Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Gay couples ‘are better at communicating’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Steve of Vermont 28 May 2009, 7:23am

    WOW! Some good news for once.

  2. Excellent! I will inform all of my stright friends ASAP & offer relationship advice at a price! hehe.

  3. Brian Burton 28 May 2009, 1:24pm

    Ofcourse we are better! My Civil Partner and I have communicated splendidly for yars ‘n yars don’t you know!

  4. Pumpkin Pie 28 May 2009, 2:05pm

    Being bi, I could have told them all that myself! ;)

    I’m kidding – having studied psychology, I know full well how valuable large-scale studies like these are, even if the results seem obvious.

    Thing is, it’s so easy to see how alike we all are when you’ve experienced relationships with people of both sexes.

  5. All the straight people I know at present , and I mean all , are having problems one way or another. All the gays ones, none.

  6. Notice there’s no Vee/Hank/Victim/Skinner morons on THIS particular thread making comments… it must sicken them that there is normality to gay relationships, or even worse, despite all the odds stacked against us, we fair better than our hetro counterparts.

  7. But of course, its obvious. That is the reason that men are always jealous of their girl friend’s friends and vice versa. Its a gender issue. Perople of the same sex form life long relationships that even maraiges do not break, This is just an extesnion

  8. Will . . . we should be so lucky.

  9. “And the ironic part is that I know much about
    all of you, and you really know nothing about me.”

    Ah, but I do know you. You an albino dying of lung cancer. You told us that before.

    You are all for the bible as evidence, Adam and Eve, and all the rest of the silly stories. This tells me your uninformed, uneducated, and probably lower intelligence.

    You’re obsession with religious dogma shows you are weak, as you cannot extrapolate information for yourself.

    You believe all gays are paedophiles, and you are obsessed with us. That’s unhealthy, and that itself tells me a lot about you.

    The limit of your scientific knowledge doesn’t go any further than NARTH’s pseudo-science (I’m being VERY kind here), so you don’t understand what you’re talking about, especially your foolish belief in the ex-gay movement. This tells me your ex-gay, as only ex-gays (stupid term for something that doesn’t exist) believe in that nonsense.

    You trawl a gay site thinking you can get an insight to our minds? That means your a simplistic fool.

    Oh and you never, never answer a direct question with regards to your small beliefs. This means you’re small. And very unimpressive mentally.

    I know plenty about you. And you’re a rather sad excuse for a human being.

  10. ‘…greater relationship quality, compatibility and intimacy and lower levels of conflict.’

    The moment I saw him, I knew he was meant for me. He chased after me for six months, and then I caught him. That was June 21, 1990.
    We soon will be celebrating our 19th Anniversary.

    In all these years, we have never once gone to bed mad at each other; we’ve had lots of squabbling, and only one major fight.

    Neither one of us is perfect, but we are perfect for each other.

    Life begins when you’re in love!

  11. Hi Hank, c’est moi !

    ‘For I say, this is death and the sole death,
    When a man’s loss comes from his gain,
    Darkness from light, from knowledge ignorance,
    And lack of love from love made manifest.’

    -Robert Browning (1812-1889)

  12. Yeah, Will. I’m not sure what this Hank is trying to achieve in here….

    …is it that he will “change out minds” and make us all straight? That’s not going to happen, because it can’t physically happen. Besides, some lunatic comments ion a internet site about “Adam & Steve” are not going to make ME change who I am. And why does he care? I don’t care about him.

    …he tries to “understand” us? Why would he be bothered? As I said, I don’t care much about religious nuts, religion is the recourse of the weak and the foolish. His behavour is called obsession, as you quite rightly put it Will.

    …he thinks he’s better than us? Probably. But he’s very wrong on that account. He doesn’t sound happy at all in himself. Thinks finding people who he believes are “lower” than him to make himself feel better. That’s fairly small of him to do so.

    Yes, I’d agree with Will. We can figure out a fair bit from someone who is supposed to be straight, but spends their time trawling a gay site for so called insights, and seems to get some thrill of insulting a whole group of people with silly bible stories. Curious behaviour really, perhaps of passing interest to a bored mind. But rather pathetic in truth.

  13. Linda, Will, you’re both quote right.

    The reality of this is that people like Hank only have the internet to make these wild and silly statements. In the real world, they would be shunned as idiots, which is why I suspect they are here in the first place.

    I believe it was you, Will, you compared their being here to the legend of Sisyphus, the fabled man cursed to roll a huge boulder up a hill, only to watch it roll back down, and to repeat this throughout eternity? Its a good analogy to describe the foolishness of these people.

    They are losing, and we are wining the battle for the hearths and minds of the people. We all know that. They’ll never admit it, but they know that too.

    They have no chance of winning converts here, or getting even one of us to listen to their preaching.

    They must love futility, as noting they do on this site will make the one least bit of difference to us, the world, or our lives.

  14. The word to describe their kind is hubris.

    That and stupidity.

  15. Pumpkin Pie 29 May 2009, 9:46am

    Yo, Hank! You enjoying the Rufskin ad on the right? I mean, I’m mostly into girly-boys, but I certainly wouldn’t say no to a hot bod like that. Rufskin Guy keeps you coming back for more, doesn’t he? Just admit it.

  16. Linda (15):

    Hubris, stupidity… and ignorance.

  17. G’morning Hank:

    ‘I wish I could read a little poetry sometimes.
    Your ignorance cramps my conversation.’

    -Anthony Hope (1863-1933)

  18. But my husband doesn’t understand me…..(!)

  19. Hey Linda, (12) you said, …”he tries to “understand” us? Why would he be bothered? As I said, I don’t care much about religious nuts, religion is the recourse of the weak and the foolish. His behavour is called obsession, as you quite rightly put it Will.

    “…he thinks he’s better than us? Probably. But he’s very wrong on that account. He doesn’t sound happy at all in himself. Thinks finding people who he believes are “lower” than him to make himself feel better. That’s fairly small of him to do so.”

    My response: Why would I bother to try to understand you…well I’m not so narrow minded to think I can’t learn something from many types of people. If you don’t try to understand people who are different than you, then you have a very limited world view and would seem to have closed off your learning experiences. I enjoy certain science fiction, understanding criminal behavior, medical advances, spiritual nature of mankind (of course), some ancient studies in archeology, world crises, politics, and many more topics, so that’s why I’m also interested in the homosexual mind-set and behavior, because the sexual drive controls much of mankind’s behavior and it shows up with fascinating results.

    “…he thinks he’s better than us? Probably. But he’s very wrong on that account.”

    Linda, you couldn’t be more wrong saying that. I follow some other lifestyle and spiritual path and that makes me very acceptable in God’s eyes (not better), and for that I’m grateful that I’ve been able to accept a part of life that most people have closed their mind to realizing it exists, even before dismissing it after serious study and research.

    Linda, when you say, “religion is the recourse of the weak and the foolish” You make a foolish statement because you deny the thousands of great people (who were considered spiritual and having deep faith in their religious beliefs) in many areas of progress who have been brilliant thinkers and discoverers of advances in astronomy, physics, medicine, etc. – even if you don’t believe in God, these people did and in actuality were not (“weak and foolish”) but rather very advanced in their intelligence and contributions to our world. So I think you should rethink your belief about this.

  20. “well I’m not so narrow minded to think I can’t learn something from many types of people.”

    Thats a lie. I’ve seen Hank first hand on how he behaves. His MO is easily seen, he starts off fairly innocuous, but soon goes for the “all gays are paedophiles” bullshit, and spouts NARTH nonsense at whom ever was stupid enough to be baited by him. He thinks ex-gays are “persecuted” by the rest of us…. it like saying the nazi’s were persecuted by the Jews.

    He’s not here to learn from us. If he was, he could engage in logical argument without NARTH fallacies and without the religious nonsense… both are arguments of ignorance, and have no real bearing in fact or science, or even reasonable recourse.

    Don’t be fooled by his lies. If you want more proof, ask other regulars here, Sister Mary, Luke, and Adrian.

  21. Hey Will, you said some harsh things that I’ll correct.
    You say, …
    …”well I’m not so narrow minded to think I can’t learn something from many types of people.” … That’s a lie. I’ve seen Hank first hand on how he behaves. His MO is easily seen, he starts off fairly innocuous, but soon goes for the “all gays are paedophiles”…

    ( I never said all gays are pedophiles …I said there seems to be some similar factors working in what determines a pedophile or a gay person because both have numerous components ….psychological, social, family, peer group, biological, medical and sometimes early sexual abuse issues that go into a person’s formation. And it’s not farfetched to say sexual development is a complex process)

    ,… and spouts NARTH nonsense at whom ever was stupid enough to be baited by him….

    (I don’t think NARTH is totally good or bad…they may go extremes in presenting their research and findings… and I don’t depend on them for most of my research and study, but they do take on issues that should be examined.

    …he thinks ex-gays are “persecuted” by the rest of us…

    (no, but whenever a gay/lesbian person wants to change and makes sufficient effort, with proper counseling , and does indeed make a change to live a heterosexual lifestyle, and succeeds, he/ she, is vilified and called every negative word to show he/she never was homosexual. You give no hope to homosexuals who are unhappy as they are, and want to change, and can with the proper approach, desire, and help to make that change.)

    …he’s not here to learn from us. If he was, he could engage in logical argument without NARTH fallacies and without the religious nonsense… both are arguments of ignorance, and have no real bearing in fact or science, or even reasonable recourse.

    (The other day I looked at a cup of mud, and realized something about people like you and others on this site, I was looking at YOUR BEGINNINGS…you eventually developed from a mud puddle many millions of years ago. Yes, you somehow were the creation out of a mud pie and through evolution you came to be. Talk about an” argument of ignorance without bearing in fact or science”…you have more faith in evolution and science and I have in God creating everything.

    In fact when you use the scientific, evolutionary, materialistic, measurable system to give credence to your belief system, you have no conception of God’s power when He created space, time, cosmos, laws of nature and anything else that now is in existence. You live in a boxed-in existence and can’t see out of it. And the worse thing is you never truly gave God a chance to show you everything He had for you…you simply crossed Him off without proper study with an open mind – you gave up too early.

    Don’t be fooled by his lies. If you want more proof, ask other regulars here, Sister Mary, Luke, and Adrian….

    (The homosexual agenda has serious implications for our society and we have to stay connected with its movements. Whenever a very small minority wants to make a major change to the marriage ceremony, which has been a part of the Judeo/Christian heritage for 4,000 years, you can’t expect us to just lay down and let you walk over us without a fight.)

  22. Hank (21):

    You posted at 3:26 a.m.????

    Here’s a bit of attention for you…

    ‘Where blind and naked ignorance
    Delivers brawling judgements, unashamed,
    On all things all day (night) long.’

    -Alfred, Lord Tennyson (1809-1892)

  23. We’ve been through all these arguments before Hank. Your arguments were weak last time and the time beofer that, and you come up with nothing new. Evolution happened, get used to it.

    Nobody wants to make any change to the Judaeo Christian marriage ceremony – since marriages are not conducted in the eyes of God. There is separation of charch and state in the USA and nobody is telling your church to marry anyone it doesn’t want to. You should do likewise.

    marriages are totally secular events, sanctioned by the state , and they have been happening long before any mythical figure walked in Palestine, and they owe nothing to any celestial tooth fairy. And you have no business to poke your fingers into the lives of others. How does another person’s commitment weaken yours?

    Equality will come Hank – and you will be proved wrong, just like you are wrong about the origins of life – that I can assure you.

