removal was more scientific than the inclusion which wasn’t that hard.

A shift from primarily attracted to the same sex bisexual to primary attracted to the opposite sex bisexual doesn’t make you heterpsexual, nor does loving your wife while still very much attracted to the same sex, one person of the “successful” people admitted he lied to them after the study was published. Of course then there is including women which can screw up the data on how likely it is for gay men to experience sexual orientation change as women’s sexual fluidity is well known (for women sexual attraction is more psychological than visual).

That is the justification given for the capitulation by APA to militant homosexuals who forced declassification of homosexuality. The decision that homosexuality is a normal variant of sexuality has been reached by consensus. Consequently, the supposed organization of mental health professionals have been pushing the research to go one way, justification of the controversial declassification. It has been four decades since, and the best analysis that can be made based on the few that appears to be representative and unbiased is this: the etiology of homosexuality is multi-factorial.

So Freudian psychology was bad psychology and American Puritan morality did not help, but was the best reaction to declassify homosexuality altogether, when it continues to be associated with depression, addictions, suicidal ideation? The Not Otherwise Classified or Not Otherwise Specified code could have been maintained for it, with management treatment, not necessarily cure, available at least for those with unwanted same sex attraction. The “homophobia” explanation only goes so far. There will always be homosexuals who do not welcome a condition that predisposes them to engage in core sexual activities with same sex partners, in not all but many, to promiscuity.

Dutch gays live in a society that is very accepting of homosexuality, with institutionalized gay marriage for 13 years; yet, something still drives many of them to despair. (The natural law, written in one’s heart, which has been rejected, gnawing in them deep down, perhaps? )

Four decades since that watershed decision in 1973. Recall that many homosexuals felt an exhilarating sense of relief and AIDS exploded within the next ten years. Enter “safe sex” as the answer. It is truly amazing how homosexual spin dominates the discussion on this disease, people parrot that AIDS is a heterosexual disease in the face of cold data from the CDC that homosexual men in the U.S., not in Africa, remain the most affected in new incidents of HIV / AIDS. Notwithstanding widespread knowledge of “safe sex.”

The error has been made with mainstream mental health profession switching to the rule that expressed homosexuality is good for same sex attracted people. For sure, this is not true, at least, for those with unwanted homosexual urge. It is a vexing, confounding condition.

Jones and Yarhouse’s participants were sourced from people going to Exodus who very much desired to change.

All the more reason the option to help people desiring to change should be available without interference from APA.

Actually I think they should be encouraged to pray and do works of mercy and also that we should pray and do works of mercy alongside of them. Love isn’t going on and on about how gross gay sex is and how gay people are more likely to get AIDS, love is telling them and showing them that we sincerely care about them.

No disagreement there. This is application of our beautiful faith. This reminds me of a small group of sisters (Daughters of Charity) based in the Bay Area, just below San Francisco. They presently take care of a dozen or fifteen men in various last stages of AIDS. They intensely pray for their souls while also providing meals and corporal help. This is in February 2014, mind you.

It is not uncommon that the men refuse any talk of evangelization from the sisters, which the sisters honor, although some ask to be baptized before dying.

No, it is not necessary to talk about how terrible gay sex is and what a lonely life aging homosexuals have at the end of their lives.

But to dismiss the reality of negative consequences of a lived out homosexual life is folly. It may provide years of earthly pleasure, but it exacts a high price, and not an insignificant cost to society,

I’m not actually LGB.

So, not LGB. How about T?
,

 

[Robert_Sock]

As I stated previously, sexual attraction is a spiritual phenomenon. It is not innate, such as being in your genes. We as Catholics believe in God and Satan, but we fail to realize the means by which they affect us.

“The range of what we think and do is limited by what we fail to notice.
And because we fail to notice
that we fail to notice
there is little we can do
to change
until we notice
how failing to notice
shapes our thoughts and deeds.”
-R. D. Laing.

 

[frobert]

That is the justification given for the capitulation by APA to militant homosexuals who forced declassification of homosexuality. The decision that homosexuality is a normal variant of sexuality has been reached by consensus. Consequently, the supposed organization of mental health professionals have been pushing the research to go one way, justification of the controversial declassification. It has been four decades since, and the best analysis that can be made based on the few that appears to be representative and unbiased is this: the etiology of homosexuality is multi-factorial.

