The Gay Impact

[kenofken]

What I expected you to say. In your to-be-expected antisocial way.

These homosexual disorders are evident for all to see.

A scientific study isn’t even necessary, except to validate what we already are seeing with our own eyes.

It’s not just me saying it, but the whole of the mainstream medical, psychiatric and scientific community, basically anyone who plays by the scientific method and exercises critical thinking. Even those less antisocial than me. Fortunately lawmakers and courts usually have the intelligence to separate the real science from the dreck.

 

[Barbkw]

Fortunately lawmakers and courts usually have the intelligence to separate the real science from the dreck.

To be clear, you’re talking about the same lawmakers and courts that legalized abortion.

 

[PassingThru]

Just to be clear,

We have just rattled off how gays have much higher levels of suicide, anxiety, drug addition, sexual abuse, poor relationships, disease and many other problems. And this is how some have formed an opinion that gays are somehow disordered, and not the result of being treated, in a general sense, like garbage? The only thing mentioned in your long post that takes that into account is that the laws in other countries are more liberal, but they did not address how people are treated as a whole. I know gays who come from nice families that would and indeed have accepted them as gay, yet they suffer from many of the same conditions you listed simply from the fear they experienced growing up, and feeling something was wrong with them. Most of which came from people that sounded like you, frankly.

I am sure that all the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Counseling Association, National Association of Social Workers, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Australian Psychological Society, and all the other groups I don’t care to find right now are, of course, all wrong. Big cover up, don’t you know?

I have no idea how one kids ends up gay, and the next straight. I have my ideas, but, I have to say the belittlement sprayed by people who conveniently have a religious axe to grind towards the gays is mind boggling at some point.

Maybe at some point all the people who are gay, and all the science being done to objectively look at human sexuality, will all be thrown out and we will follow the historic opinion of organized religion instead. We can all hope!

(ps If you think a group like NARTH is not a religious organization, I want some of what you are smoking!!! )

 

[Barbkw]

… the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Counseling Association, National Association of Social Workers, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Australian Psychological Society, and all the other groups I don’t care to find right now are, of course, all wrong. Big cover up, don’t you know)

Not a cover up, they were faced 25 years ago with homosexual activism and caved to it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_agenda

"It is an agenda that they basically set in the late 1980s, in a book called After the Ball,[17] where they laid out a six-point plan for how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior — in a decade-long time frame… They admit it privately, but they will not say that publicly.

In their private publications, homosexual activists make it very clear that there is an agenda. The six-point agenda that they laid out in 1989 was explicit:

Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible(…)
Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers(…)
Give homosexual protectors a just cause(…)
Make gays look good(…)
Make the victimizers look bad(…)
Get funds from corporate America(…)[1]

After the Ball[17] is a book published in 1989 by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. It argues that after the gay liberation phase of the 1970s and 1980s, gay rights groups should adopt more professional public relations techniques to convey their message. It was published by Doubleday and was generally available."

 

[Barbkw]

boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-190701.html

View Full Version : Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders and Homosexuality

---

Major Kong06-13-2003, 11:40 PM
When was homosexuality removed as a disorder from the DSM? What reasons were stated for it being removed? Why was it ever in the DSM as a disorder?​

Shalmanese06-13-2003, 11:49 PM
Someone more experienced will probably chime in but Homosexuality was a disorder in the DSM-III but removed from the DSM-IV. Sometime in the early 70’s I think. A simple google would tell you.

Basically, we classify mental disorders based on accepted community standards. In the 50’s homosexuality was not acceptable. Nowadays, it can be argued that it has become far mroe acceptable. Sometime between then, it moved from being a mental disorder to a lifestyle choice.

---

Odinoneeye06-13-2003, 11:53 PM
Actually, if you want to be technical, it was out of the DSM III-R, a revised version of the DSM III which wasn’t different enough to warrant it’s own number.

---

Otto06-13-2003, 11:53 PM
Everything (psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html) you could ever want to know about the topic and then some. In a nutshell, homosexuality was declared a mental illness because it was not the norm. Every piece of objective research on the topic argued against its classification. In the early 1970s the gay liberation movement made a concerted effort to have homosexuality de-listed, which it was in 1973.​

Xgemina06-13-2003, 11:53 PM
AFAIR Homosexuality was removed in DSM-IV.