  24. Pumpkin Pie 30 May 2009, 11:42am

    …I said there seems to be some similar factors working in what determines a pedophile or a gay person because both have numerous components ….psychological, social, family, peer group, biological, medical and sometimes early sexual abuse issues that go into a person’s formation

    Complete and utter bullshit, totally unsupported by evidence. Comes from the same moronic “common sense” argument that mamas doting on their sons too much turns them gay. Go ahead and provide some evidence for your ridiculous assertions.

    You give no hope to homosexuals who are unhappy as they are, and want to change, and can with the proper approach, desire, and help to make that change

    The only reason they’re unhappy is because bigots like you MADE them unhappy. We have sympathy for the vulnerable people suckered into destroying themselves by NARTH, but scorn for those so far gone that they now try to destroy other victims.

    you have more faith in evolution and science and I have in God creating everything.

    Science is non-religious, not anti-religious. If we went in with no grand preconceptions and found no evidence of a supernatural universe-creating deity, it’s because there is none. How can you say that something based on empirical study takes a greater leap of faith than something based on unfalsifiable supernatural stories from a book? “A wizard did it” is a crap explanation.

  25. Brian Burton 30 May 2009, 12:11pm

    Jean-Paul,
    Who are these scribes who, passing from crime to criticism , sway with such serene icapacity the office which they so lately swept? ‘Narcissuses of imbercility,’ what should they see in the clear waters of Beauty and in the well undefiled of Truth but the shifting and shadowy image of their own substantial stupidity? Secure of that oblivion for which they toil so laboriously and, I must acknowledge, with such success, let them peer at us through their telescopes and report what they like of us. But…should we put them under the microscope there would be really nothing to be seen.

  26. Well done Pumpkin ;-)

  27. Brian Burton:

    Good one. Thanks.

    Does this one make any sense?

    ‘The Vision of Christ that thou dost see
    Is my vision’s greatest enemy.
    Thine has a great hook nose like thine,
    Mine has a snub nose like mine.’

    -William Blake (1757-1827)

  28. Brian Burton:

    Thanks. Good one.

    To get back to the topic of this thread, I meant every word of my post 10. Life does begin when you’re in love, and my partner and I do have a facility at communicating, just like you and yours.

  29. Pumpkin Pie 30 May 2009, 5:04pm

    Thanks, Adrian! I think a little correction is in order, though:-

    If we went in with no grand preconceptions and found no evidence of a supernatural universe-creating deity, it’s because there is none.

    That should read “because there are none”. I was referring to evidence for God, not God himself – that is to say, we haven’t disproved God (this is impossible), we just haven’t found any empirical evidence for him.

    PS: Spam filter code for this post is “them roar”. :D

  30. Pumpkin Pie 30 May 2009, 5:06pm

    No… Actually that really should read “because there is none”. Man, I need to get out of the sun. My brain’s turning to mush. :p

  31. God HIMself, Pumpkin… a but presumptuous, perhaps? I think Lezabella may have something to say to you about that :-)

  32. Brian Burton 30 May 2009, 5:12pm

    Jean-Paul,
    Life dos’e begin with Love and I will not let anybody tell me different. Me and my Partner got together in 1970. We had both been around the Gay Biker, S&M scene since 1968. Well we attended Leather/Biker parties for a few years. I rode a Yamaha 500 and my Partner’s was a Honda CX500. We put the Leathers and the Bikes to bed eventually and settled down to a more ‘Spiritual’ Life. Our Minister Blessed our Partnership when we tied the knot three years ago. ‘Love Is A Many Splendourde Thing.’

  33. (brian, you come across as someone who would be more likely to be playing the organ at church services. Clearly, you’re more at home in a ZZ Top video. Not that you can’t be both of course….Oh well, good for you anyway.)

  34. Brian Burton 31 May 2009, 6:45am

    Adrian T,
    Thank you (I play the harmonica!) Caught you on the (Catholic Aide says Gays are responsable for paedophilia!) last entry.

  35. Brian Burton 31 May 2009, 7:27am

    Love is a many splendourde thing. It’s the April Rose that only grows in the early spring. It is natures way of giving, a reason to be Living. The Golden crown that makes a man a King. Once on a high and windy hill, in the morning mist, two Lovers Kissed and the World stood still. Then my fingers touched your silent heart and taught it how to Sing. Yes….True Loves’ a many splendourde thing.

  36. Pumpkin Pie 31 May 2009, 10:18am

    God HIMself, Pumpkin… a but presumptuous, perhaps? I think Lezabella may have something to say to you about that

    Good point! I just goofed up – I actually do usually refer to the Abrahamic god as “it”. Or occasionally “her”, just for fun. Makes sense that a universe creator would be female, just like pagan deities tend to be.

  37. Pumpkin Pie:

    It seems to me that the ancient Egyptians (I mean reaaly ancient) had a rather unusual concept of a creator-god. Forget ‘his’ name, but the Egytians believed ‘he’ created the star speckled vault by masturbating.

    I have often wondered what that reflected of the Egyptians’ personal activities. I am not laughing at Egyptians, just pointing out how different civilizations have attempted to understand how the wonders of the world have come about.

    By the way, I was so glad to see Linda and the rest of you come onto this thread.

    It just goes to prove that gays ‘are better at communicating’.

  38. Brian:

    You exude a casualness about your religious beliefs that I find very becoming. You also enjoy poetry, and now you say you are a musician!

    It’s hard to believe you were into the biker scene, but I have never known any bikers and I shouldn’t jump to conclusions, right.

  39. Brian Burton 31 May 2009, 4:48pm

    Jean-Paul,
    Gay Leather/Biker just evolved really. I was travelling on London under-ground Railway one day when a very nice looking Guy edged toward me and smiled at me. At the time I was wearing a Leather Jacket. The Guy said, “Hi, nice leather jacket your wearing!” It was a Canadian accent, I knew because of the other Canadian Guy I had met in Malta. I said “The one you’r wearing is better.” “Really? Would you like us to swap Jackets?” Stranger thing had happened to me so I said,”Yes, I would too!” His name was Loyed A. We went to loyd’s Flat in Fulham (London) and we had rampent sex. We swapped Leather Jackets and I realized Loyd’s was a Bikers Jacket, mine was not. I started visiting a Gay Leather Bar called ‘The Coalhearne’ in Earls Court (still London) where I got into Gay Leather sex pretty quick! Then came the Yamaha Bike and was able to head further afield, Brighton where I met my Life-Partner. Funny how things work out! The bold Canadian I met in Malta, introduced me to ‘Sailors’ and Loyd introduced me to Gay Leather/Biker lifestyle. All is put aside now as we willingly embrace the Spirit. See-Ya Buddy!

  40. Brian Burton 31 May 2009, 5:23pm

    Jean-Paul,
    I have always been fairly casual about my Religious beliefs because I have never wanted to ram my Religion down peoples’ throats. But, (I know you may like this Bible passage:) ‘God has made us what we are, and in our union with Christ Jesus he has created us for a life of good deeds, which He has already prepared for us to do.’

  41. Hey Pumpkin Pie:

    You replies to my questions:

    I said: “You give no hope to homosexuals who are unhappy as they are, and want to change, and can with the proper approach, desire, and help to make that change”

    You said , “You said only reason they’re unhappy is because bigots like you MADE them unhappy. We have sympathy for the vulnerable people suckered into destroying themselves by NARTH, but scorn for those so far gone that they now try to destroy other victims.

    I ask you now: From your response, I assume that all homosexuals are very happy with their sexual orientation…no exceptions…and NONE of them have any desire to not be homosexual and if it wasn’t for heterosexuals, none of you would go to psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, because you don’t have personal issues of unhappiness that heterosexuals face. If so, the homosexual academia should be writing, publishing, etc. how we (hetero’s) should look to you for psychological leadership.

    I said, “you have more faith in evolution and science and I have in God creating everything.”

    You said, “Science is non-religious, not anti-religious. If we went in with no grand preconceptions and found no evidence of a supernatural universe-creating deity, it’s because there is none. How can you say that something based on empirical study takes a greater leap of faith than something based on unfalsifiable supernatural stories from a book? “A wizard did it” is a crap explanation.

    I ask, “Are you saying that if science can’t “see something” or “measure something” that it doesn’t exist? Throughout much development in science it keeps discovering things that it had no idea existed, so it doesn’t have to be “supernatural” it can be beyond of science at the moment, so you can’t discount it because you can’t see, or understand it at this moment in time.
    You wizard comment that it’s crap explanation, so let me see how you respond to proving this:

    In the beginning, there was a puddle of mud (is this your primordial ancestor?) and then as time passed (millions of years) there were apes and/or monkeys and (these were turning out to be more recent ancestors of yours). You certainly have a strange family tree.

    I prefer to see my beginnings came from a “normal” creation of our human-like qualities that have been passed on as mankind progressed to this day.

    Also, since you stick to observing behavior that can be expressed in predictable, orderly laws or nature, not arbitrary laws of nature – I ask, “Why are there these orderly laws of nature? Why not chaos?

  42. Brian Burton (38,39):

    Actually, we are the ones who are on the topic here. This Hank character, who I believe is posting form North America, is just a pest.

    Thank you for giving me a further insight into you life’s experience with regards to ‘gay communication’. Personally, the leather scene has often baffled me.

    The rumbling of the bikes seems so aggressive and ‘in-your-face’, while the guys themselves (the ones I used to see in gay bars when I lived in Montreal ‘when Napoleon was a soldier’), were all so gentle and harmless. Basically nice guys.

    As for the passage from scripture, I agree that anything that helps us to live according to the golden rule can help us through life’s difficult moments.

    I have yet to see the Highlands of Scotland on Google Earth. Springtime…so much to do, so little time, you can take it from there, eh pal.

  43. Hey Will, earlier you said, “Notice there’s no Vee/Hank/Victim/Skinner morons on THIS particular thread making comments… it must sicken them that there is normality to gay relationships, or even worse, despite all the odds stacked against us, we fair better than our hetro counterparts.

    Before patting yourself on your back, I have some questions about this article and its (results?)

    I tried getting more information on the actual study, but could only find their press release and the story as was printed in the Desert Sun newspaper in Palm Springs, CA, written by Nicole C. Brambila..It seems a bit strange that a study that was conducted in Illinois is written up in a small California newspaper, but I’ve found a few things that could give reason for why it was handled that way.

    The researchers began by giving dating, engaged and married participants a questionnaire about their own and their partners’ personalities and the quality of their relationships. The participants had to indicate where they fell on a spectrum of each of the “big five” personality traits: extroversion, neuroticism, conscientiousness, agreeableness and openness to experience.

    (I would like to know something about their ages (dating – probably quite young), (engaged – how experienced in the “real world?”), and (married – heterosexual and homosexual marriage might be difficult to be properly classified?).

    Viewing the traits of “”big five” personality traits: extroversion, neuroticism, conscientiousness, agreeableness and openness to experience that the study used – doesn’t intelligence have a huge influence as to one views one’s mate? I would think it is a great factor as to how you communicate with each other. And how about morals and integrity? I think those are very important in making up one’s personality and would like to see how they were handled or would fit in with the “big five” traits measured.

    Also for the article,the Desert Sun interviewed Nick Warner, who as a clinical psychologist in Palm Springs has been counseling for 35 years, and said, ““In a gay relationship, they tend to look at each other’s differences as something interesting that they want to understand more. “Guys tend to dismiss what they disagree with. In a same-sex relationship, there wouldn’t be as much of that of course because you can’t dismiss someone because of their gender difference.

