Homosexuals and Bisexuals

[Ben-AG]

Here's a hint; if you are going to post statistics, provide a source to back them up. Also, if you are going to post statistics, make sure they are not blatant lies and misrepresentations like the ones you used there.

Sorry- Here they are...

REFERENCES

Advocate, 1985.

Bayer, R. Homosexuality and American Psychiatry.

Cameron et. al. ISIS National Random Sexuality Survey. Nebraska Med. Journal, 1985, 70, pp. 292-299.

Family Research Institute, Lincoln, NE.

Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA.

Jay and Young. The Gay Report. Summit Books, 1979, p. 275.

Kaifetz, J. "Homosexual Rights Are Concern for Some," Post-Tribune, 18 December 1992.

Kus, R. "Alcoholics Anonymous and Gay America." Medical Journal of Homosexuality, 1987, 14(2), p. 254.

Manlight, G. et. al. "Chronic Immune Stimulation By Sperm Alloantigens." J. American Med. Assn., 1984, 251(2), pp. 237-438.

Morton-Hunt Study for Playboy

MsKusick, L. et. al. "AIDS and Sexual Behavior Reported By Gay Men in San Francisco." Am. J. Pub. Health, 1985, 75, pp. 493-96.

Psychological Reports, 1986, 58, pp. 327-37.

San Francisco AIDS Foundation, "Can We Talk."

Science Magazine, 18 July 1993, p. 322.

Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 1990.

United States Census Bureau

United States Congressional Record, June 29, 1989.

University of Chicago's Nation Research Corp.

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition, American Psychiatric Association, 1994.



As for giving gay couples the legal right to marry, I do not have a definite answer for you. I do not wish to impose my views or beliefs on someone who is not willing to listen as it may come off as presumptous and inconsiderate. Also, outlawing marriage for homosexuals may very well push homosexuals further away; making them feel ostracised from me, and if I'm too bold to presume, and the rest of the Christian community who feel homosexuality is wrong. When, on the contrary, I want them closer. I want to get to know them, help them if I can, answer any questions they may have on my beliefs.

Now, when I say I want to help them, that is not implying I am a better person than they are. We ALL are sinners, everyone of us is born bent; born into iniquity. Homosexuality is not the marquee sin. On the contrary, it's not any worse than any of the others; it's listed right amoung fornicators, thieves, drunkards, slanderers, & swindlers- 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

And, I am called to love them...and I do. Just as I hope they can love me despite all my shortcomings and flaws because, the Lord knows, we all have them.

So, to answer your question, I am not a political person and could not be bold enough to take public office and impose my beliefs on someone else. But, if I had to make a decision with America how it is now, I wouldn't condemn legalizing gay marriage if the public really wanted it because of the reasons listed above. Who am I to judge someone? There is only one judge, and He sits on the highest most powerful throne.

But, maybe they could see it in their hearts to call it something else besides marriage out of simple consideration who do believe that that is a sacred union between man and wife...

 

[Philothei]

As for why do people become gay...in my experience, they just are.

if that "personality trade" has with it pathology such as what Ben-AG kindly posted yeah it does. This behaviour does influence one's life negatively such as alchohol would be... Do we ask why someone is an alchoholic? Sure we do...Do we see family dynamics and also gene predisposition? Sure we do.. Why would it be any different with homosexuality? Admiting some of us are not healthy is not a stigma, it is a reality that unfortunately if we do not identify we cannot deal with the problem....Also if we accept a troubled person as healthy we as society deny that person his health. How responsible is that then??

Also Ben: Great post thanks for posting that

 

[Ben-AG]

I also wanted to say something on the stats. I am not saying these facts are to be taken just because I say they are, take them with a grain of salt. I, like you, may be misled on them. Some may be outdated or just blatantly misrepresented, but that doesn't take away from the substance of my posts. Feel free to do your own research...don't just take my word for it.

 

[Ben-AG]

None of that. One does not "become" gay; one is gay.

This is also a highly-controversial issue. Now you say that "one does not become gay; one is gay." This, to me, would imply a genetic predisposition to being gay. A "gay gene," although there has been plenty of research, has yet to be proven but I'm not denying the possibility of one. If there were one, this does not mean that the people with it are without hope. I am genetically predisposed to want to have as many sexual interactions as I can so as to pass on my genes but that does not mean I don't have a choice in the matter. I CHOOSE to wait until marriage despite temptations. How? Through Christ. Why Christ? 2 Corinthians 5:14-21 sums it up pretty well.