The APA did not capitulate. The motivation to change the classification came from Evelyn Hooker’s groundbreaking research that exploded the notion that homosexuality was a mental illness and ultimately removed it from the DSM. Dr Hooker was not a militant homosexual. Using a term such as ‘militant homosexual’ to further an argument is an ad hominem fallacy and as such subtracts from the discussion rather that adds. Some members of the APA who did not believe that the change should be made have exhibited a ‘sore looser’ syndrome.

So Freudian psychology was bad psychology and American Puritan morality did not help, but was the best reaction to declassify homosexuality altogether, when it continues to be associated with depression, addictions, suicidal ideation? The Not Otherwise Classified or Not Otherwise Specified code could have been maintained for it, with management treatment, not necessarily cure, available at least for those with unwanted same sex attraction. The “homophobia” explanation only goes so far. There will always be homosexuals who do not welcome a condition that predisposes them to engage in core sexual activities with same sex partners, in not all but many, to promiscuity.

Freudian personality development is still considered the most complete system by most psychologists and I believe by psychiatrists. Like the CC teachings that are refined and clarified with further understanding, psychoanalytic theory and treatment has been refined and clarified with further understanding. I believe that a “Modern Psychoanalyst” (refers to a specific school of psychoanalysis) will treat an individual with the goal of conversion after a the patient has a thorough understanding of what is involved and what can be expected.

Note: I say believe because I have not been involved for several years and Modern Analytical understanding may have advanced in this area.

Dutch gays live in a society that is very accepting of homosexuality, with institutionalized gay marriage for 13 years; yet, something still drives many of them to despair. (The natural law, written in one’s heart, which has been rejected, gnawing in them deep down, perhaps? )

Heterosexuals are known to despair also. There are many types of despair and many reasons why people despair.

Four decades since that watershed decision in 1973. Recall that many homosexuals felt an exhilarating sense of relief and AIDS exploded within the next ten years. Enter “safe sex” as the answer. It is truly amazing how homosexual spin dominates the discussion on this disease, people parrot that AIDS is a heterosexual disease in the face of cold data from the CDC that homosexual men in the U.S., not in Africa, remain the most affected in new incidents of HIV / AIDS. Notwithstanding widespread knowledge of “safe sex.”

Many homosexuals as well as heterosexuals believe they are invincible. Sex between men is higher risk than between male and female. People have sex regardless of the morality, for those who choose to have sex, not using protection outside a monogamous relationship is just stupid. Why people do stupid things has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

The error has been made with mainstream mental health profession switching to the rule that expressed homosexuality is good for same sex attracted people. For sure, this is not true, at least, for those with unwanted homosexual urge. It is a vexing, confounding condition.

Whether a view of ‘expressed homosexuality’ is good or bad is a personal judgement based on many factors some unique to the individuals themselves and not something a therapist decides. A therapist who encourages it as ‘good’ is acting in an unprofessional and unethical manner.

I hope I have cleared up some of the misunderstandings.

 

[Monkey1976]

The APA did not capitulate. The motivation to change the classification came from Evelyn Hooker’s groundbreaking research that exploded the notion that homosexuality was a mental illness and ultimately removed it from the DSM. Dr Hooker was not a militant homosexual. Using a term such as ‘militant homosexual’ to further an argument is an ad hominem fallacy and as such subtracts from the discussion rather that adds. Some members of the APA who did not believe that the change should be made have exhibited a ‘sore looser’ syndrome.

Dr. Hooker’s study was flawed from the beginning when she recruited members of a pro-homosexual movement (The Mattachine Society) as her test subjects and then personally selected the members of her heterosexual “control” group to make sure she would get the results she wanted. Any first-year student proposing a study with those parameters for the subjects would get a failing grade. Read this transcript of an interview with the grandson of Dr. Spiegel, the president-elect of the APA who led the charge to remove homosexuality from the DSM in 1973. The study by Dr. Hooker provided a fig leaf to cover an agenda, nothing more.

 

[frobert]

Dr. Hooker’s study was flawed from the beginning when she recruited members of a pro-homosexual movement (The Mattachine Society) as her test subjects and then personally selected the members of her heterosexual “control” group to make sure she would get the results she wanted. Any first-year student proposing a study with those parameters for the subjects would get a failing grade. Read this transcript of an interview with the grandson of Dr. Spiegel, the president-elect of the APA who led the charge to remove homosexuality from the DSM in 1973. The study by Dr. Hooker provided a fig leaf to cover an agenda, nothing more.

Thank you, You make a good point about the Mattachine society as the study would be considered nested. I look forward to reading the article.