    Socialization can explain much of the cultural differences. Women tend to be socialized to focus on relationships, care taking and housework. Men are socialized to be the breadwinner, work long hours and be mechanically inclined.”

    Incidentally, Nick Warner is also pastor to Desert Oasis Chapel. Warner says, “we’re a non-denominational Christian church that affirms the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered community as we join together in worship, prayer, and searching for God’s place in and purpose for your life.

    Nick Warner says, “I knew we had a message and that was to tell the gay and lesbian community that God loves you just as you are and I knew that would, sometimes, be a hard sell. I knew that there was a part of me that embraced this calling and another part that did not want to do this.”

    So I’m not sure that Warner is very objective in his comments about heterosexual communicating as compared with heterosexual communicating.

    While ome research shows that same-sex couples report greater levels of satisfaction in their relationships than do their opposite-sex peers. “I think the take-home message for heterosexual couples is to try and understand the gender culture of your spouse,” said Esther Rothblum, Ph.D., professor of Women’s Studies at San Diego State University

    She offers, “My research has focused on methodological issues, including factors unique to lesbians as well as ways that gender and sexual orientation intersect. I like to do projects that compare lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals (LGBs) to their heterosexual siblings.

    “I am also interested in ways that lesbians connect with each other in non-sexual ways. I have published an edited book on lesbian ex-lovers and an edited book on lesbian communities, and investigated ways that lesbians, bisexual women, and heterosexual sisters define their communities.

    “I am editor of the Journal of Lesbian Studies, she adds.”

    I’m not sure why she was included in the article that was conducted in Illinois and I’d question her objectivity in her studies and research results. I don’t think she’d offer any results that didn’t show homosexual’s advantageous communication skills over heterosexual communication skills.

    All in all, the article doesn’t seem to carry much weight for
    what it seems to promote.

  44. Information 1 Jun 2009, 5:27am

    Anyone interested in actually reading the article can look here:

    Roisman, G.I., Clausell, E., Holland, A., Fortuna, K., & Elieff, C. (2008). Adult romantic relationships as contexts of human development: A multi-method comparison of same-sex couples with opposite-sex dating, engaged, and married dyads. Developmental Psychology, 44(1), 91-101.

    (Developmental Psychology is a top-tier journal focosued on the dissemination of research on developmental science that is published by the American Psychological Association).

  45. Brian Burton 1 Jun 2009, 6:12am

    I think the ‘American Psychological Association’ should psycoanalis itself and attempt to cure itself right away!

  46. Brian Burton 1 Jun 2009, 6:42am

    Jean-Paul,
    You realize of course that Life goes around in cycles? The Leather/Biker scene lasted not too long and ordinary 9 to 5 periods (as in the Bete Midler Movie) took pesidence as well as Biking. I was Confirmed in England’s historic Durham Cathedral (When Nopolian was just a Soldier!!) Dr. Michael Ramsy, a late, great Bishop was officiating. I remember climbing up the spiral staircase up to the top of the tower and surveyed the scene before me. The day was very bright, I could see for miles from the top of that tower. But, I could not see into the future just then. Any future I’ve seen since, God has pointed the way. I wonder what points the way for a none-believer? Simon Murphy and I are poles apart on any Religious subject. It dose not stop me liking him. With me, I have always looked for the good in a person, rather than the bad. Simon Murphy has such a lot of good in him. Although we fight like cat and dod–I like him. But you Jean-Paul, you know you are my Prince!

  47. Brian Burton 1 Jun 2009, 7:02am

    Jean-Paul,
    You realize life tends to go around in cycles? Leather/Biker seemed but a miniscule period of an eventful life! I was Confirmed In England’s historic Durham Cathedral (when Napolion was just a soldier!!) The late Dr. Micheal Ramsey officiated at the service. Afterwards, I climbed to the top of the Cathedral tower and surveyed the scene before me on that clear, bright day. I could not see the future then, later God pointed the way. I wonder who points the way for a none-beliver? Simon Murphy and I are poles apart on Religion but that dose not stop me liking him. We fight like cat and dog but at the same time I realize there is a lot of good in him. I have always looked for the good in a person rather than the bad. But you Jean-Paul, will always be my Prince!

  48. Pumpkin Pie 1 Jun 2009, 4:08pm

    I ask you now: From your response, I assume that all homosexuals are very happy with their sexual orientation…no exceptions…and NONE of them have any desire to not be homosexual and if it wasn’t for heterosexuals, none of you would go to psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, because you don’t have personal issues of unhappiness that heterosexuals face. If so, the homosexual academia should be writing, publishing, etc. how we (hetero’s) should look to you for psychological leadership.

    Nice logical fallacy. No person of any sexuality would want to change their sexuality were it not for insidious outside influences. Are you trying to say that there are straight people who want to change their sexuality? How does gay people not wanting to change their sexuality make them immune to any sort of unhappiness? They face exactly the same sorts of psychological problems straight people can face, as well as not facing any of the imaginary psychological problems straight people also don’t face.

    I ask, “Are you saying that if science can’t “see something” or “measure something” that it doesn’t exist? Throughout much development in science it keeps discovering things that it had no idea existed, so it doesn’t have to be “supernatural” it can be beyond of science at the moment, so you can’t discount it because you can’t see, or understand it at this moment in time.

    As I clarified in post #28, it is impossible to disprove that which cannot be disproven. Just because we find no evidence for something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, but why should we believe in something that we have no evidence for? Why, you could believe in anything you wanted if you didn’t need any sort of proof. And I’m sure you do.

    In the beginning, there was a puddle of mud (is this your primordial ancestor?) and then as time passed (millions of years) there were apes and/or monkeys and (these were turning out to be more recent ancestors of yours). You certainly have a strange family tree.

    Apart from life starting in the oceans, not mud, that sounds about right. What seems so strange about it? If there were no evidence for it, I’d agree with you, but fields such as biology and chemistry show just how such processes occur.

    I prefer to see my beginnings came from a “normal” creation of our human-like qualities that have been passed on as mankind progressed to this day.

    If your god just came to be, then why couldn’t we have just come to be?

    Also, since you stick to observing behavior that can be expressed in predictable, orderly laws or nature, not arbitrary laws of nature – I ask, “Why are there these orderly laws of nature? Why not chaos?

    Stuff like the laws of physics are a description of how the forces of nature work, nto a rulebook for them. If the universe worked in a different way, the “laws” we write about would be different. And why are these laws of nature orderly and not chaotic? Well, if they were chaotic, then the universe wouldn’t work, now would it? And that would mean it wouldn’t exist. Yet it does. But why does it exist? Well, that’s going into some real deep metaphysical territory there. I have no idea. No-one does.

    PS: I’ll respond to post #42 later on, even if it wasn’t addressed to me. I really need to go now. See you later, everyone!

  49. Jean-Paul 1 Jun 2009, 4:39pm

    Brian:

    That life goes around in cycles has been a poetic theme long before Napoleon was a soldier.

    “Love is a circle that doth restless move
    In the same sweet eternity of love.”

    -Robert Herrick (1591-1674)

    Looking for the good in people can only be a rewarding experience, although every now and then an unexplainable villain does appear on stage.

    I do think a lot of you too, Brian, you know that.

  50. Well, what a surprise, Hank has no problem accepting NARTH “studies”, which are as scientific as palm reading, condemning homosexuality, but has an issue when a study of the opposite comes out. THAN its not “scientific” enough.

    How “scientific” of you. And we’re supposed to think you can offer an valid logical argument in opposition to Evolution after this little display of double standards, eh? Please. You’ve proven here, and elsewhere, you’re not smart enough to be trusted to count pennies.

    We all know what you are, Hank. Don’t be shy. Be the small minded bigot you are, we can’t think any less of you for your stupidity.

  51. Ciaran McMahon 2 Jun 2009, 8:23am

    Well said Will.

    If Hank can’t understand evolution, and all the overwhelming proof that there is supporting evolution, how on earth does he expect us to think that he has any understanding of homosexuality?

    I believe you called it “selective science” before Will? What did you say, he’s able to accept a computer working as fact, even though he doesn’t understand HOW it works, but not evolution? Both are built on sound scientific logic. A computer would not work if if wasn’t build on reason, logic, scientific principals, and scientific understanding. Yet, he chooses one to be true over the other. Silly. Juts plain silly.

    And so obviously silly.

    It proves he’s not smart enough to make the dissemination between understanding and belief. And that’s simply tragic, for him.

    As you said, how can we argue with someone who makes a call on what science “he believes in”, despite not understanding ANY of it, simply because it doesn’t agree with his own bigotry?

    Oh, and Pumkin-Pie, I love your posts. While your wisdom is wasted on Hank, who is incapable of change and learning form a dogmatic position, I sure do love your style!

  52. Pumpkin Pie 2 Jun 2009, 2:56pm

    Hank (42):-

    Viewing the traits of “”big five” personality traits: extroversion, neuroticism, conscientiousness, agreeableness and openness to experience that the study used – doesn’t intelligence have a huge influence as to one views one’s mate? I would think it is a great factor as to how you communicate with each other. And how about morals and integrity? I think those are very important in making up one’s personality and would like to see how they were handled or would fit in with the “big five” traits measured.

    Intelligence isn’t really an issue of personality. Morals and integrity are pretty hazy issues, but are covered fairly well by conscientiousness, in my opinion. The “Big Five” does have its detractors in the psychological community, but it’s pretty well respected as good gauge of character. Whatever your views on the Big Five, just remember that they’re a standardised psychological measurement of personality, so it’s easy to compare this study with other ones.

    I’m not sure why she was included in the article that was conducted in Illinois and I’d question her objectivity in her studies and research results. I don’t think she’d offer any results that didn’t show homosexual’s advantageous communication skills over heterosexual communication skills.

    Wait, so somebody who specialises in researching a particular group of people is NOT a good source for information? Humouring your paranoia for a moment, professionals such as this woman must tell their superiors where their funding is going to. If she performed a study that portrayed homo/bisexuals in a “bad light”, she wouldn’t be able to hide it. Likewise, if she ever fiddled her studies to portray homo/bisexuals in a “good light”, it wouldn’t make it past a peer review (which is, incidentally, why organisations such as NARTH are so untrustworthy).

  53. Pumpkin Pie 2 Jun 2009, 3:00pm

    Anyone interested in actually reading the article can look here:

    Thanks for the information, Information! :D

    Oh, and Pumkin-Pie, I love your posts. While your wisdom is wasted on Hank, who is incapable of change and learning form a dogmatic position, I sure do love your style!

    Thank you! I have a deep-seated desire to expose inaccuracies and fallacies when I see them. Truth is beauty, and all that jazz!

  54. “Hank, who is incapable of change and learning form a dogmatic position”

    That’s the unfortunate reality of this chap, Ciaran.

    To argue with someone who is not open to change, it useless.

    And to argue with one who has provem incapable of understanding the argument due to prejudices and dogma, is even more pointless.

  55. Brian Burton 2 Jun 2009, 3:16pm

    There’ll be Blue Birds over, the white cliffs of Dover, tomorrow just you wait and see….? Just a cotton-pickin’ minute? Blue Birds danced round the shoulders of Uncle Reamus did’nt they, when he sang Zipidy-doodar. Thats right, there ‘aint no Blue Birds flying over the white cliffs of Dover and ‘aint that the truth!?

  56. Folks have wandered a bit off the point, admittedly in response to some fervent members of the Church Militant who I suspect are coming to the terrible realisation that she will never be Triumphant.
    Anyway…If same-sex couples are better at communicating, it is unlikely to be down to any intrinsic incapacity of heterosexual people. It is just that men and women are still so differently conditioned by this patriarchal and sexist society that it is amazing that they manage to communicate at all.