Now, as I said, I do not deny that there is a "gay gene," but merely that if someone is genetically predisposed than the factors I first listed do not help in fighting their temptations. Thus, they hold some weight with or without a "gay gene."

 

[Shane Roach]

If you read the book by Bayer Ben posted, it shows how psychiatry has basically traded a lot in medicalizing behaviors. Your typical alchoholic does not go to a psychiatrist. he goes to a 12 step program, which helps him focus a lot of energy on retraining his behavior.

They are saying that things are a sickness when they are in actuality just difficult to break habits. The flip side of this is, if they have decided homosexuality is not a sickness, then why are they still involved at all? It's just another sexual behavior then. It can be regulated at will.

They want to play both sides of this issue for some reason, and I find it very unethical. Whether it was prior to '73 when they were arguing that it was a sickness so that the laws would be changed, or post '73 when they began to argue it is not a sickness so that the laws will be changed, it seems their only concern is to change the laws.

Law and morality is not the purview of psychiatry. They have no legitimate authority to declare whether things are moral or not outside of regulating their own profession.

 

[Philothei]

No one is here to "judge" the homosexuality as something that is clear cut and dry and you are right science does come up with new findings all the time. What I think makes the difference here is "unbiased" scientific information that unfortunately we are lacking ..

 

[Wyzaard]

Do we ask why someone is an alchoholic? Sure we do...Do we see family dynamics and also gene predisposition? Sure we do.. Why would it be any different with homosexuality?

Because unlike alcoholism, it is not a habit one develops and maintains by picking up a six-pack or fifth of gay from the store.

Admiting some of us are not healthy is not a stigma, it is a reality that unfortunately if we do not identify we cannot deal with the problem....Also if we accept a troubled person as healthy we as society deny that person his health. How responsible is that then??

Not at all... too bad no one here has shown that homosexuality is unhealthy.

 

[Philothei]

Law and morality is not the purview of psychiatry. They have no legitimate authority to declare whether things are moral or not outside of regulating their own profession.

The funny part is that true science cares for the wellbeing of the individual though and that is what true scientist should care for as they "take the Hyppocratus" oath... It seems that more scientists just give in to any agenda that is politically correct regardless that oath... Why is it so hard for people to realize that God and science are not at odds with each other? I would agree that it is not the same but the "conflict" that many claim that exists is merely a "card blance" to push agendas around regarding any Christian value. The science card is played everywhere but to the dismay of those who "follow" the scientific "research" is mostly non- inconclusive as it is done in a small percentage of the population and for a short time. If you look at surveys the variables usually are too confusing and some are easily manipulated to prove the "thesis" of each scientists....

 

[Wyzaard]

Your typical alchoholic does not go to a psychiatrist. he goes to a 12 step program, which helps him focus a lot of energy on retraining his behavior.

And it is largely ineffective; as alcoholism is a medical issue as well as a social one, it needs to be addressed with tangible treatments... not mysticism.

They are saying that things are a sickness when they are in actuality just difficult to break habits. The flip side of this is, if they have decided homosexuality is not a sickness, then why are they still involved at all? It's just another sexual behavior then. It can be regulated at will.

That doesn't follow... homosexuality is an inborn orientational variation that is still villified as a disorder by self-hating bigots; thus, they feel socially responsible to stick up for non-sick homosexuals.

Whether it was prior to '73 when they were arguing that it was a sickness so that the laws would be changed, or post '73 when they began to argue it is not a sickness so that the laws will be changed, it seems their only concern is to change the laws.

Laws carry significant material consequenses, and if you've been an organization that has tacitly supported oppression, part of your rehabilitation process is trying to right the wrongs you are complicit in.

Law and morality is not the purview of psychiatry. They have no legitimate authority to declare whether things are moral or not outside of regulating their own profession.

I see little reason to trust such judgments to the likes of you... other's "morality" is none of your business.

 

[Maren]

Sorry- Here they are...

REFERENCES

Advocate, 1985.

Bayer, R. Homosexuality and American Psychiatry.

Cameron et. al. ISIS National Random Sexuality Survey. Nebraska Med. Journal, 1985, 70, pp. 292-299.