According to my Ab Psych professor, it was removed due to lack of clinical evidence showing it to be a mental disorder and overwhelming support of homsexuality not being a mental disorder.

A WAG here, but ab psych deals conditions that are not the norm of society. For many years the majority of people believed that homosexuality was an abnormality or mental disorder and not in line with “normal” society. Therefore it was included. Unfortunately many people still believe that it is an abnormal disorder that can be “cured.”

---

Ice Wolf06-14-2003, 12:00 AM
This cached page from Google (google.co.nz/search?q=cache:XwuzKpwUuyUJ:library.ftmaustralia.org/health/92/transsexualism.htm+%22DSM-IV%22+%2B+homosexuality&hl=en&ie=UTF-8) regarding a call to have GID removed from the DSM-IV as well, has some info as to why homosexuality was removed. One being that

non-clinical samples of homosexuals demonstrated no more psychopathology than heterosexuals.

**Acording to this page however: (cchr.org/fraud/eng/page16.htm) **

In 1973, the APA voted – 5,584 to 3,810 – to cease calling “homosexuality” a mental disorder after gay activists picketed the APA conferences.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

doctordoowop06-14-2003, 01:11 AM
Ice wolf is right-that’s what happens if a convention is in SF. AFAIK, 1st DSM -1952.
DSM II–68-80
DSM III- 80-87
DSM IIIR -1987-94
DSM IV-1994
DSM TR (text revision) 2000
DSM V due 2006.
What was remarkable about the 1973 events was it was a major change in the DSM between volumes, possibly the only one. The DSM IV TR doesn’t even mention homosexuality,per se.

---

don’t ask06-14-2003, 02:49 AM
This (soulforce.org/main/psychiatric.shtml) is a particularly clear account of psychiatry’s dealings with homosexuality. The vote referred to in Ice Wolf’s link actually took place in 1974 after many psychiatrists protested that the 1973 Board of Trustees decision was politically motivated. This source doesn’t mention that even after the 1974 vote many psychiatrists remained unhappy about the decision as only a small percentage of eligible practitioners had voted. In 1977 10,000 psychiatrist members of the AMA were asked “Is homosexuality usually a pathological adaptation as opposed to a normal variation?”. 68% of responses agreed.

I only quote these facts because in the 1970’s I was a psychiatric nurse and I know from personal experience that the absence of homosexuality from the DSM doesn’t alter what individual psychiatrists believe.

 

[PassingThru]

Not a cover up, they were faced 25 years ago with homosexual activism and caved to it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_agenda

"It is an agenda that they basically set in the late 1980s, in a book called After the Ball,[17] where they laid out a six-point plan for how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior — in a decade-long time frame… They admit it privately, but they will not say that publicly.

In their private publications, homosexual activists make it very clear that there is an agenda. The six-point agenda that they laid out in 1989 was explicit:

Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible(…)
Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers(…)
Give homosexual protectors a just cause(…)
Make gays look good(…)
Make the victimizers look bad(…)
Get funds from corporate America(…)[1]

After the Ball[17] is a book published in 1989 by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. It argues that after the gay liberation phase of the 1970s and 1980s, gay rights groups should adopt more professional public relations techniques to convey their message. It was published by Doubleday and was generally available."

I think you missed my point.

None of them think, medically speaking, that homosexuals have brains that are damaged in such a way that they are therefor suicidal, drug addicted, disease carrying sex addicts. You, basically, said as much. And its pretty sad.

Secondly, your entire point above is pretty tin-foil-hat. Your list basically says: Make noise, make us look good, make our opponents look bad, collect money. Gee, does that sound familiar? It should, because it is the same for EVERY GROUP THAT SUPPORTS A POSITION. For example, the Catholic Church! And the Lutheran Church for that matter! And every christian and Catholic action committee, and every corporate “non-profit” etc etc. Really, come on.

Eveyone knows gays have an agenda. So do you. So does everyone. That does not mean they are mentally damaged in a physical sense.

Getting really tangential to making a coherent argument now…

 

[Barbkw]

Your list basically says: Make noise, make us look good, make our opponents look bad, collect money. Gee, does that sound familiar?

That’s not my list.