  57. Hey Pumpkin:

    One question at a time. So many posts/comments, going to need more time than there is in a day,

    Will comment on others soon.

    You said,”

    Apart from life starting in the oceans, not mud, that sounds about right. What seems so strange about it? If there were no evidence for it, I’d agree with you, but fields such as biology and chemistry show just how such processes occur.

    Would like to see your proof, evidence that life actually started
    in the ocean, not mud. (Where and how was the ocean formed, where
    did the chemcials come from necessary for life. What actually
    happened to start the life creaton? Has anyone today, actually
    repeated the process, actually started life from the ocean? It’s
    all a theory, not a fact.

  58. My partner and I have been together for 19 years and still fail to communicate adequately about some things. Which adds to the ongoing interest!

  59. Hey Pumpkin:
    You said,, “Nice logical fallacy. No person of any sexuality would want to change their sexuality were it not for insidious outside influences. Are you trying to say that there are straight people who want to change their sexuality? How does gay people not wanting to change their sexuality make them immune to any sort of unhappiness? They face exactly the same sorts of psychological problems straight people can face, as well as not facing any of the imaginary psychological problems straight people also don’t face.”

    Let’s start with the premise that 95% of the population is heterosexual, with 5% homosexual.

    Because heterosexuality is the dynamic working in human and animal makeup –it’s the creating force to continue its species, and rare homosexuality displayed in man or animal is a very transitory behavior, not having a positive meaning to longevity of anyone or anything – it happens but doesn’t serve a positive purpose in the long run.

    Are you saying that when looking at this physical/social/environmental/family surrounding, no homosexual would want to change their makeup and instead be a part of the 95% of society? What is the benefit of being a homosexual? If people could choose their lifestyle, do you think the person would actually choose homosexuality? People like to belong to the group, people are very reluctant to go “outside the box” especially when there doesn’t seem to have an benefit.
    I’d like to see the psychological benefit that’s working within that gives the homosexual something that actually makes him see advantages over heterosexuality.

  60. “rare homosexuality displayed in man or animal is a very transitory behavior”

    No it not. Where’s your proof of this statement? As sexuality has been PROVEN to be fixed at birth, to say that implies heterosexuality is also transitory.

    In fact, you say this only because it fits your dogma, as others here has already pointed out, you fit the facts to your beliefs, not the other way around.

  61. Who cares about ‘purpose’ Hank? We make our own purpose in life. If you want to learn about the benefits of homosexuality, I’ll give you a practical demonstration if you want. Pull your trousers down…. :-)

    Evolution doesn’t actually explain how life started. We don’t know. We have hypotheses – that DNA replaced a previous replicator, for instance. You and I have been over these topics in March – I don’t know why you want to go over this again…. I would cut and paste but I don’t want to steal Pumpkin’s thunder for now.

    Theories are the most solid foundations of knowledge in Science, not facts.

  62. Mihangel apYrs 2 Jun 2009, 10:30pm

    I have heard that gay siblings enhance the chances of your own offspring. Younger brothers of sisters tend (statistically) to be gay. In a primitive community, they offer a male’s strength without the heterosexual urge to mate, for a female and her young. They are also no threat to the heterosexual male if he’s around.

    However, plpease stop talking to Hank and the others, they don’t want to learn, they want to undermine us, change us, and covertly insult us.

    If you don’t feed the trolls they may die off

  63. My feelings are mixed about that, Mihangel ap Yrs. My first impulse would be to ignore him, not to give him any feedback. Then his lie would go unchallenged.

    Then, I would ban him for expressing homophobia on this site, but there’s the freedom of speech issue.

    Thirdly, if I were as prepared as Will, Linda, Anthony, Pumpkin Pie, AdrianT & Ciaran, I really couldn’t resist crushing the lie and grinding it into the slime from which it came.

    I believe he is e-mailing from the east coast of North America which is in the same time zone as mine. I noticed that when his posts show up at 3.30 a.m. your time, it’s 4 hours earlier here, and I do see his posts appearing at that time because it happens that I stay up late sometimes to catch up on the threads while nobody is posting.

    If he is in England and posting at 3.30 a.m., you can draw whatever conclusion you want. Normally, people sleep at night.

    Also, he is not alone, he may just as easily be a she, very often cutting and pasting, and he’s lower than a snake’s belly.

    The names mentioned above perform as a team, and I for one appreciate everything they are doing when they could be enjoying themselves doing something else.

    In a way it’s a piece of cake for them, it’s good mental exercise, and they are at the same time proving that gays do have a facility to communicate better between themselves.

    So, I am inclined to leave them decide their tactics and statergy for themselves because they are basically not only crushing the lie, but also protecting the rest of us.

    Tough call, eh Mihangel. C’est la vie.

    By the way, the spam guard for me was ‘serpens away’ !

  64. Hank:

    Having just read AdrianT’s post 57’s first paragraph, I don’t believe AdrianT is going to give you a second chance, and you really don’t know what you’re missing.

    Post me anytime; I’ve got loads of poetry on the meaning and the purpose of life. I can even quote you passages from some of the world’s wisest philosophers. Wouldn’t you like that, sweetie?

  65. Hey Linda, you said, “ As sexuality has been PROVEN to be fixed at birth,” You got your “facts” wrong and there’s no definite proof/studies that show homosexuality is fixed at
    birth.

    Where did you get this “fact?” There are many psychiatrists that do not go along with your statement.

    Masters and Johnson stated: “The genetic theory of homosexuality has been generally discarded today… no serious scientist suggests that a simple cause-effect relationship
    applies.”

    Dr. John Money, leading sex researcher at Johns Hopkins University, reported: No chromosomal differences have been found between homosexual subjects and heterosexual controls. [and later] On the basis of present knowledge, there is no basis on which to justify an hypothesis that homosexuals or bisexuals of any degree or type are chromosomally discrepant [different] from heterosexuals.

    He also stated: “The child’s psychosexual identity is not written, unlearned, in the genetic code, the hormonal system or the nervous system at birth.”

    Even John DeCecco, the editor of the Journal of Homosexuality, said: “The idea that people are born into one type of sexual behavior is foolish.”

    No less than Alfred Kinsey himself believed that homosexuality was not biologically or genetically based. Rather, he admitted: “I have myself come to the conclusion that homosexuality is largely a matter of conditioning.”

    Dr. van den Aardweg stated: “No genetic factor—sexual or otherwise—has been found that would differentiate persons with homosexual tendencies from others.

    In the same issue of Archives of General Psychiatry that the Bailey/Pillard piece on the lesbian twins appeared, two well-credentialed researchers at New York State Psychiatric
    Institute, said: “There I s no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory of sexual orientation.”

    If People are Born Homosexuals, Then Why Do Studies Show They Switch From Homosexual to Heterosexual to Homosexual Orientation?
    In their 1970 report the Kinsey Institute stated that 84% of gays shifted or changed their sexual orientation at least once. 32% of the gays reported a third shift, and 13% of gays reported at least five changes.

    If sexual orientation is biologically fixed at birth as gays say, why do 84% of them change their sexual orientation at least once? In 1981 Bell, Weinberg and Hammersmith reported similar findings to those of Kinsey: Further, 84% of the homosexuals vs. 29% of the heterosexuals reported a shift in their sexual feelings or orientation after their first appraisal (1981b, p. 91); 60% of the homosexuals vs. 10% of the heterosexuals reported a second sexual orientation shift (1981b, p. 92); 32% of the homosexuals vs. 4% of the heterosexuals reported a third sexual orientation shift (1981b, p. 93); and 14% of the homosexuals vs. 1% of the heterosexuals reported yet another sexual orientation shift (1981b, p. 95). These data may suggest that prehomosexuals were considerably more apt to be sexually confused in their feelings than preheterosexuals were.

    Homosexuality should not have been removed from a mental illness according to many psychiatrists.

    When the APA voted on changing its classification of homosexuality in 1973 it was not representative of the will of the body of its entire membership.

    (Linda… please take note of this part that you people neglect to mention)

    Of the majority of those members who responded and voted to change the classification of homosexuality (but note that only ONE-THIRD of the membership responded and had their views counted).

    Also…four years after the change in classification
    the journal Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality
    reported the results of a survey it had
    conducted. The survey demonstrated that
    69% of the psychiatrists disagreed with the
    decision and still considered homosexuality
    a disorder.

    One researcher concluded that “the result was
    not a conclusion based upon an approximation
    of scientific truth as dictated by reason,
    but was instead an action demanded by the
    ideological temper of the times.”

    Exposed: The Myth That Psychiatry Has Proven That Homosexual Behavior Is Normal

    In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM-II).
    This decision was a significant victory for homosexual activists, and they have continued to claim that the APA based their decision on new scientific discoveries that proved that homosexual behavior is normal and should be affirmed in our culture.

    This is false and part of numerous homosexual urban legends that have infiltrated every aspect of our culture. The removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder has given homosexual activists credibility in the culture, and they have demanded that their sexual behavior be affirmed in society.

    What Really Happened?
    Numerous psychiatrists over the past decades have described what forces were really at work both inside and outside of the American Psychiatric Association-and what led to the removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder.

    Dr. Ronald Bayer, a pro-homosexual psychiatrist has described what actually occurred in his book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis. (1981)
    In Chapter 4, “Diagnostic Politics: Homosexuality and the American Psychiatric Association,” Dr. Bayer says that the first attack by homosexual activists against the APA began in 1970 when this organization held its convention in San Francisco. Homosexual activists decided to disrupt the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, homosexual activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA’s convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, “Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you.”

    Homosexuals forged APA credentials and gained access to exhibit areas in the conference. They threatened anyone who claimed that homosexuals needed to be cured.

    Kameny had found an ally inside of the APA named Kent Robinson who helped the homosexual activist present his demand that homosexuality be removed from the DSM. At the 1972 convention, homosexual activists were permitted to set up a display booth, entitled “Gay, Proud and Healthy.”

    Kameny was then permitted to be part of a panel of psychiatrists who were to discuss homosexuality. The effort to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM was the result of power politics, threats, and intimidation, not scientific discoveries.

    Prior to the APA’s 1973 convention, several psychiatrists attempted to organize opposition to the efforts of homosexuals to remove homosexual behavior from the DSM. Organizing this effort were Drs. Irving Bieber and Charles Socarides who formed the Ad Hoc Committee Against the Deletion of Homosexuality from DSM-II.
    The DSM-II listed homosexuality as an abnormal behavior under section “302. Sexual Deviations.” It was the first deviation listed.

    After much political pressure, a committee of the APA met behind closed doors in 1973 and voted to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM-II. Opponents of this effort were given 15 minutes to protest this change, according to Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, in Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Satinover writes that after this vote was taken, the decision was to be voted on by the entire APA membership. The National Gay Task Force purchased the APA’s mailing list and sent out a letter to the APA members urging them to vote to remove homosexuality as a disorder. No APA member was informed that the mailing had been funded by this homosexual activist group.

    According to Satinover, “How much the 1973 APA decision was motivated by politics is only becoming clear even now. While attending a conference in England in 1994, I met a man who told me an account that he had told no one else. He had been in the gay life for years but had left the lifestyle. He recounted how after the 1973 APA decision, he and his lover, along with a certain very highly placed officer of the APA Board of Trustees and his lover, all sat around the officer’s apartment celebrating their victory. For among the gay activists placed high in the APA who maneuvered to ensure a victory was this man-suborning from the top what was presented to both the membership and the public as a disinterested search for truth.”