Family Research Institute, Lincoln, NE.

Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA.

Jay and Young. The Gay Report. Summit Books, 1979, p. 275.

Kaifetz, J. "Homosexual Rights Are Concern for Some," Post-Tribune, 18 December 1992.

Kus, R. "Alcoholics Anonymous and Gay America." Medical Journal of Homosexuality, 1987, 14(2), p. 254.

Manlight, G. et. al. "Chronic Immune Stimulation By Sperm Alloantigens." J. American Med. Assn., 1984, 251(2), pp. 237-438.

Morton-Hunt Study for Playboy

MsKusick, L. et. al. "AIDS and Sexual Behavior Reported By Gay Men in San Francisco." Am. J. Pub. Health, 1985, 75, pp. 493-96.

Psychological Reports, 1986, 58, pp. 327-37.

San Francisco AIDS Foundation, "Can We Talk."

Science Magazine, 18 July 1993, p. 322.

Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 1990.

United States Census Bureau

United States Congressional Record, June 29, 1989.

University of Chicago's Nation Research Corp.

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition, American Psychiatric Association, 1994.



As for giving gay couples the legal right to marry, I do not have a definite answer for you. I do not wish to impose my views or beliefs on someone who is not willing to listen as it may come off as presumptous and inconsiderate. Also, outlawing marriage for homosexuals may very well push homosexuals further away; making them feel ostracised from me, and if I'm too bold to presume, and the rest of the Christian community who feel homosexuality is wrong. When, on the contrary, I want them closer. I want to get to know them, help them if I can, answer any questions they may have on my beliefs.

Now, when I say I want to help them, that is not implying I am a better person than they are. We ALL are sinners, everyone of us is born bent; born into iniquity. Homosexuality is not the marquee sin. On the contrary, it's not any worse than any of the others; it's listed right amoung fornicators, thieves, drunkards, slanderers, & swindlers- 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

And, I am called to love them...and I do. Just as I hope they can love me despite all my shortcomings and flaws because, the Lord knows, we all have them.

So, to answer your question, I am not a political person and could not be bold enough to take public office and impose my beliefs on someone else. But, if I had to make a decision with America how it is now, I wouldn't condemn legalizing gay marriage if the public really wanted it because of the reasons listed above. Who am I to judge someone? There is only one judge, and He sits on the highest most powerful throne.

But, maybe they could see it in their hearts to call it something else besides marriage out of simple consideration who do believe that that is a sacred union between man and wife...

Actually your list of references is largely worthless without lining up exactly what claims they are supporting. In fact, from what I remember of websites that list these, they don't actually show which claims each reference support because they mix legitimate references that don't really support their claims with the references that are false in order to make it appear their claims have validity. It is well known that propoganda works best when you mix several truths in with the false claims.

Now, from what I recall, several of those references are all actually based on the claims of Paul Cameron. For example, the Family Research Institute is an organization Paul Cameron founded and he and his son are the only "researchers". And, if I recall from when I previously addressed these claims, many of the other papers referenced rely on Paul Cameron's claims.

Their are many problems with Cameron's research and methodologies, to the point that he was expelled (or quit just prior to being expelled depending on the claims you believe) by the APA and censured twice by the American Sociological Association. Among the things that has been found is that Paul Cameron determines the result he wants to get and then finds the data to support his "result". And, obviously, other research tends to contradict the findings of Paul Cameron.

One other claim I'll address is the idea of the number of sexual partners homosexuals have. This was basically taken from a "survey" in Advocate magazine where readers wrote in to say how many partners they had had. First problem, this methodology is about as valid as taking a survey from Playboy magazine about the number of sexual partners and claiming it represents all heterosexuals -- the results are skewed since both magazines readers tend to be more promiscuous. Second, it doesn't work because the people who respond are typically wanting to "brag", meaning both they have a higher number of sexual partners, and then will further inflate that number so they "look better" to those they are trying to impress.

In fact, most studies that compare show that the number of sexual partners between heterosexual men and homosexual men are relatively similar, though there are one or two studies (one that ShaneRoach loves to use) that show a percentage of gays tend to have more sexual partners. But the fact remains your average homosexual tends to be no more promiscuous than your average heterosexual.