Whether flawed or not Dr Hooker’s work was the principle motivation for the reclassification.

Edit: I went to the site. I find such sites whether right or left distasteful because they have an agenda. I will read the critique and not let my distaste for such sites influence me.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

That is the justification given for the capitulation by APA to militant homosexuals who forced declassification of homosexuality. The decision that homosexuality is a normal variant of sexuality has been reached by consensus. Consequently, the supposed organization of mental health professionals have been pushing the research to go one way, justification of the controversial declassification. It has been four decades since, and the best analysis that can be made based on the few that appears to be representative and unbiased is this: the etiology of homosexuality is multi-factorial.

Indeed, the etiology of homosexuality is multi-factorial, however this doesn’t necessarily mean that choice is one of them.

So Freudian psychology was bad psychology and American Puritan morality did not help, but was the best reaction to declassify homosexuality altogether, when it continues to be associated with depression, addictions, suicidal ideation? The Not Otherwise Classified or Not Otherwise Specified code could have been maintained for it, with management treatment, not necessarily cure, available at least for those with unwanted same sex attraction. The “homophobia” explanation only goes so far. There will always be homosexuals who do not welcome a condition that predisposes them to engage in core sexual activities with same sex partners, in not all but many, to promiscuity.

Yes, homosexuality per se isn’t a mental illness ergo it shouldn’t be classified as a mental illness.

Even if homosexuality is legal that doesn’t mean they don’t get abuse about it from family, friends who found out, random people, etc.

Dutch gays live in a society that is very accepting of homosexuality, with institutionalized gay marriage for 13 years; yet, something still drives many of them to despair. (The natural law, written in one’s heart, which has been rejected, gnawing in them deep down, perhaps? )

That something is de jure legal does not mean that all of society approves; example, my parents are of two different races, I am biracial, my parents have received abuse about it despite living in the first state to strike down anti-miscegenation laws on the basis of the federal constitution, that was more than forty years before I was born yet I have received abuse over it.

Four decades since that watershed decision in 1973. Recall that many homosexuals felt an exhilarating sense of relief and AIDS exploded within the next ten years. Enter “safe sex” as the answer. It is truly amazing how homosexual spin dominates the discussion on this disease, people parrot that AIDS is a heterosexual disease in the face of cold data from the CDC that homosexual men in the U.S., not in Africa, remain the most affected in new incidents of HIV / AIDS. Notwithstanding widespread knowledge of “safe sex.”

Most people in the world with HIV/AIDS identify as heterosexual ergo, it’s not a gay disease, I think that is their logic. In the US the largest percent of MSM who get HIV are black, many of those don’t even identify as gay because they think being a man and being gay are mutually exclusive so they pick being a man, there is also prison sex as a vector (black men are more likely to spend time in prison and more time in prison even for identical crimes as white men).

The error has been made with mainstream mental health profession switching to the rule that expressed homosexuality is good for same sex attracted people. For sure, this is not true, at least, for those with unwanted homosexual urge. It is a vexing, confounding condition.

Okay then.

All the more reason the option to help people desiring to change should be available without interference from APA.

There is no known treatment that has been proven to work anywhere near often.

No disagreement there. This is application of our beautiful faith. This reminds me of a small group of sisters (Daughters of Charity) based in the Bay Area, just below San Francisco. They presently take care of a dozen or fifteen men in various last stages of AIDS. They intensely pray for their souls while also providing meals and corporal help. This is in February 2014, mind you.

It is not uncommon that the men refuse any talk of evangelization from the sisters, which the sisters honor, although some ask to be baptized before dying.

No, it is not necessary to talk about how terrible gay sex is and what a lonely life aging homosexuals have at the end of their lives.

But to dismiss the reality of negative consequences of a lived out homosexual life is folly.

the San Francisco Bay Area draws tons of LGBT people especially promiscuous ones because you just can’t beat certain parts for the ability to hook up. The Castro is known as a hotbed of homosexual promiscuity so many go there precisely because of that, the reputation becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

So, not LGB. How about T?
,

I used LGB because Transgender is a separate issue from sexual orientation, as is intersex and this thread is about sexuality.

 

[JamesCaruso]

After all is said and done the important question for Catholics, IMO, is not whether** being gay is in your genes**, but whether this in any way affects the Church’s teaching on same-sex sex.

The Church teaches that same-sex sex is seriously sinful, unnatural, and intrinsically disordered. IMO, the degree by which genetics is found to be a determining factor in same-sex attraction has not and will not alter this teaching. While there can always be mitigating factors, same-sex sex always remains a serious sin for a practicing Catholic.