That was the priority list as written in the book “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s.”

amazon.com/After-Ball-America-Conquer-Hatred/dp/0452264987

"From Publishers Weekly

To overcome Americans’ deep-rooted aversion to gay men and women, psychologist Kirk and ad man Madsen propose a massive media campaign designed to correct stereotypes and neutralize anti-gay prejudice. PW termed this “a punchy call to arms, Madison Avenue style.” Illustrated.
Copyright 1990 Reed Business Information, Inc.

 

[PassingThru]

boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-190701.html

View Full Version : Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders and Homosexuality

---

Major Kong06-13-2003, 11:40 PM
When was homosexuality removed as a disorder from the DSM? What reasons were stated for it being removed? Why was it ever in the DSM as a disorder?​

Shalmanese06-13-2003, 11:49 PM
Someone more experienced will probably chime in but Homosexuality was a disorder in the DSM-III but removed from the DSM-IV. Sometime in the early 70’s I think. A simple google would tell you.

Basically, we classify mental disorders based on accepted community standards. In the 50’s homosexuality was not acceptable. Nowadays, it can be argued that it has become far mroe acceptable. Sometime between then, it moved from being a mental disorder to a lifestyle choice.

---

Odinoneeye06-13-2003, 11:53 PM
Actually, if you want to be technical, it was out of the DSM III-R, a revised version of the DSM III which wasn’t different enough to warrant it’s own number.

---

Otto06-13-2003, 11:53 PM
Everything (psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html) you could ever want to know about the topic and then some. In a nutshell, homosexuality was declared a mental illness because it was not the norm. Every piece of objective research on the topic argued against its classification. In the early 1970s the gay liberation movement made a concerted effort to have homosexuality de-listed, which it was in 1973.​

Xgemina06-13-2003, 11:53 PM
AFAIR Homosexuality was removed in DSM-IV.

According to my Ab Psych professor, it was removed due to lack of clinical evidence showing it to be a mental disorder and overwhelming support of homsexuality not being a mental disorder.

A WAG here, but ab psych deals conditions that are not the norm of society. For many years the majority of people believed that homosexuality was an abnormality or mental disorder and not in line with “normal” society. Therefore it was included. Unfortunately many people still believe that it is an abnormal disorder that can be “cured.”

---

Ice Wolf06-14-2003, 12:00 AM
This cached page from Google (google.co.nz/search?q=cache:XwuzKpwUuyUJ:library.ftmaustralia.org/health/92/transsexualism.htm+%22DSM-IV%22+%2B+homosexuality&hl=en&ie=UTF-8) regarding a call to have GID removed from the DSM-IV as well, has some info as to why homosexuality was removed. One being that

non-clinical samples of homosexuals demonstrated no more psychopathology than heterosexuals.

Acording to this page however: (cchr.org/fraud/eng/page16.htm)

In 1973, the APA voted – 5,584 to 3,810 – to cease calling “homosexuality” a mental disorder after gay activists picketed the APA conferences.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

doctordoowop06-14-2003, 01:11 AM
Ice wolf is right-that’s what happens if a convention is in SF. AFAIK, 1st DSM -1952.
DSM II–68-80
DSM III- 80-87
DSM IIIR -1987-94
DSM IV-1994
DSM TR (text revision) 2000
DSM V due 2006.
What was remarkable about the 1973 events was it was a major change in the DSM between volumes, possibly the only one. The DSM IV TR doesn’t even mention homosexuality,per se.

---

don’t ask06-14-2003, 02:49 AM
This (soulforce.org/main/psychiatric.shtml) is a particularly clear account of psychiatry’s dealings with homosexuality. The vote referred to in Ice Wolf’s link actually took place in 1974 after many psychiatrists protested that the 1973 Board of Trustees decision was politically motivated. This source doesn’t mention that even after the 1974 vote many psychiatrists remained unhappy about the decision as only a small percentage of eligible practitioners had voted. In 1977 10,000 psychiatrist members of the AMA were asked “Is homosexuality usually a pathological adaptation as opposed to a normal variation?”. 68% of responses agreed.

I only quote these facts because in the 1970’s I was a psychiatric nurse and I know from personal experience that the absence of homosexuality from the DSM doesn’t alter what individual psychiatrists believe.

Ehhh, what?

From what you just posted:

*Every piece of objective research on the topic argued against its classification. (As a disorder)

It was removed due to lack of clinical evidence showing it to be a mental disorder and overwhelming support of homsexuality not being a mental disorder.