So, again, line up the claims that are made with the study that supports it and, when I have time, I'll take a look.

 

[Philothei]

homosexuality is an inborn orientational variation that is still villified as a disorder by self-hating bigots; thus, they feel socially responsible to stick up for non-sick homosexuals.

that a nice cozy twist... of what it is implied? To call it a disorder is not followed by "self hated bigots" but scientists who had investigated the human pshyche and found out that those individuals were troubled by it. Actually like I said before it is out of love that society and scientists who swear by the Hyppocratus oath to take care fo sick individuals. They do not want to "avoid" them rather to bring about healing and help and love. This is the humanistic view of a healthy society that seeks out the well being of its members...

 

[Shane Roach]

It took a significant amount of time to obtain a new copy of the study. My old copy has gone missing (just a lesson to people to organize and update files and papers regularly). The section you claim to be part of the study doesn’t exist. Given the history of the site Dailey published his essay on I would not be surprised to find they created a mock up to cover some of Dailey’s more obvious misrepresentations.

As I have said a couple of times, I got this from University of Texas. It is not a mock up. To claim you have the paper cited and that it does not have the information it clearly contains leaves me little space at all to trust things you say either now or in the future.

Here is the heading of the download:

Here is the page with the information. Note it is on the exact page as the citation. Areas blacked out are to avoid copyright violation by posting too large a percentage of the entire article.

Here is my original highlighted closeup.

Here is the original citation from Dailey and a link to the page I found it.

10. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354. Dr. Paul Van de Ven reiterated these results in a private conversation with Dr. Robert Gagnon on September 7, 2000.

Homosexual & Healthy?

You also made some claims about another paper I have been able to locate.

Dolcini “Demographic Characterizes of Heterosexuals with Multiple Partners: The National AIDS Behavioral Surveys” Family Planning Perspectives. 1993. Vol. 25 (5): 203-214 found gay men had significantly fewer sexual partners compared to heterosexual men:
Gay men:
0 partners-10.5%,
1 partner-77.9%,
2 or more-11.2%
heterosexual men:
0 partners-17.9%,
1 partner 53.1.9%
2 or more 29.1%

First off, there is no homosexual data in the entirety of this article. The following excerpt explains why, but obviously I would have to post the entire article to prove my statement, which again because of copyright I cannot do.

Oh, here's the heading, just for reference. It again makes it clear that there was no intention to do any research whatsoever on gays in this study.

Finally, here are the actual percentage of married men and their number of partners. You stated it was 53.1.9% (an obvious error from the beginning) that had only the one partner (presumably usually their spouse), but the actual percentages are in the 90's.

I am not arguing that this closes the case. Indeed, the people arguing the case is closed are those who support gay marriage. My point is that this issue seems far from resolved and yet the APA states flatly that it is resolved.

There should be a multitude of easily referenced studies if indeed the case has been made that homosexuality is not an "illness", and even more if they plan to establish it is not "immoral" and that society is at fault for any problems gays may have. What there actually is is rather slipshod, and seems to indicate that, if anything at all, homosexuality is associated with a lot of troublesome issues.

Why shove all of this difficulty in with marriage, especially when the issues covered by regulation of marriage have nothing to do with gay couples to begin with?

 

[SughaNSpice]

Out of extreme curiosity, exactly why is NAMBLA even brought up? Is it to bring some comparison between gays and child molestation?

By this logic, can we not also assume that all Christians are part of/receptive to the ministries of Westboro Baptist Church? After all, they claim ties to being Christian.

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Wasn't it shown a few years ago that NAMBLA doesn't actaully exist. Its just a POBox and a websight maintiend by ome church?[/FONT]

 

[Ben-AG]

Actually your list of references is largely worthless without lining up exactly what claims they are supporting. In fact, from what I remember of websites that list these, they don't actually show which claims each reference support because they mix legitimate references that don't really support their claims with the references that are false in order to make it appear their claims have validity. It is well known that propoganda works best when you mix several truths in with the false claims.

Now, from what I recall, several of those references are all actually based on the claims of Paul Cameron. For example, the Family Research Institute is an organization Paul Cameron founded and he and his son are the only "researchers". And, if I recall from when I previously addressed these claims, many of the other papers referenced rely on Paul Cameron's claims.