Genetics may prove helpful someday in treating those who experience same sex attraction, but only if they view it as disordered Therefore, it is important to keep Catholics aware of the Church’s teaching on homosexuality.

Genetics may help people to accept homosexuals with greater “respect, compassion, and sensitivity,” as already taught by the Catechism.

If a greater genetic basis than formerly thought is found, it can serve to underscore homosexuality’s ability to show up where unexpected and thereby help parents to be more aware in raising their children in chastity according to the teachings of the Church.

These are my thoughts as a practicing Catholic. Am I wrong?

[In the discussion above I equate homosexuality with same-sex attraction, not with same-sex sex.]

 

[meltzerboy]

Indeed, the etiology of homosexuality is multi-factorial, however this doesn’t necessarily mean that choice is one of them.

Yes, homosexuality per se isn’t a mental illness ergo it shouldn’t be classified as a mental illness.

Even if homosexuality is legal that doesn’t mean they don’t get abuse about it from family, friends who found out, random people, etc.

That something is de jure legal does not mean that all of society approves; example, my parents are of two different races, I am biracial, my parents have received abuse about it despite living in the first state to strike down anti-miscegenation laws on the basis of the federal constitution, that was more than forty years before I was born yet I have received abuse over it.

Most people in the world with HIV/AIDS identify as heterosexual ergo, it’s not a gay disease, I think that is their logic. In the US the largest percent of MSM who get HIV are black, many of those don’t even identify as gay because they think being a man and being gay are mutually exclusive so they pick being a man, there is also prison sex as a vector (black men are more likely to spend time in prison and more time in prison even for identical crimes as white men).

Okay then.

There is no known treatment that has been proven to work anywhere near often.

the San Francisco Bay Area draws tons of LGBT people especially promiscuous ones because you just can’t beat certain parts for the ability to hook up. The Castro is known as a hotbed of homosexual promiscuity so many go there precisely because of that, the reputation becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I used LGB because Transgender is a separate issue from sexual orientation, as is intersex and this thread is about sexuality.

Indeed there have been studies which have found that families in the Netherlands and even certain communities continue to be non-accepting toward and abusive of homosexuals. Moreover, the author of the famous Dutch study, Theo Sandfort, himself denies several of the interpretations and conclusions that Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and others have attributed to his study. Finally, since when in science does one study whose findings differ somewhat from the overwhelming majority of studies done before and after that study get to be the touchstone of scientific comparison?

 

[frobert]

Dr. Hooker’s study was flawed from the beginning when she recruited members of a pro-homosexual movement (The Mattachine Society) as her test subjects and then personally selected the members of her heterosexual “control” group to make sure she would get the results she wanted. Any first-year student proposing a study with those parameters for the subjects would get a failing grade. Read this transcript of an interview with the grandson of Dr. Spiegel, the president-elect of the APA who led the charge to remove homosexuality from the DSM in 1973. The study by Dr. Hooker provided a fig leaf to cover an agenda, nothing more.

I am finding the hunt for material to verify your statements interesting. They are linked to a newspaper article authored by Bruce Shenitz. in 1990. I have found what was published but it was only 5 pages. None of your statements are in the newspaper article. Perhaps there is another version. If so can you locate it, I have exhausted my resources. Here is the reference

Bruce Shenitz, “The Grande Dame of Gay Liberation,” Los Angeles Times Magazine, June 10, 1990, pp.20-34 at 22

 

[frobert]

I am finding the hunt for material to verify your statements interesting. They are linked to a newspaper article authored by Bruce Shenitz. in 1990. I have found what was published but it was only 5 pages. None of your statements are in the newspaper article. Perhaps there is another version. If so can you locate it, I have exhausted my resources. Here is the reference

Bruce Shenitz, “The Grande Dame of Gay Liberation,” Los Angeles Times Magazine, June 10, 1990, pp.20-34 at 22

I spent some time trying to verify your statements.