    Dr. Socarides Speaks Out

    Dr. Satinover shows how APA’s policies were influcenced by closeted homosexual APA leaders.

    Dr. Charles Socarides has set the record straight on how homosexuals inside and outside of the APA forced this organization to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder. This was done without any valid scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality is not disordered behavior.
    Dr. Socarides, writing in Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of Homosexuality writes: “To declare a condition a ‘non-condition,’ a group of practitioners had removed it from our list of serious psychosexual disorders. The action was all the more remarkable when one considers that it involved an out-of-hand and peremptory disregard and dismissal not only of hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports, but also a number of other serious studies by groups of psychiatrists, psychologists, and educators over the past seventy years…”

    Socarides continued: “For the next 18 years, the APA decision served as a Trojan horse, opening the gates to widespread psychological and social change in sexual customs and mores. The decision was to be used on numerous occasions for numerous purposes with the goal of normalizing homosexuality and elevating it to an esteemed status.

    “To some American psychiatrists, this action remains a chilling reminder that if scientific principles are not fought for, they can be lost-a disillusioning warning that unless we make no exceptions to science, we are subject to the snares of political factionalism and the propagation of untruths to an unsuspecting and uninformed public, to the rest of the medical profession, and to the behavioral sciences.”

  66. Yo Adrian:

    You said, “Evolution doesn’t actually explain how life started. We don’t know” and yet you’re adamant in keeping creationism out of challenging evolution teaching. In fact, there
    are universities that actually deny tenure to professors who
    only present any type of creationist views or challenge evolutionary “facts.” In some instances, there have been teachers
    who were fired for presenting studies/facts that are positive
    towards creationism. I’ve never heard where any universities fired professors who taught evolution as facts and not as a
    theory or opened up discussion where their “facts” were challenged.

  67. Brian Burton 3 Jun 2009, 6:09am

    HANK is just a PRANK! Probably a refugee from the Sally Army?

  68. “Where did you get this “fact?” There are many psychiatrists that do not go along with your statement.”

    Psychiatrists???? Who said anything about Psychiatrists proving this?

    Its NOTHING to do with mental state. Is you sexuality a mental state, Hank?

    Look, YOU go prove its a mental state, I know otherwise, and you wouldn’t understand my proof.

    And besides, I don;’t need to prove my sexuality to the likes of you. None of us do. You prove your intelligence to ME and I’ll probe my sexuality to you, okay?

    I’m bored talking science to an infant like you. Either learn to speak the language of reason, or fuckoff. You’re becoming tiresome in your stupidity.

  69. Will, as usual, well said!

    Why are we defending ourselves to this Hank fool?

    Seriously, people. Its a waste of time.

    The simple fact of the matter is that no matter what he says, we’re still gay. We all know we were born gay. How gives a fucking monkeys what this Hank retard thinks. He thinks evolution is unproven, and substitutes this with the zero-truth idea that creationism made the fishies. How fucking stupid can you be? Seriously, the proof is all around us. Its there to be seen and learnt. The conclusion:- he’s either too stupid to understand the proof, or chooses not to see the proof.

    Lack of understanding of the facts is not a valid argument. Its called an argument of ignorance. Evolution is a “theory” in name alone. Creationism is a story that only the stupid believe in.

    Hank is a fool, and a unashamed bigot. And one of the biggest this site has, as he disguises it with wikipedia cut’n’pasting.

    Logic dictates that if we could change out sexuality liek he’s suggesting, there woudl be SOOOOO many more “ex-gay’s”. So far, we have a few nuts comapred to the millions and millions of us who KNOW we are born gay. Hardly conclusive.

    We KNOW it in our very souls that we’re BORN GAY. But he, and his kind, won’t listen to us. They never will. That’s why they’re dying out. All across the EU, “christian” religious organisation are losing millions of followers, and all the while we get more equal rights.

    We. Are. What. We. Are.

    Full stop. No explanation needed.

    And certainly no explanation needed to a creationist bigot like Hank.

    Who’s with me?

  70. I with Ciaran!!!!

    I will not “prove” my existence to Hank, who as clearly proved to *me* he knows nothing about the world, life, or people.

  71. “Evolution is a “theory” in name alone.”

    Ciaran, couldn’t have said it better myself. This is exactly the truth. The “theory of evolution” refers to the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the current scientific explanation of how these changes occur. Misuse and misunderstanding of these terms have been used to construct arguments disputing the validity of the theory of evolution.

    And I’m with you!!!!

    You’re right, of course…. I do not need to validate my sexuality, to a person who refuses to accept something that is proven, simply because it is against the dogma of superstitious simplicity he was thought at the “ex-“gay conversion school.

  72. Will, Ciaran, Flapjack, here is a bit of light hearted fun at Hank’s expense.

    This is the Genesis story written in the language of modern scioence -0 and possibly what our science textbooks would look like if Hank had his way :-) :-)

    youtube .com/watch?v=69EHLSnWKNQ

    Enjoy!

    (No evidence, Hank. No evidence for creation. Evidence, evidence, evidence. That’s what Science depends on.)

  73. United States Surgeon General David Satcher issued a report stating that “there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed”

    As there’s no proof to the contrary, the QED, people are born gay.

    And I’m with you Ciaran……. even if “proof” didn’t exist, I am what I am as the song goes, and I wouldn’t change me for the world. Besides, it none of anyone business, and I don’t need my rigts validated by a religious nut….. so screw Hank in his homo-curious face.

  74. Tomas Cameron III 3 Jun 2009, 9:16am

    here here ciaran and well said guys i’m with you.

    gay and proud. fuck the so called scientific proof i dont need it to know who i am

  75. G’bye Hankie.

    Suggest you get yourself a hobby. Basket weaving comes to mind.

  76. Here-Here! Well said Ciaran & Will!

    I stand with you boys! PROUD TO BE GAY. BORN TO BE GAY.

    Take a hike Hank, no one believes your claptrap here!

  77. Pumpkin Pie 3 Jun 2009, 3:24pm

    Let’s start with the premise that 95% of the population is heterosexual, with 5% homosexual.

    Because heterosexuality is the dynamic working in human and animal makeup –it’s the creating force to continue its species, and rare homosexuality displayed in man or animal is a very transitory behavior, not having a positive meaning to longevity of anyone or anything – it happens but doesn’t serve a positive purpose in the long run.

    Transitory? Where the hell did you get that rubbish from? And your belief in homosexuality being of no value to anyone is insultingly twisted. Typical of a religious zealot, you think the “goal” of the human species is to multiply, multiply, multiply, subjugate every resource and lifeform in our path and bring the world to its knees before our glorious nation. Bullshit like this is precisely why we have things like world hunger and population crises.

    Let’s take a look at exactly what homosexuals do: just like heterosexuals, the majority work hard, build communities, provide services and generally try to make the world a better place. The only thing they can’t do that heterosexuals can is have children without outside assistance. Do you think people popping out kids is the only way a person can benefit a society? Do women look like baby factories to you? The idea that further propogation of a species is the only way a species member can have any value within said species is such a ludicrous, moronic notion that I can’t believe I even responded to this crap. Shall we get rid of all the gay charity workers, doctors, soldiers, business-people, nurses, etc., etc., etc.? Clearly, they don’t benefit society at all.

    In addition to the lack of ability to naturally produce children not being a disadvantage to society, it is actually a boon. When you look at the shocking numbers of children languishing in care homes, of the constant march of the bulldozers across our remaining countryside, clearing the way for new houses, how on Earth can you think we need LESS gays? Oh, sure, if everyone was gay the species would die out – that’s why gays are a minority, you muppet. Survival of the species is about pooling our strengths and diverse attributes. Men are, on average, physically stronger than women – shall we get rid of women? Everyone has their part to play, and even in the animal kingdom, homosexual animals do what they do best: adopting abandoned youngsters and providing just as many benefits to the group as any procreating member, with the added bonus that they won’t add more creatures to an overcrowded area.

    But if homosexuality itself doesn’t serve a purpose, why should we allow homosexual relationships, then? Actually, it does serve a purpose. The best way to raise children is with a loving, stable pair of parents who can work as a team. Other species have their own methods, but that’s the way our species does it best. What about about couples who don’t choose to have children? This applies to people of all sexualities – sexuality and intimate relationships are a central need for the emotional and mental well-being of sexual humans (as opposed to asexuals, who do exist and are lovely people), and healthy people make healthy societies.

    Are you saying that when looking at this physical/social/environmental/family surrounding, no homosexual would want to change their makeup and instead be a part of the 95% of society? What is the benefit of being a homosexual? If people could choose their lifestyle, do you think the person would actually choose homosexuality? People like to belong to the group, people are very reluctant to go “outside the box” especially when there doesn’t seem to have an benefit.
    I’d like to see the psychological benefit that’s working within that gives the homosexual something that actually makes him see advantages over heterosexuality.

    I already covered the majority of this paragraph above. What remains for me to address is this absurd notion of sexualities being on a sliding scale of worth. Other than for the pressures of society or for shallow cosmetic purposes, no black person would want to be white and vice versa. Sexuality is exactly the same, for exactly the same reasons – it’s who you are, and no sexuality is intrinsically better than another one because that’s not how it works. Ant colonies would die without queen ants. And worker ants. And soldier ants. It’s not about one type of person being better, it’s about working as a group.

  78. Pumpkin Pie 3 Jun 2009, 3:35pm

    AdrianT (57):-
    I would cut and paste but I don’t want to steal Pumpkin’s thunder for now.

    If you feel like it, go for it! I’m spending too much time in this thread. Plus, evolution isn’t exactly my forte. Philosophy and psychology are the areas I’ve studied most.

    Mihangel (58):-
    I have heard that gay siblings enhance the chances of your own offspring. Younger brothers of sisters tend (statistically) to be gay. In a primitive community, they offer a male’s strength without the heterosexual urge to mate, for a female and her young. They are also no threat to the heterosexual male if he’s around.

    I’ve heard these theories, too. Just another example of the benefit that diverse types of people can bring to a society.

    Ah! Out of time! I’ll be back later!

  79. Would love to Pumpkin but am up to my neck in deadlines at the moment!!!

    Look, I tihnk we should discuss more about our approach in dealing with fundies on the Forum, in this websites ‘My’ section. Create a profile for yourself first.

    The forum is good because it’s a perfect reference place for answers. We need a permanent source of stock answers, because the fundamentalists keep repeating the same arguments time and time again, from one thread to the next. (this rubbish about the APA’s decition to delist homosexuality as a mental illness being political, weve been through this argument before. This is where I expect the owners of this site to step in and remove such postings, for being irrelevant, and answered convincingly on previous posts. It is tiresome, frankly, and time consuming. I have not got another 20 minutes to search out the references, paste them and write a response.). If all the answers to these silly points are easily accessible, anyone can simply cut and paste them, or refer people to them.

    We (you, will, flapjack and others) should work on stock Q&A answers together really.

  80. Jean-Paul 3 Jun 2009, 4:43pm

    Hank:

    See how well we gays communicate?

    Gay, Gay, We’re Proud to be Gay ! !
    Wouln’t want it any other way ! !

  81. Jean-Paul 3 Jun 2009, 4:50pm

    Pumpkin Pie, Andy, Robert, Will, Linda, Cairan…

    I’ll see you on the Forum. Check out my 1st grande-niece, Anya, 8-months old.

    And bring a friend !