Their are many problems with Cameron's research and methodologies, to the point that he was expelled (or quit just prior to being expelled depending on the claims you believe) by the APA and censured twice by the American Sociological Association. Among the things that has been found is that Paul Cameron determines the result he wants to get and then finds the data to support his "result". And, obviously, other research tends to contradict the findings of Paul Cameron.

One other claim I'll address is the idea of the number of sexual partners homosexuals have. This was basically taken from a "survey" in Advocate magazine where readers wrote in to say how many partners they had had. First problem, this methodology is about as valid as taking a survey from Playboy magazine about the number of sexual partners and claiming it represents all heterosexuals -- the results are skewed since both magazines readers tend to be more promiscuous. Second, it doesn't work because the people who respond are typically wanting to "brag", meaning both they have a higher number of sexual partners, and then will further inflate that number so they "look better" to those they are trying to impress.

In fact, most studies that compare show that the number of sexual partners between heterosexual men and homosexual men are relatively similar, though there are one or two studies (one that ShaneRoach loves to use) that show a percentage of gays tend to have more sexual partners. But the fact remains your average homosexual tends to be no more promiscuous than your average heterosexual.

So, again, line up the claims that are made with the study that supports it and, when I have time, I'll take a look.

Sexually transmitted diseases in homosexual men.

This is an excellent article written by Handsfield that addresses some of the issues.

He says, "Gay men appear to be at greater risk than heterosexual men or women for gonorrhea, syphilis, anorectal venereal warts, and perhaps for genital and anorectal herpes simplex virus infection, we well as for several STDs outside the traditional sphere of venereology, including hepatitis A, hepatitis B, amebiasis, giardiasis, shigellosis, enteritis due to Campylobacter fetus, genital and anorectal meningococcal infection, and cytomegalovirus infection."

He then goes on to say, "Most studies to date, however, have been conducted in STD clinics or at sites where persons congregate for anonymous sexual activity, such as steam baths, and the applicability of their findings to the homosexual male population at large is unknown."
Here he clearly points out the flaw in those studies as not an accurate representation of the whole homosexual male population, as you have extrapulated yourself. But, he continues and addresses this problem:

"Darrow and his colleagues.. have attempted to address this problem by reporting the frequencies of several STDs relative to various risk factors in a large population of gay men in the general population. Critics will point out, and the authors acknowledge, that the results cannot be considered applicable to all homosexual men; the population sample included only 4,212 respondents (1.5 &#37 to 275,000 questionnaires published in a gay-oriented magazine or distributed through organizations relating to homosexual men. This study commands attention, however, because of the size of the population surveyed and because it was not conducted in an STD clinic. The fact that only 36% of the respondents who had sought profressional care for STDs had done so at public clinics supports the concept that this population sample is different, and presumably broader, than other populations of gay men studied to date."

After Handfield addressed the validity of his findings, he goes on to express them:

"The results contain no surprises, except that perhaps that full 78% of respondents had experienced at least one episode of the STDs surveyed; and 2,228 of 3,696 who answered the question fully had experienced an STD aside from pediculosis. Although individuals who had been infected might have been more likely than other gay men to participate in the survey, this probably was not a major determinant, since only four of the 692 questions directly referred to STDs or to medical issues."

He came up with approximately the same result as the one that was under challenge:

"The infections surveyed occured with roughly the same relative frequencies that have been observed among gay clientele of STD clinics or steam baths."


<-- This is probably what most of you are doing after reading this post, and I am sorry . I know it's long and cumbersome and I quoted alot but merely to make a point. If you caught anything from this article, Handfield is merely trying to show the increased health risks involved with being a homosexual, specifically men. I think most people come to that conclusion already without having to go though such a tiresome article.

Here are some more interesting and educating articles: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Link&dbFrom=PubMed&from_uid=6895005


http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html <--This website goes on to show different mental health problems and issues with suicide such as homosexuals 6x more likely to commit suicide as opposed to heterosexuals. I won't go in depth in this one but instead I'll let you formulate your own idea position on this one.

 

[SughaNSpice]

How do you confirm that? Their "list" is a map.

Also, this organization is not really qualified to be cited as any official listing for hate groups. Among the qualifications for being a hate group according to SPLC is pamphleting.

"Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing. Websites appearing to be merely the work of a single individual, rather than the publication of a group, are not included in this list. Listing here does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity."