1. Dr. Hookers use of the subjects from the Mattachine Society would make the study a vested factor study which does not make it invalid. I leave it to you to read about vested factor studies and come to your own conclusions.
2. The site you reference is a right wing political oriented site. I have nothing against neither the right wing nor the left wing, to me they are both not worth taking seriously. They both have agendas and use whatever tactics are available to appeal to the prejudices of their respective adherents without regard to the harm they do.
3. I read through the interview. I will get back to that in you referred to in your post.
4. I found an outline Thomas Landess, (a conservative journalist) notes of a book he published “The Evelyn Hooker Study And The Normalization Of Homosexuality.” The interview in 3 was verbatim from Landess’s book.
5. Landess referred to Dr. Hooker as a “rat runner” which puzzled me at first. I though he was either displaying his dislike for Dr. Hooker or his prejudices. (Trust alert). I later found out that Dr. Hooker started doing research in animal psychology. Lansess use of the term “rat runner” speaks loudly to his respect of other professionals.
6. He was drawing at straws in attempting to discredit Dr. Hooker. He may have had some valid points but his overall treatment of Dr. Hooker was disquieting which is likely the way he felt toward Dr. Hooker.
7. If there were a smoking gun, that Landess alludes to, it would have been in one of his references: Bruce Shenitz, “The Grande Dame of Gay Liberation,” Los Angeles Times Magazine, June 10, 1990, pp.20-34. When I read Shenitz positive article on Dr. Hooker all I could discearn was the authors glowing admiration and respect for Dr. Hooker. I found none of the negatives Landess referred to in his paper and book.
8. A quick search on the Critique of Dr. Hooker’s homosexual studies resulted in an overwhelming positive regard. The few negative ones were all from sites with recognizable right wing agendas.
9. There were many references to replications of Dr. Hooker’s study which I did not check out.
10. If you wish to supply references for your statement “Any first-year student proposing a study with those parameters for the subjects would get a failing grade.” I will check them out and give you my honest opinion.
11. I was not surprised to hear that the fight for DSM re-classification was as much political in part. I also would not be surprised if the fight was ‘dirty.’ I am sure both sides were dirty and equally paired. Anyone who wouldn’t think so is likely naive. What the opponents failed to understand was that the homosexuals were fighting for dignity and self respect. I fear that many posters here on this forum do not understand that either.
12. Finally, my opinion, the decision was the right one. It helped clear clear away bigotry, prejudice and discrimination. Unfortunately there is a lot that still exists today.

I would appreciate any others adding more to the story as long as it is down with respect and dignity.

 

[frobert]

Dr. Hooker’s study was flawed from the beginning when she recruited members of a pro-homosexual movement (The Mattachine Society) as her test subjects and then personally selected the members of her heterosexual “control” group to make sure she would get the results she wanted. Any first-year student proposing a study with those parameters for the subjects would get a failing grade. Read this transcript of an interview with the grandson of Dr. Spiegel, the president-elect of the APA who led the charge to remove homosexuality from the DSM in 1973. The study by Dr. Hooker provided a fig leaf to cover an agenda, nothing more.

I spent some time trying to verify your statements.

1. Dr. Hookers use of the subjects from the Mattachine Society would make the study a nested factor study which does not make it invalid. I leave it to you to read about nested factor studies and come to your own conclusions.
2. The site you reference is a right wing political oriented site. I have nothing against neither the right wing nor the left wing, to me they are both not worth taking seriously. They both have agendas and use whatever tactics are available to appeal to the prejudices of their respective adherents without regard to the harm they do.
3. I read through the transcript you referenced which I will get back later.
4. I found an outline Thomas Landess, (a conservative journalist) notes of a book he published “The Evelyn Hooker Study And The Normalization Of Homosexuality.” The transcript in 3 was verbatim from Landess’s book.
5. Landess referred to Dr. Hooker as a “rat runner” which puzzled me at first. I though he was either displaying his dislike for Dr. Hooker or his prejudices. (Trust alert). I later found out that Dr. Hooker previously involved in research in animal psychology. Lansess use of the term “rat runner” speaks loudly to his respect of other professionals.
6. I found Lansess drawing at straws in attempts to discredit Dr. Hooker. He may have had some valid points but his overall treatment of Dr. Hooker was disquieting which is likely the way he felt toward Dr. Hooker.
7. If there were a smoking gun, that Landess alludes to, it would have been in one of his references: Bruce Shenitz, “The Grande Dame of Gay Liberation,” Los Angeles Times Magazine, June 10, 1990, pp.20-34. When I read Shenitz’s positive article on Dr. Hooker all I could discern was the authors glowing admiration and respect for Dr. Hooker. I found none of the negatives Landess referred to in his paper and book.
8. A quick search on the Critique of Dr. Hooker’s homosexual studies resulted in an overwhelming positive regard. The few negative ones were from sites with recognizable right wing agendas.
9. There were many references to replications of Dr. Hooker’s study by herself and others which I did not investigate. I leave that to others.
10. If you wish to supply references for your statement “Any first-year student proposing a study with those parameters for the subjects would get a failing grade.” I will investigate them and give my honest opinion.
11. I was not surprised to hear that the fight for DSM re-classification was as much political in part. I also would not be surprised if the fight was ‘dirty.’ I am sure both sides were dirty and equally paired. Anyone who wouldn’t think so is likely naive. What the opponents failed to understand was that the homosexuals were fighting for dignity and self respect. I fear that many posters here on this forum do not understand that either.
12. Finally, my opinion, the decision was the right one. It helped clear away bigotry a large amount of prejudice and discrimination. Unfortunately there is a lot that still exists today.