  82. HANK WROTE (Thread 61)

    “Dr. Charles Socarides has set the record straight on how homosexuals inside and outside of the APA forced this organization to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder. This was done without any valid scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality is not disordered behavior.”

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    There are a number of curious things about Dr Socarides.

    1. He argued that one of the psychological issues behind the development of homosexuality in men was a the following: a very sadistic and cold father figure.

    2. Socarides son is gay

    3.There is a god after all, and he/she has a profound sense of
    humour

  83. important to point out that there is no evidence that homosexuality IS a disorder in the first place. It’s Science to disprove a negative, and prove it isn’t. As you can see with Hank”s post, it was cut and pasted from either OneNewsNow, Narth or WorldNutDaily.

  84. Adrian – I agree, important to point out that NARTH has no credibility in this country.

    Like wise there is no respectable mental health organization that will support the view that homosexuality is a pathological disorder. . . The Royal College of Psychiatrist. The British psychological society etc etc etc.

    The only people pathologising homosexuality these days seem to be the religious far right such as Anglican Mainstream, although ironically there appears to be nothing mainstream about them.

  85. LOL I tihnk my comment went wrong there. I meant to say it’s NOT science’s job to disprove negatives.

    YOu can tell I am getting tired of having to repeat the same points time and time again. Would happily provide links to substantiate claims, as you can on other forums, but of course, we can’t….

  86. Hey Jean-Paul. You said, ” See how well we gays communicate?
    Gay, Gay, We’re Proud to be Gay ! !
    Wouln’t want it any other way ! !

    Jean-Paul, do you think you’d be less communicative, proud, etc.
    if you were heterosexual?

  87. Hey Will, you said, “”Where did you get this “fact?” There are many psychiatrists that do not go along with your statement.”
    Psychiatrists???? Who said anything about Psychiatrists proving this?
    Will, then who gave you “respectability” in the USA about removing
    homosexuality from mental illness. It was a bogus “voting” that
    most psychiatrists would probably not confirm if there were a
    totally open voting decision, as shown below.

    John K, you said, “Like wise there is no respectable mental health organization that will support the view that homosexuality is a pathological disorder.”

    Yo Adrian, you said, ” (this rubbish about the APA’s decition to delist homosexuality as a mental illness being political, we’ve been through this argument before”

    I disagree, see my list below.

    Eminent Psychiatrist Says Homosexuality is a Disorder that Can be Cured
    Says studies show 70-80 percent chance that child adopted by homosexuals will develop same tendencies.
    BUENOS AIRES, May 1, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The eminent Spanish psychiatrist Enrique Rojas gave a speech yesterday in Buenos Aires declaring that homosexuality is “a clinical process that has an etiology, pathogeny, treatment, and cure”.

    Speaking at the Buenos Aires International Book Fair about his book “Goodbye, Depression”, Rojas characterized homosexual orientation as a “disorder” rather than an illness, and stated his opinion that 95% of cases are caused by environmental factors, according to the Spanish news service Terra.

    The disorder, according to Rojas, is the result of an absent father, overweening mother, or sexual abuse in childhood.

    Rojas blasted the homosexual movement for promoting the development of homosexual tendencies in young people, and particularly condemned the practice of allowing homosexual couples to adopt children.

    The child is deprived of a right to grow up “in a normal environment, heterosexual, which is the standard” he said. “Heterosexuality is what is normal, the natural condition of human bengs.”

    According to studies from the United States, Canada, and New Zealand, there is a 70-80 percent chance that a child adopted by homosexuals will develop the same tendencies, Rojas said.

    Rojas is the author of various books on psychology, including “Who Are You?”, “The Light Man” and “Remedies for Coldness”.

    Many other psychiatrists agree that homosexuality is a mental illness. The “voting” to remove homosexuality from a mental illness category was totally bogus.
    “[I]n a deliberately planned campaign of intimidation and disruption, the U.S. National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), declaring that ‘psychiatry is the enemy incarnate,’[25] actually managed to force a 1973 convention of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to declare homosexuality, theretofore defined as deviant, ‘a normal condition.'”[G374] It should be noted that only half of the APA members voted, and of these, only 58 percent agreed with the change.[G375] It should also be noted, that the study by the NIMH task-force which recommended the change did not include psychoanalytic clinicians.[R143]
    “Only three psychiatrists were participants [in the NIMH study]. One of them, Dr. Judd Marmor, had for years espoused the view that homosexuality is normal. The chairman, a psychologist, Evelyn Hooker, Ph.D., was of the same long-time conviction. The Kinsey-Hopkins faction was represented by Paul Gebhard, Ph.D., Director of the Institute for Sex, Indiana University, and John Money, Ph.D., from Johns Hopkins, a prime mover among the proponents for transsexual surgery.”[s86]
    “The consequences of this action are of a formidable nature. Not only will the homosexual be victimised, but the entire area of research in the development of gender identity will be damaged. Young men and women with relatively minor sexual fears of the opposite sex will be led with equanimity by psychiatrists and other members of the medical profession who buy this bill of boods into a self-despising pattern and lifestyle. Homosexuality will henceforth be touted as simply an acceptable variation on the norm. Adolescents, nearly all of whom suffer some sort of uncertainty as to identity, will be discouraged from assuming that one form of gender identity (one’s own birth-right) is preferable to another.[74] And those persons who already have a homosexual problem will be discouraged from fighting their way out of a self-destructive fantasy, discouraged from learning to accept themselves as male or female, discouraged from all of those often painful but necessary courses that allow us all to function as reasonable and participating individuals in a co-operating society.” [s89]
    “Even four years later, a survey of 2500 psychiatrists found that 69 percent believed homosexuality was ‘a pathological adaptation.’ About 18 percent disagreed; 13 percent were uncertain.”[G375] The decision was the result of political pressure, not expert consensus.
    “And homosexuals tended to feel the same way about themselves. About 25 percent believed their behaviour was an emotional disorder, and 37 percent answered they they were ‘emotionally disturbed.’ Young male homosexuals (14-21) commit suicide at two to three times the rate of heterosexuals (Paediatrics, June 1991). For all ages, their rate is six times that of heterosexuals.”[G375]
    “many members of our profession still privately express the opinion that homosexual development is not normal. The 1973 ruling did not resolve the issue –it simply silenced 80 years of psychoanalytic observation.”[13]
    Homosexuality is a Mental Illness
    1.
    6 Richard John Neuhaus, “Table for One,” Dec 13, 1993. A review of homosexual Bruces Bawer’s “A Place at the Table The Gay Individual in American Society.” Contains many brilliant arguments.
    75 Homosexual writer, in [s100].
    69 “The Problem of Homosexuality.” N.Y. Academy of Medicine. Bulletin. 40 576-580, 1964.
    25 For a description of this entire medical debacle, Dennemeyer refers us to Ronald Bayer, “Homosexuality and American Psychiatry The Politics of Diagnosis” (New York Basic Books, 1981).
    G. William Gairdner, “The War Against the Family a parent speaks out” (Toronto Stoddart, 1992). An excellent overview of the liberal agenda and aims by a Stanford professor of philosophy.
    R. Judith Reisman, Ph.D. and Edward Eichel, “Kinsey, Sex and Fraud The Indoctrination of a People” (Lafayette, Louisiana Lochinvar-Huntington House, 1990). ISBN 0-910311-20-X. (Can also be obtained for 19.95 (US) from A-albionic Research, P.O. Box 20273, Ferndale, Michegan, 48220.)” [Dedicated] to the several hundred children who suffered inhumanely in the illegal sex experiments that constitute the basis for a significant portion of Dr. Alfred Kinsey’s book “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.” Many of these children will still be alive today. It is also dedicated to those children who are being subjected to the kind of Kinseyan sex education curricula described in this book.” YOU MUST READ THIS.
    s. Charles W. Socarides, M.D., “Beyond Sexual Freedom” (New York Quadrangle, 1975). An overview of modern societal degeneration, including chapters on feminism, group-sex, communal living, pornography, homosexuality, and sex-mutilation surgery.
    74 Bloss, P. “On Adolescence”. N.Y. Free Press, 1961.
    13 Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, “The California Psychologist,” February, 1989.
    69 “The Problem of Homosexuality.” N.Y. Academy of Medicine. Bulletin. 40 576-580, 1964.
    26 Soddy, K. (1954) “Homosexuality.” Lancet, 267, 541.
    68 ed. Mark Cook, Kevin Howells, “Adult Sexual Interest in Children,” Academic Press, Toronto, 1981.
    27 Lagache, D. (1950) “Homosexuality and Jealousy.” International Journal of Psycho-analysis, 31, 24-31.
    28 Lewinsky, H. (1952) “Features from a case of homosexuality.” Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 21, 344-354.
    29 Regardie, F.I. (1949) “Analysis of a homosexual.” Psychiatric Quarterly, 23, 548-566.
    30 Schwarz, H. (1952) “A case of character disorder.” Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 16, 20-30.
    W. D.J. West, “Homosexuality” (Chicago Aldine, 1968). An excellent summary of pre-1973 research although, even at that time, experts regularly gave in to homosexual pressure on the child-molestation issue.
    31 London, L.S. and Caprio, F. S. (1950) “Sexual Deviations.” Washington, Linacre Press.
    32 Hamilton, D. M. (1939) “Some aspects of homosexuality in relation to total personality development.” Psychiatric Quarterly, 13, 229-244.
    33 Freeman, T. (1955) “Clinical and theoretical observations on male homosexuality.” International Journal of Psycho-analysis, 36, 335-347.
    34 Allen, C. (1958) “Homosexuality Its Nature, Causation and Treatment.” London, Staples Press.
    35 Lorand, S. (1951) “Clinical Studies in Psycho-analysis.” New York, International Universities Press.
    36 Apfelberg, B., et al. (1944) “A psychiatric study of 250 sex offenders.” American Journal of Psychiatry, 100, 762-769.
    37 Whitener, R. W. and Nikelly, A. G. (1964). “Sexual deviations in college students.” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 34, 486-492.
    47 Cappon, D. (1965) “Towards an Understanding of Homosexuality.” Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall.
    48 Bergler, E. (1951) “Neurotic Counterfeit-Sex.” New York, Grune & Stratton.
    76 Williams, Tennessee. “Confessional. Produced in N.Y. under the title “Small Craft Warnings”, N.Y. New Directions, 1970.

    THERE’S MUCH EVIDENCE BY QUALIFIED PSYCHIATRISTS THAT ARGUE WITH
    YOUR POSITION ON HOMOSEXUALITY.

  88. Hey Robert, you said, “United States Surgeon General David Satcher issued a report stating that “there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed”

    I guess that ends the argument — The Giant Brain has spoken!

  89. I said “You give no hope to homosexuals who are unhappy as they are, and want to change, and can with the proper approach, desire, and help to make that change

    You Pumpkin said, “The only reason they’re unhappy is because bigots like you MADE them unhappy. We have sympathy for the vulnerable people suckered into destroying themselves by NARTH, but scorn for those so far gone that they now try to destroy other victims.

    How do you reply to this comment?

    In regards to mental health and homosexuality, studies have long indicated that 1. homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems (suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse).[1]

    The Los Angeles Times reported the frequency of methamphetamine use is twenty times greater among homosexuals than in the general population.