For many years the majority of people believed that homosexuality was an abnormality or mental disorder and not in line with “normal” society. Therefore it was included. Unfortunately many people still believe that it is an abnormal disorder that can be “cured.”

Non-clinical samples of homosexuals demonstrated no more psychopathology than heterosexuals.*

You even highlighted the first one!

Great, the gays forced a vote. Do you also think they magically, in 1973, changed an entire medical societies opinion with a picket!!! Really!!! Bear in mind, this is over a decade before all your conspiracy stuff you just posted…

I will happily concede the gays could have forced a vote. Now what?

 

[Barbkw]

soulforce.org/article/642

As mentioned above in that forum:

"Gay Is Okay With APA (American Psychiatric Association)
Medical News & Perspectives - August 12, 1998
Forum Honors Landmark 1973 Events

"It’s been 25 years since the American Psychiatric Association (APA) voted to delete homosexuality from its official list of mental disorders and issued a strong statement of support for gay rights. A forum marking this anniversary drew a standing-room-only crowd at the APA’s annual meeting in Toronto, Ontario, in June,[1998].

"Speakers discussed the controversy that surrounded efforts to depathologize homosexuality, traced the evolution of psychiatric and psychoanalytic attitudes toward homosexuality and explored the significance of these changes for the mental health of gay, lesbian, and bisexual persons today.

"Melvin Sabshin, MD, who recently retired after 23 years as medical director of the APA, recalled “tumultuous” demonstrations by gay activists objecting to the classification of homosexuality as an illness and by Vietnam War protesters at the APA’s annual meeting in San Francisco, Calif, in 1970, a year when he served as program director. “It was guerrilla theater,” he said, “with lots of hard words,” so disruptive, in fact, that the APA hired a security consultant to try to ensure more orderly demonstrations at future annual meetings.

"The screaming eased into discussion, said Sabshin, now adjunct professor of psychiatry at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore. At the 1972 annual meeting, a gay psychiatrist, who feared professional repercussions if his identity were known, spoke while wearing a mask. By 1973, however, there were exhibits at the meeting on being “gay, proud, and healthy.”

Continues page 2

 

[Barbkw]

Page 2

"Scientific Evidence Was Impetus

"The social and political impetus for change, Sabshin said, was supported by scientific evidence. The APA’s Committee on Nomenclature reviewed numerous studies that used standardized instruments and **nonpatient populations **and showed that most gay persons were satisfied with their sexual orientation and were not impaired in their social functioning.

"Pressure to abandon the psychoanalytic view that the “homoerotic level” is simply a stage in development toward mature sexuality, Sabshin said, was part of a broader movement to reexamine ideas about psychopathology in general, “to accept that all of us have some problem or another,” and to redefine what is and is not normal. "The development of a rational approach to pathology," Sabshin said, “was salient and helpful to the gay group.”

"Proposals to drop homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, second edition (DSM-II; Washington, DC: APA; 1968) advanced within the APA from local to national levels. In December 1973, Sabshin said, the APA’s board of trustees voted in favor of the deletion. This event drew national media coverage. The New York Times headline, “Doctors Rule Homosexuality Not Abnormal,” Sabshin said, focused squarely on the central issue of normalcy. A newspaper aimed primarily at gay readers cheered, “Gays Leave Psychiatric Sicklist.”

"The battle was not quite over. Psychiatrists objecting to the board’s decision mustered support for a referendum to be voted on by the full APA membership in 1974. Some 58% of the members favored the board, an indication, Sabshin said, that a turning point had been reached.

“At the December 1973 meeting, the APA’s board also approved a statement on homosexuality and civil rights (see sidebar). This statement, according to Robert Cabaj, MD, medical director of the mental health services division of San Mateo County Health Services Agency in California and associate clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Francisco, “is a landmark and the cornerstone of all that has happened since.” It fostered recognition, he said, that many of the problems gays and lesbians deal with are the result of societal homophobia.”

"Gay and lesbian psychiatrists," Cabaj said, "have worked within the APA, some holding high elective offices, and within the medical and larger community, to raise awareness of gay and other minority concerns.