I would appreciate any others adding more to the story, negative or positive, but please be respectful.

 

[meltzerboy]

I spent some time trying to verify your statements.

1. Dr. Hookers use of the subjects from the Mattachine Society would make the study a nested factor study which does not make it invalid. I leave it to you to read about nested factor studies and come to your own conclusions.
2. The site you reference is a right wing political oriented site. I have nothing against neither the right wing nor the left wing, to me they are both not worth taking seriously. They both have agendas and use whatever tactics are available to appeal to the prejudices of their respective adherents without regard to the harm they do.
3. I read through the transcript you referenced which I will get back later.
4. I found an outline Thomas Landess, (a conservative journalist) notes of a book he published “The Evelyn Hooker Study And The Normalization Of Homosexuality.” The transcript in 3 was verbatim from Landess’s book.
5. Landess referred to Dr. Hooker as a “rat runner” which puzzled me at first. I though he was either displaying his dislike for Dr. Hooker or his prejudices. (Trust alert). I later found out that Dr. Hooker previously involved in research in animal psychology. Lansess use of the term “rat runner” speaks loudly to his respect of other professionals.
6. I found Lansess drawing at straws in attempts to discredit Dr. Hooker. He may have had some valid points but his overall treatment of Dr. Hooker was disquieting which is likely the way he felt toward Dr. Hooker.
7. If there were a smoking gun, that Landess alludes to, it would have been in one of his references: Bruce Shenitz, “The Grande Dame of Gay Liberation,” Los Angeles Times Magazine, June 10, 1990, pp.20-34. When I read Shenitz’s positive article on Dr. Hooker all I could discern was the authors glowing admiration and respect for Dr. Hooker. I found none of the negatives Landess referred to in his paper and book.
8. A quick search on the Critique of Dr. Hooker’s homosexual studies resulted in an overwhelming positive regard. The few negative ones were from sites with recognizable right wing agendas.
9. There were many references to replications of Dr. Hooker’s study by herself and others which I did not investigate. I leave that to others.
10. If you wish to supply references for your statement “Any first-year student proposing a study with those parameters for the subjects would get a failing grade.” I will investigate them and give my honest opinion.
11. I was not surprised to hear that the fight for DSM re-classification was as much political in part. I also would not be surprised if the fight was ‘dirty.’ I am sure both sides were dirty and equally paired. Anyone who wouldn’t think so is likely naive. What the opponents failed to understand was that the homosexuals were fighting for dignity and self respect. I fear that many posters here on this forum do not understand that either.
12. Finally, my opinion, the decision was the right one. It helped clear away bigotry a large amount of prejudice and discrimination. Unfortunately there is a lot that still exists today.

I would appreciate any others adding more to the story, negative or positive, but please be respectful.

I would add that I doubt Dr. Evelyn Hooker had an ax to grind. She herself admitted to implementing aversion therapy with male homosexuals in an attempt to change them to heterosexual, only to find that many homosexuals became asexual instead. Her change of mind with regard to conversion therapy seems to have been generated by her own clinical observations, and not by a political agenda.

 

[StevenFrancis]

Maybe it is. Maybe it isn’t. Maybe it’s a mix of nature and nurture. Regardless of which, it doesn’t alter the Catholic stance one way or another, and has become a straw man.

 

[mkarzon]

This thread has gotten too long so I apologize if a similar question has been asked, but if being gay is in your genes, does anyone think there’ll be a way to detect it in utero? And if so, will people abort if the “gay gene” is found?

 

[estesbob]

Maybe it is. Maybe it isn’t. Maybe it’s a mix of nature and nurture. Regardless of which, it doesn’t alter the Catholic stance one way or another, and has become a straw man.

That is the point that needs to be reaffirmed again and again. Regardless of the cause of the disorder acting on the attraction is the problem.