    For example, a national survey of female homosexuals was published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology which found that 75 percent of the approximate 2,000 respondents had pursued psychological counseling of some type, many for treatment of long-term depression or sadness.[2]

    In contrast to claims by gay rights activists blaming this heightened incidence of mental issues on discrimination, John R. Diggs, M.D. states the following regarding homosexuality and health:
    “ An extensive study in the Netherlands undermines the assumption that homophobia is the cause of increased psychiatric illness among gays and lesbians. The Dutch have been considerably more accepting of same-sex relationships than other Western countries — in fact, same-sex couples now have the legal right to marry in the Netherlands. So a high rate of psychiatric disease associated with homosexual behavior in the Netherlands means that the psychiatric disease cannot so easily be attributed to social rejection and homophobia.[3] ”

    In addition, the late Harold I. Lief, who was a leading a leading sex therapist who was an early defender of having medical schools put greater emphasis on sex education in training doctors, conducted a 1977 survey of members of the American Psychiatric Association and 73% of the psychiatrists responding said that they thought that homosexual men are less happy than others.
    [4][5] Also, in regards to homosexuality and mental health, seventy percent of the psychiatrists surveyed stated they believed that the homosexuals’ problems were due more to personal conflicts than to social stigmatization.[6] In respect to personal conflicts studies report that homosexual couples have significantly higher incidences of violent behavior. These studies are not surprising given what pathologists have stated regarding the commonness and brutality of homosexual murders.

  90. “I guess that ends the argument — The Giant Brain has spoken!”

    Yes. It does. It better than your argument, which is a load of religious pseudo science.

    “homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems (suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse)”

    So what? Does this lessen our right to exist in peace away from the religious nonsense of people like you? No, it doesn’t. In fact, it only lessens the standing of people like you in our eyes.

    And the reason there is more depression and substance abuse, is becuase of people like you. Not every gay man is strong enough to deal with the prejudices that your kind throw at us, and hence go “ex”-gay like you did. But thankfully most others are strong enough.

    Researchers at the University of California at San Francisco found that the major risk factors for depression in gay and bisexual men included a recent experience of anti-gay violence or threats, not identifying as gay, or feeling alienated from the gay community [Mills TC, Paul J, Stall R, et al. Distress and depression in men who have sex with men: The Urban Men's Health Study. Am J Psych. 2004;161:278-285]

    Your arguments are all about that we have less right to live, or we are “lesser” people than the likes of you. You think this way because you are programmed by religious dogma. Its you who need change, not us. I would suggest perhaps an “ex-idiot” course.

    If million of gays say they are born gay, then the likelihood of that being the case is very very high. The odds that we’re all liars and “fooling ourselves” is very very small. You’re just not listening, because it suits you not to listen. As your counter argument is a load of NARTH nonsense that is not recognised by the scientific community. And as you don’t even understand the basic tenants of evolution, you are not the more informed person who can be disseminating what science is “right” and what is “wrong” to prove religious bigotry. Please, don’t insult our intelligence. You have proven yourself to be nothing but a small minded bigot Hank, and no-one here thinks otherwise.

    Oh, and Pumpkin Pie, I love you posts. You’re running circles around this foolish man.

  91. Pumpkin Pie 5 Jun 2009, 3:59pm

    Hank #65:-
    I’m barely even going to bother with this one.

    – You advance debates with arguments and references, not copy-pasting and quote-mining.

    – Satinover and Socarides are both NARTH supporters – given NARTH’s penchant for dodgy studies, I’d say that reflects pretty badly on them. Money is not only a quack, but borders on actually being evil – if anyone wants to know more, you should ask Wikipedia what he did to David Reimer, although I’ll warn you now that it made me almost physically sick to read about it.

    – If a mental attribute causes its owner no harm, it is not a disorder. Scizophrenia is a disorder because it causes its owner harm, synesthesia is not a disorder because it causes no harm. And the same goes for homosexuality. That the classification was dropped in the wake of Stonewall is not sinister – gays standing up en masse to say “actually, this quite fun – YOU’RE the ones making it a problem” is a perfectly valid reason to strike something from a list of disorders. In fact, there’s similar action going on for certain other mental states (some mild forms of ADD, I think).

  92. Pumpkin Pie 5 Jun 2009, 4:13pm

    #66-76:-
    This collection of posts puts forth the most important statement in this entire thread: we don’t need to prove anything.

    I feel a bit of a fool for dutifully running around shooting down pseudo-science and responding with psychological knowledge of my own, because such behaviour lends credence to the utterly illogical, unfair notion that we NEED to prove ourselves and defend ourselves.

    Remember the segregated drinking fountains they had way back when? White folk didn’t want to catch any of that nasty “blackness”, I guess. No scientists or sociologists had to come forth to say such practice was absurd in order for us to see that. No, the burden of proof is on the people who, without any valid reason whatsoever, decide that they don’t like a certain group of people.

    We’re here, we’re queer. Psychological experts rule in our favour, but you know what? We don’t NEED them to. You need them to rule in YOUR favour, bigots, because the burden of proof is on YOU, not us. We’re here, we’re queer – why shouldn’t we be?

  93. Pumpkin Pie 5 Jun 2009, 4:41pm

    AdrianT #79: I’ll give it a go when I get some more time!

    John K #82: This is hilarious! And I had no idea Socarides was so simplistic – even Freud knew better than to make such grandiose claims, and that was over 100 years ago.

    Hank #87: Like I said before, I do not appreciate mass copy-pasting. Rather than throwing out titles at us, why not pick on one or two to really focus on. Tell us WHY you think they are convincing, don’t just expect us to be impressed, because we aren’t.

    Hank #88: Funny how you place such trust in Rojas, a man who I’ve not only never heard of before but am in fact finding it very difficult to research (just about every site mentioning him is a Christian fundamentalist site), and yet you deride those who would trust a man who’s only surgeon general of an entire country.

    Hank #89: These are societal issues, you little sh—t. Similar findings abound for ethnic minorites. Shall we bleach their skin and remodel them in our image? As for this John R. Diggs: homophobia does still exist in the Netherlands, and is mostly due to religious fundamentalism.

    Will #90: Thanks! I love your posts, too. Same goes for a great deal of other regulars here. Fundies never get very far with such a clued up bunch, do they?

  94. “Hey Will, you said, “Your arguments are all about that we have less right to live, or we are “lesser” people than the likes of you. You think this way because you are programmed by religious dogma. Its you who need change, not us. I would suggest perhaps an “ex-idiot” course.”

    I dare you to show me where I ever said homosexuals have less right to live, or are “lesser” people. My argument with your agenda is that it’s not truthful plus is hateful towards the Christian marriage sacrament. You people would love to destroy our age-old marriage process because your definition of family is any combination of people “being married” – were it 2, 3, 4 or more individuals (any combination of male and female) because to you all that’s necessary is “love” or “lust” whichever is the driving force to be together.

    I’m certain that most homosexuals consider bisexuality is OK….now, why isn’t bestiality OK too – it’s not hurting anyone and maybe the animal enjoys it too. And how about pederasty, why not lower the age limit to 13, or 14 so that children can marry without parental consent or have sexual relations with adults and not have it consider rape?

    Also you answered, “ I guess that ends the argument — The Giant Brain has spoken!”Yes. It does. It better than your argument, which is a load of religious pseudo science

    Well the” Great Brain” has arguments coming from numerous qualified APA members – I don’t know your man is a APA member, but he seems to be out of touch with most of the other members.
    I’ll take the group consensus over one “great brain.”

    Are all the psychiatrists who disagreed with the APA vote homophobic, inadequately trained, or sexually immature as they stated their position below?

    “[I]n a deliberately planned campaign of intimidation and disruption, the U.S. National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), declaring that ‘psychiatry is the enemy incarnate,’[25] actually managed to force a 1973 convention of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to declare homosexuality, theretofore defined as deviant, ‘a normal condition.'”[G374] It should be noted that only half of the APA members voted, and of these, only 58 percent agreed with the change.[G375] It should also be noted, that the study by the NIMH task-force which recommended the change did not include psychoanalytic clinicians.[R143]

    “Even four years later, a survey of 2500 psychiatrists found that 69 percent believed homosexuality was ‘a pathological adaptation.’ About 18 percent disagreed; 13 percent were uncertain.”[G375] The decision was the result of political pressure, not expert consensus.

    “And homosexuals tended to feel the same way about themselves. About 25 percent believed their behaviour was an emotional disorder, and 37 percent answered they they were ‘emotionally disturbed.’ Young male homosexuals (14-21) commit suicide at two to three times the rate of heterosexuals (Paediatrics, June 1991). For all ages, their rate is six times that of heterosexuals.”[G375]

    “…many members of our profession still privately express the opinion that homosexual development is not normal. The 1973 ruling did not resolve the issue –it simply silenced 80 years of psychoanalytic observation.”[13]

    And how do you handle those who choose the homosexual lifestyle
    because it’s “cool,” as seen by so many Hollywood people. They want to join in “being gay,” to further their stardom, get in
    with the homosexual directors, producers, promoters, etc. Can
    you really call them gay, or faux-gays? and don’t think that
    individuals can’t choose to be gay in many cases, for one
    of many reasons.

  95. Hey Pumpkin you said, “ look at Wikipedia, and see what Money did to David Reimer, although I’ll warn you now that it made me almost physically sick to read about it.

    I agree it was a tragedy and Money obviously didn’t know what to do and he did everything wrong. But my point is not about a physical problem, my argument is about a psychological
    problem – if a gay or lesbian is truly unhappy with their psyche’s makeup, or with their images that are confusing them about their sexual inclinations or behavior.

    So tell me, what if that person is totally unhappy with thinking or acting as a homosexual…are they just to “tough it out” and “be yourself?” That’s most bleak and discouraging to someone who truly wants to change. You’re saying, “it can’t be done,” …”you are who you are.”

    Whether you accept it or not, there are cases where one did change into a heterosexual life. I do believe that it’s a huge undertaking, mentally and emotionally challenging, and can take many years — even up to 10 or more before a person is very happy with their change and any homosexual urges or emotions are not a problem, but a fleeting image, and their heterosexual mindset now is their normal way of thinking, feeling and acting out.

    Human sexuality is a complex driving force for us and we don’t have all the answers – I don’t and you don’t. I don’t say that every homosexual should change, but when a person
    sees where they are and where the majority of people are, and this person wants to change, we should offer all possible solutions to accommodate them.

  96. Hey Pumpkin, you said, “As for this John R. Diggs: homophobia does still exist in the Netherlands, and is mostly due to religious fundamentalism.”

    I ask, where/how do you argue, counter with this earlier quote?

    The Dutch have been considerably more accepting of same-sex relationships than other Western countries — in fact, same-sex couples now have the legal right to marry in the Netherlands. So a high rate of psychiatric disease associated with homosexual behavior in the Netherlands means that the psychiatric disease cannot so easily be attributed to social rejection and homophobia.

    I’m not seeing where the Netherlands is much of a religious
    thinking/acting country. Am I mistaken, and where can I see that
    their religous bias/prejudice is influencing their politics or
    social structure that influences the homosexual community
    negatively?

  97. You’re nonsense sickens me, Hank…. just one circular loop with you isn’t it? Trapped in a dogmatic circle of pseudo-logics.

    It’s pathetic you’re so mentally weak.

    Answer the issues and questions put to you. Failure to do so, makes you more the idiot than I already think you are.

  98. Kenneth Lyons 6 Jun 2009, 9:33am

    Hank “high rate of psychiatric disease associated with homosexual behaviour”

    This is rubbish. When a friend of mine saw this, he asked that I interject from a professional standpoint. I am not gay, but I am a psychiatrist and a doctor by proferssion. I also hold a postgrad in Epidemiology.