"The APA created a gay and lesbian taskforce in 1978. That same year, a group now called the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists was established. Ensuing years have brought more presentations at meetings on such professional issues as what it is like to be a gay or lesbian therapist or psychiatry resident.

"When homosexuality was deleted as a disease category from the DSM-II, a new diagnosis, “sexual orientation disturbance,” was added to describe persons attracted to members of the same sex “who are either disturbed by, in conflict with, or wish to change their sexual orientation.” This diagnosis was renamed “ego dystonic homosexuality” in the third edition of the DSM, DSM-III (Washington, DC: APA; 1980).

"The category was controversial, Cabaj said, “since it’s normal for gays and lesbians to grow up wishing they were not hated and reviled.” Presentations on the lack of empirical data to support this diagnosis were made to the work group charged with revising the manual in the mid 1980s, and the category did not appear in the DSM-IIIR. **In the fourth and most recent edition of DSM, DSM-IV, there is no reference to homosexuality, Cabaj noted, except perhaps under “sexual disorder not otherwise specified” **(Washington, DC: APA; 1994).

““Concerns persist, he said, about problems faced by gay persons in military service. Before “don’t ask, don’t tell” became standard practice, he said, persons in the military who told their psychiatrists that they were gay might have information put in their chart that could lead to their discharge. After lobbying unsuccessfully to keep military psychiatrists from being seated in the APA assembly because they did not adhere to the APA’s guidelines on gay rights, Cabaj said, the gay groups sought to educate military psychiatrists about the ethical bind they were in.””

Continued at: soulforce.org/article/642

 

[PassingThru]

That’s not my list.

That was the priority list as written in the book “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s.”

amazon.com/After-Ball-America-Conquer-Hatred/dp/0452264987

"From Publishers Weekly

To overcome Americans’ deep-rooted aversion to gay men and women, psychologist Kirk and ad man Madsen propose a massive media campaign designed to correct stereotypes and neutralize anti-gay prejudice. PW termed this “a punchy call to arms, Madison Avenue style.” Illustrated.
Copyright 1990 Reed Business Information, Inc.

You posted it. Its yours. You support that the gays have this agenda. The list you posted is basically, make noise, make us look good, them look bad, collect money. Great. HOW DOES THAT SHOW THAT HOMOSEXUALITY MEDICALLY CAUSES THE LIST PROBLEMS YOU ASSERTED?

Great googly-moogly…

 

[Barbkw]

HOW DOES THAT SHOW THAT HOMOSEXUALITY MEDICALLY CAUSES THE LIST PROBLEMS YOU ASSERTED?

What?

 

[Timothy17]

Psychiatry declassified homosexuality as a disorder because the science found no evidence that the orientation itself causes disordered behavior or dysfunction.

Phychiatry is a pseudo-science (see, for example, this) and the 21st century will witness its fall from grace, once the American media picks up on the facts of its story that it has become the largest drug-peddler in human history. The fact that you do not know that phychiatry invents its own diseases and then proceeds to treat them with some of the most toxic and dangerous drugs on earth nullifies and discredits your abuse of science in trying to defend the brazenly anti-natural homosexual act and its corresponding behaviours.

Here’s a scientific (biological) fact : the female genetalia is so disposed for its purpose that it kills virtually everything (including sperm) that attempts entrance in order to protect the body from disease. The rectum has no such similar defense because** it is not intended for that use**.

Nature dictates sexuality, not only psychology, and especially not physchiatry.

I am sick of these pundits with a PHD thinking their prof delivered to them the right and privilege to dictate to the human race what is right or wrong, acceptable or unnaceptable, normal or irregular. The errors and lies of these would-be demigods are exposed every single day in the misery and confusion they have plunged society into.

Stop preaching lies, errors and calumnies because God Himself will hold you to make an account of each and every single one of them. Sit down and think long and hard exactly what makes you think you have a right to play social-engineer and, by doing so, expose your neighbours to every abomination, confusion and unhappiness as you plunge them into the darkness of lies, errors and half-truths.

There is no rest for the wicked, kenofken.

That being said,
Pax Christi,
Tim

 

[Barbkw]

You posted it. Its yours.

There are quotes around that reading material. And, I sited the source.

I didn’t write that.

I listed all that material as historical evidence to how the homosexual agenda collectively worked to remove homosexuality as a disorder from the psychiactric handbook.