SPLCenter.org: Hate Groups Map

you could try actually looking


the other anti-gay hate groups active in North America are:


Traditional Values Coalition
Abiding Truth Ministries
Chalcedon Foundation
Family Research Institute
American Vision
Illinois Family Institute
Heterosexuals organized for a moral environment
Westboro Baptist Church
The School of Christian Activism
Mass Resistance
Watchmen on the Walls



The SPLC identifies anti-gay hate groups:
“Anti-gay groups are organizations that go beyond mere disagreement with homosexuality by subjecting gays and lesbians to campaigns of personal vilification.”

 

[Fenny the Fox]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Wasn't it shown a few years ago that NAMBLA doesn't actaully exist. Its just a POBox and a websight maintiend by ome church?[/FONT]

Yeah, pretty much. There is now no more than a couple P.O.Boxes (one in Cali (SanFran maybe?) and one in New York) and a website. Which appears to require password access, unless I found a different site when checking on that...

 

[Wyzaard]

that a nice cozy twist... of what it is implied?

It's a private matter between me and a certain someone on this board who denies their sexual orientation.

To call it a disorder is not followed by "self hated bigots" but scientists who had investigated the human pshyche and found out that those individuals were troubled by it.

At least from the perspective of bigot scientists; the vast majority of researchers do not view homosexuality as sick.

Actually like I said before it is out of love that society and scientists who swear by the Hyppocratus oath to take care fo sick individuals. They do not want to "avoid" them rather to bring about healing and help and love. This is the humanistic view of a healthy society that seeks out the well being of its members...

Then doctors should help religious bigots become healthier people; those who subscribe to mysticism to justify oppression are a danger to themselves and others.

 

[SughaNSpice]

Hi, this is my first post on this forum but I felt like I could offer some input. As many of us have witnessed, most homosexuals hate their desires and try to suppress them.

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]or more likely some gays are taught to hate themselves by people who hate gays.[/FONT]

Which leads us to the question of how one becomes gay?
- Personality/Temperament?
- Negative Body Image?
- Disfunction of Family Relationships?
- Sexual Violation at a Young Age?
- No affirmation from a father at a young age?
- Low self-esteem?
- A homosexual world that welcomes them in and encourages their behavior?
- A compliation of the list?

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]You left out the only reason that has actual evidence to back it up. Sexual orientation is inborn[/FONT]

I can say I do not know for sure...I'm sure it is different in every situation. Here are some interesting facts to consider:

- Depression & Anxiety is 1.5x higher in homosexuals

- Homosexuals are 1.5x more likely to be alcoholics or to abuse substances
- 73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I really have to doubt these statistics. Where are they from?[/FONT]

- Monogamy is virtually non-existent in homosexual relationships

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Not true[/FONT]

- 78% of homosexuals have some kind of STD

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I'm pretty sure this is one of the lies made popular by Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute[/FONT]

- Average age of death amongst male homosexuals is 42...only 1% die of old age

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Definitely a Paul Cameron lie. This claim has been exposed so many times its really sad to anyone trying to use it[/FONT]

- 50% of suicides can be attributed to homosexuals

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]gays make people commit suicide? [/FONT]

- Homosexuals are 100 times more likely to be murdered (usually by another homosexual) than the average person

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I bet this is another lie form Cameron[/FONT]

Whether you are okay with homosexuality or not, these stats are hard to ignore.

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]it helps to know they are false [/FONT]

 

[SughaNSpice]

Sorry- Here they are...

REFERENCES

Advocate, 1985.

Bayer, R. Homosexuality and American Psychiatry.

Cameron et. al. ISIS National Random Sexuality Survey. Nebraska Med. Journal, 1985, 70, pp. 292-299.

Family Research Institute, Lincoln, NE.

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Yeah Paul Cameron[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]this guy up and find out why he was expelled form the APA for faking research data – data about gays suprise! Suprise![/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The Family Research Institute is one of only 12 groups operating in North America identified as an anti-gay hate group[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]there are better researchers around here who can detail just how Cameron's' claims are false. You should just be aware that he is a fraud and well known for fake “scientific” reports[/FONT]

 

[Ben-AG]

I'm sorry sughaNspice, I attempted to address some,if not most, of your questions in posts following my original post. Maybe you skipped them?