    Where are you getting this nonsense? Please, state your studies. And keep them recent and internationally recognised, not by fringe groups by socially prejudicial institutions like the Narth group mentioned previously by someone. They are not using scientific methods, and are considered biased in their agenda, and hence not recognised.

    There is no evidence of your statement. All studies done, at least recognised studies using scientific controlled methodologies and sample size, are indicative of environment with prejudicial factors causing the increase in suicides among homosexual men, such as verbal/physical abuse, intolerance, social isolation and inability to build stable relationships. This is the professional consensus, not your insinuation that gay men have higher prevalence of mental health issues, BECAUSE they’re gay. This is clearly your personal belief.

    Hank, I do not know what you are trying to achieve here by your attempts to demean such a tragic situation like suicide with this nonsense. I can only assume you have a personal issue with homosexuals, perhaps negative encounters in your past that are affecting your own mental health. Either way, if find your use of fringe physiology to be offensive to my profession, and gay people in general. While I would never offer a professional opinion based on your statements, I suggest you speak to someone who can help professionally, a counsellor perhaps, it could help you find the reason for your anger, for your own sake.

  99. Pumpkin Pie 6 Jun 2009, 10:20am

    Will #97: You’re right, we’ve been through all of this crap before. Answered it all, too. It’s over, Hank. It’s over.

    Kenneth Lyons #98: Wow, a special guest! Thanks a bunch for your input. I’ve studied a bit of psychology at college and uni (and also occasionally in my spare time), so Hank’s lies were never going to convince me, but it’s great to have someone like you here to reassure anyone not clued in on this stuff.

    Thankfully, very few people will see Hank’s ranting other than those currently arguing with him, seeing as how this thread has been off the front page for a long, long time now. And we can thank people like Will for baiting Hank into wasting his energy here. ;)

  100. Brian Burton 6 Jun 2009, 2:32pm

    Did you hear about the woman with the glass naval? She had a womb with a view!

  101. Hey, Kenneth Lyons, glad to see you comment.

    Below are some of the references connected with some of my comments. No, I did not check into and read every reference.

    If you have more recent references I’d like to see them. Please
    list them and I’ll do whatever I can to read them.

    The way the APA “voting” was done to remove homosexuality from
    being viewed as a mental illness seems to have not been properly
    done with having the majority of psychiatrists having had a
    chance to vote, which could have had a totally different result.

    My basic point for commenting on this site is as follows. I’ve
    read enough viewpoints from psychiatrists, counselors, people
    dealing with homosexuals and their problems/unhappiness, etc. and
    would like to not live as homosexuals, but there seems to be no
    hope for them to change their psyche, behavior, thinking, desires,
    etc. to get the proper help to make this change.

    And from all I get on this site, is “once gay, always, gay,” or
    “you’re born that way, get used to it,” — there’s no hope given
    to those who truly want to change.

    To make such a drastic change is monumental, I see that, but from
    some psychiatrists and psychoanalists it seems to be able to be done with the proper assistance, much time and serious desire to
    make this change. I cannot believe that all homosexuals are truly
    100% happy with their makeup, and then what do you do with those
    that are deeply desirious to change? Do you say, “sorry, nothing
    can be done!”

    I’m not necessarily talking about popular ex-gay groups that profess to have helped and perhaps are not qualified to help make
    these changes There are probably qualified specialists who can
    facilitate these changes with no harmful effects.

    Do you state/believe that homosexuality is because of a “gene” that’s inborn, when no studies have shown this “fact.”
    Do you discount the possibility of cases where child abuse/sexual abuse, parental dysfuntionality, peer pressure, enviornmental
    affects, some chemical alterations in pregnany, plus more
    possible factors can cause sexual identity confusion and have
    a person believe they are homosexuals or bisexuals?

    Homosexuality is a Mental Illness
    1.
    6 Richard John Neuhaus, “Table for One,” Dec 13, 1993. A review of homosexual Bruces Bawer’s “A Place at the Table The Gay Individual in American Society.” Contains many brilliant arguments.
    75 Homosexual writer, in [s100].
    69 “The Problem of Homosexuality.” N.Y. Academy of Medicine. Bulletin. 40 576-580, 1964.
    25 For a description of this entire medical debacle, Dennemeyer refers us to Ronald Bayer, “Homosexuality and American Psychiatry The Politics of Diagnosis” (New York Basic Books, 1981).
    G. William Gairdner, “The War Against the Family a parent speaks out” (Toronto Stoddart, 1992). An excellent overview of the liberal agenda and aims by a Stanford professor of philosophy.
    R. Judith Reisman, Ph.D. and Edward Eichel, “Kinsey, Sex and Fraud The Indoctrination of a People” (Lafayette, Louisiana Lochinvar-Huntington House, 1990). ISBN 0-910311-20-X. (Can also be obtained for 19.95 (US) from A-albionic Research, P.O. Box 20273, Ferndale, Michegan, 48220.)” [Dedicated] to the several hundred children who suffered inhumanely in the illegal sex experiments that constitute the basis for a significant portion of Dr. Alfred Kinsey’s book “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.” Many of these children will still be alive today. It is also dedicated to those children who are being subjected to the kind of Kinseyan sex education curricula described in this book.” YOU MUST READ THIS.
    s. Charles W. Socarides, M.D., “Beyond Sexual Freedom” (New York Quadrangle, 1975). An overview of modern societal degeneration, including chapters on feminism, group-sex, communal living, pornography, homosexuality, and sex-mutilation surgery.
    74 Bloss, P. “On Adolescence”. N.Y. Free Press, 1961.
    13 Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, “The California Psychologist,” February, 1989.
    69 “The Problem of Homosexuality.” N.Y. Academy of Medicine. Bulletin. 40 576-580, 1964.
    26 Soddy, K. (1954) “Homosexuality.” Lancet, 267, 541.
    68 ed. Mark Cook, Kevin Howells, “Adult Sexual Interest in Children,” Academic Press, Toronto, 1981.
    27 Lagache, D. (1950) “Homosexuality and Jealousy.” International Journal of Psycho-analysis, 31, 24-31.
    28 Lewinsky, H. (1952) “Features from a case of homosexuality.” Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 21, 344-354.
    29 Regardie, F.I. (1949) “Analysis of a homosexual.” Psychiatric Quarterly, 23, 548-566.
    30 Schwarz, H. (1952) “A case of character disorder.” Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 16, 20-30.
    W. D.J. West, “Homosexuality” (Chicago Aldine, 1968). An excellent summary of pre-1973 research although, even at that time, experts regularly gave in to homosexual pressure on the child-molestation issue.
    31 London, L.S. and Caprio, F. S. (1950) “Sexual Deviations.” Washington, Linacre Press.
    32 Hamilton, D. M. (1939) “Some aspects of homosexuality in relation to total personality development.” Psychiatric Quarterly, 13, 229-244.
    33 Freeman, T. (1955) “Clinical and theoretical observations on male homosexuality.” International Journal of Psycho-analysis, 36, 335-347.
    34 Allen, C. (1958) “Homosexuality Its Nature, Causation and Treatment.” London, Staples Press.
    35 Lorand, S. (1951) “Clinical Studies in Psycho-analysis.” New York, International Universities Press.
    36 Apfelberg, B., et al. (1944) “A psychiatric study of 250 sex offenders.” American Journal of Psychiatry, 100, 762-769.
    37 Whitener, R. W. and Nikelly, A. G. (1964). “Sexual deviations in college students.” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 34, 486-492.
    47 Cappon, D. (1965) “Towards an Understanding of Homosexuality.” Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall.
    48 Bergler, E. (1951) “Neurotic Counterfeit-Sex.” New York, Grune & Stratton.
    76 Williams, Tennessee. “Confessional. Produced in N.Y. under the title “Small Craft Warnings”, N.Y. New Directions, 1970.

  102. Hey Will, no never answered my question,

    “And how do you handle those who choose the homosexual lifestyle
    because it’s “cool,” as seen by so many Hollywood people. They want to join in “being gay,” to further their stardom, get in
    with the homosexual directors, producers, promoters, etc.

    Can you really call them gay, or faux-gays? And don’t think that
    individuals can’t choose to be gay in many cases, for one
    of many reasons.

  103. The answer to your silly questions is that NO-ONE chooses to be gay.

    Full stop.

    We keep telling you this, your ears and mind are closed. Until you accept the obvious, you are lost. Can you “choose” to be gay?

    Also, I have checked some of your references. All these people I have checked are all christians with some issues with homosexuality. You’re references are biased, and therefore not under consideration.

    Either get some real facts, or fuckoff. You insult my intelligence. Do. Lyons is right, there is something really wrong with you.

  104. Hank, YOU are arguing with a PROFESSIONAL PHYSOCOLOGIST???

    YOU???

    Now I’ve seen it all. The gimp who cannot understand the basics of evolution, is arguing with a qualified doctor! Ha! Are we supposed to take you seriously?????

    Now I’ve seen it all. What an arsehole you are Hank. A stupid one at that.

    Poor Hank, one of natures losers.

  105. “I cannot believe that all homosexuals are truly
    100% happy with their makeup”

    Oh, believe it. I am more than happy with my make-up. Its who I am, and if I could be born again with a choice, I’d be gay again. Simple as that. Believe what you want. Are you happy being a stipid bigot? Me thinks you should try change.

    Tony, well said. Hank thinks these silly NARTH references makes a point. If this is all he has, a bunch of hate filled fringe “professionals” from Narth, then he’s lost. His foolishness goes on and on.

  106. Pumpkin Pie 7 Jun 2009, 10:41am

    I wish I could do make-up. When I get myself a nice, steady wage going (last job was only temp), I’m gonna buy myself some cosmetics and practice, practice, practice! Then, as a reward for finally getting it right, I’m gonna buy myself a gorgeous gothic lolita dress (this is where that steady wage comes in)!

    Haha, crossdressing’s gonna be so fun! I don’t have to choose between men and women, so why should I have to choose between male and female clothing? A transgal pal of mine thinks I’d look pretty cute in a dress (as do I!). I can’t believe I’ve waited so long to give it a try!

    PS: We are indeed bored of you now, Hank. We’ve answered everything before, we’re now going in circles. We’re going to talk about other stuff or just abandon the thread now.

  107. Brian Burton 7 Jun 2009, 4:00pm

    Hank is so full of hanky-panky likey willy wanky and the chicklett factoty in Hanky wanky landy. You sanky what I manky Hanky???

  108. Pumpkin Pie 7 Jun 2009, 6:52pm

    See? Brian knows what you’re all about, Hanky. Can’t fool us.

  109. Brian Burton 8 Jun 2009, 5:32pm

    HANK,

    I WAS IN A PUBLIC LOO THE OTHER DAY AND WRITTEN ON THE WALL WAS: MY MOTHER MAD ME A HOMOSEXUAL. WRITTEN UNDERNEATH THAT, WAS: IF I BUY THE WOOL, WILL SHE MAKE ME ONE!?

  110. Pumpkin Pie 8 Jun 2009, 10:29pm

    Haha! Brilliant.

  111. Why is somebody deleting/cutting my last 2 comments since June
    7? there were decent questions but seems like someone was ]
    offended — they were serious quesions, so I guess I’m not
    welcomed here anymore — goodnight all!

  112. Brian Burton 11 Jun 2009, 10:38am

    You are just a PEST Hank. So good-night and better still, good-by!

  113. “so I guess I’m not
    welcomed here anymore — goodnight all!”

    Er, you never were welcome…. gay site? Hello. GAY. Its not a site for religious idiots with 1792 era opinions on evolution, you twit.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all