 

[PassingThru]

What?

I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic or not.

You originally proposed that gays are suicidal, drug dependent, sex addicted, disease carrying people, among other things. You are stuck on convincing me or others that because the gays forced a vote in 1973 on the classification of gay as a mental disorder by the APA that your assertion is true. I have completely conceded that they forced a vote. You further posted more info that reinforced the fact that A) gays forced a vote and B) homosexuality is, in fact, NOT a disorder. You posted this information that gays are not disordered, in order to show they are disordered. I don’t know what your point is anymore, other than you really dont like gays…

 

[PassingThru]

There are quotes around that reading material. And, I sited the source.

I didn’t write that.

I listed all that material as historical evidence to how the homosexual agenda collectively worked to remove homosexuality as a disorder from the psychiactric handbook.

I know this.

“Your list” would be short for “The list you posted as written by xxxx”

My point is you obviously agree with the list, otherwise you wouldnt post it…

Hence, the idea behind the list, is a point you agree with…

Sigh

 

[Barbkw]

My point is you obviously agree with the list, otherwise you wouldnt post it…

Yes, I believe that the psychiatric associations bailed on SSA people. Leaving them to feel as if homosexual acts and the homosexual lifestyle should be embrace with open arms.

That that lifestyle will fulfill them, and they will be happy.

 

[Pug]

Anyone else seen it? (You can watch the two programmes on line by following the link I posted). Is this information well known in US Catholic circles? It’s all new to me here I have to say!

I listened to the as much of the first program mentioned as my computer would download before freezing, which was about 10 minutes. The two ladies made quite a mention of this passage from a 2003 CDF document:In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

What is the impact on our daily lives? What can and can’t we do? For example, must a nurse refuse to contact the next of kin listed on the form if someone has an emergency (civil unions will probably affect next of kin type stuff)? Must a secretary at a doctor’s office refuse to type an address label that says “Mr. and Mr. Bob and Bill Smith” (or however that might be phrased)? Must someone who works for the city refuse to run off checks that are paid for medical benefits to the civil union partner of their worker? Must a teacher refuse to use textbooks in a math class that has story problems about Bill and Bob buying their first home together? Just what is expected from this paragraph? The show ladies made it seem like it is far reaching, into any type of social institution.

I knew about the document when it first came out. I just assumed it meant the typical deal about formal and material cooperation, like in all sins. In other words, material cooperation could be justified in some cases but not others. But the ladies made it sound like some new thing, something people don’t know about already.

 

[kenofken]

Phychiatry is a pseudo-science (see, for example, this) and the 21st century will witness its fall from grace, once the American media picks up on the facts of its story that it has become the largest drug-peddler in human history. The fact that you do not know that phychiatry invents its own diseases and then proceeds to treat them with some of the most toxic and dangerous drugs on earth nullifies and discredits your abuse of science in trying to defend the brazenly anti-natural homosexual act and its corresponding behaviours.

Here’s a scientific (biological) fact : the female genetalia is so disposed for its purpose that it kills virtually everything (including sperm) that attempts entrance in order to protect the body from disease. The rectum has no such similar defense because** it is not intended for that use**.

Nature dictates sexuality, not only psychology, and especially not physchiatry.

I am sick of these pundits with a PHD thinking their prof delivered to them the right and privilege to dictate to the human race what is right or wrong, acceptable or unnaceptable, normal or irregular. The errors and lies of these would-be demigods are exposed every single day in the misery and confusion they have plunged society into.

Stop preaching lies, errors and calumnies because God Himself will hold you to make an account of each and every single one of them. Sit down and think long and hard exactly what makes you think you have a right to play social-engineer and, by doing so, expose your neighbours to every abomination, confusion and unhappiness as you plunge them into the darkness of lies, errors and half-truths.

There is no rest for the wicked, kenofken.

That being said,
Pax Christi,
Tim

Since it’s clear the anti-gay conservative Christian crowd doesn’t much believe in the validity of science as a discipline, why do you go through the effort to dress up your justifications in the trappings of science? Do you think shabby science by groups like NARTH will enhance your credibility among wider society? Is the theology of your own Church not sufficient grounds for your opposition to homosexuality?

 

[atara]

I wish I received EWTN on my TV. It was so much easier that way with the DVR. Just butting in to say that