Tieteellisiä tosiasioita homoudesta

Tohtori x kirjoitti:

Nyt kun joku homo kelasi otsikoilla keskusytelun
tuonne monen sivun taakse, kun heille
arkaluontoisia tosiasioita esitellän tässä.
Niin panin asian uusiksi.
Huomatkaa lähdeviitteet joista osa on maaliman
arostetuimmissa tiedejulkaisuissa kuten
esimerkiksi:Science Magazine ym.
Nyt joku homo yritti raukka surkeasti valehdella
tuolla takasivuilla lähteiden luotettavuudesta.
Kertaus on opintojen äiti.
Laitan nämä sivut myöhemmin myös suomeksi.


Reflections from Jeffrey Satinover

Recently NARTH spoke to Jeffrey Burke Satinover,
M.D., a diplomate of the American Board of
Psychiatry and Neurology and a diplomate of the
C.G. Jung Institute of Zurich, Switzerland. A
recently published author, he is now in private
practice in Connecticut.

The following text is taken from a radio
interview in which Dr. Satinover was a guest. He
spoke to the interviewer as follows:

In America of late, truth has become subject to
terrible political pressure. The question isn't
just homosexuality, but rather, freedom from all
sexual constraint. This has been an issue for
civilization for thousands of years.

I think many people have a sense, especially in
America, that too many barriers have come down.
We now have so little of a moral compass that
we're really completely at sea. We're awash in
the tide of unconstrained instinctive behaviors
which are all being labeled "okay" because nobody
really has a sense, any more, as to what's right
and what's wrong. In Joseph Campbell's
words, "Follow your bliss." This has led us into
a growing barbarism.

Now we are now looking at a generation of young
people who are exposed to a sometimes explicit,
and sometimes implicit set of values that says
that homosexuality is perfectly okay--it's just a
complement to heterosexuality.

The implication of such a set of values to an
impressionable, possibly confused and certainly
exploring youngster, is that there is no reason
whatsoever not to go out and try it and see
whether it fits. It's simply that a door has been
opened and a certain number of people will walk
through that door and thereby expose themselves
to terrible risks at an age where they are not
really capable of making intelligent judgments
about the risks.

In the news, now, we're hearing so many overblown
claims of a genetic foundation for homosexuality.
The whole subject of behavioral genetics is
complex. It does not lend itself to sound bites
at all.

The real genetic question is--what is it in the
background of people who become homosexual that
opens that door for them, whereas the door is
essentially closed for other people?

In a nutshell, every behavioral trait in human
nature has a genetic component. For example,
basketball playing is clearly genetic. If you
were to perform on basketball players the kinds
of studies that have been done on homosexuality,
you would find an unequivocal genetic association-

-very powerful, probably much stronger than there
is with homosexuality. But if you ask yourself
what that's about--it's clear that it's NOT that
there is a gene for basketball playing...

The reason there's a genetic association is that
there's an intermediate trait which allows people
who carry these traits to become basketball
players in greater numbers than those who do not
have those traits--namely, height, athleticism,
and so on. So it's not surprising that there is a
growing number of studies that show a genetic
association to homosexuality. But that is a far
cry from saying that homosexuality is genetic in
the way that eye color is genetic.

Of course, there is a political implication to
the misuse of the idea that there is a heritable
component to homosexuality--that is, the false
notion that if it is "genetic," then it must be
unchangeable. But I think the most important
point that one can make about homosexuality is
that it is significantly changeable--although
statistically, not for everyone.

As a matter of fact, there is an extremely
interesting statistic in the more detailed
version of the new Sex in America survey (The
Social Organization of Sexuality), which showed
that 2.8% of the men in their sample were
essentially homosexual. But a much larger
percentage had been homosexual at some point in
their lives previously. Somewhere between 10% and
16% had apparently gone through a homosexual
phase. By gay activist standards they would be
people who would have a supposed--and supposedly
fixed--"gay identity," yet by the time they were
adults and were sampled in the survey, they had
given homosexuality up. In fact, the largest
proportion by far had given it up.

There are also case reports in the psychiatric
literature of single individuals as well as
groups of individuals who in a variety of
settings actually do spontaneously leave a
homosexual identity.

The debate over homosexuality has been profoundly
affected by the current culture of complaint.
Many, many areas of political life, social life
and scientific life today are being profoundly
influenced by the various competing claims and
cross-claims to victimhood.

A recent article in a psychiatric publication
informed us that 30% of all 20-year-old
homosexual men will be HIV- positive or dead by
the age of thirty. You would think that the
objective, ethical medical approach would be:
let's use anything that works to try to take
these people out of their posture of risk. If it
means getting them to wear condoms, fine. If it
means getting them to give up anal intercourse,
fine. If it means getting them to give up
homosexuality, fine. But that last intervention
is the one intervention that is absolutely taboo.

There is no doubt that a cold, statistical
analysis of this epidemic would lead you to the
conclusion that this attitude of political
correctness is killing a substantial portion of
those people. I think there is an element of
denial, in the psychological sense, of what gay-
related illnesses really mean.

The normalization of homosexuality was a classic
example where the American Psychiatric
Association knuckled under to a victim group's
pressure tactics. In that instance, no
substantive data was presented either to "prove"
that homosexuality is an illness, or to "prove"
that it is not.

Actually, many of the diagnoses that exist in
psychiatry are labeled as illnesses for reasons
that have nothing to do with medicine. Instead,
psychiatric diagnoses are very subject to
intellectual fads that come and go.

The reason the APA talks about disorders--rather
than illnesses--is precisely because there are
very, very few mental illnesses where underlying
pathophysiology is even suspected. In most cases,
if you are going to use the term illness, you
would have to use it as a metaphor. They are
possibly spiritual illnesses, or they are ways of
life that are consensually undesirable. But they
don't necessarily reflect some underlying
disorder in the hardware that backs up the mind.

And so the whole question of what constitutes
psychiatric illness is already so weak that it
opened the door for activists to come in and make
a change in the nomenclature without even having
to appeal to rigorous scientific standards. Had
they done so, there simply would have been no
data one way or another.

The underlying problem is clearly that we've lost
our moorings in terms of what life is all about.
We don't know what's good and what's evil. People
simply have lost the ability now to stand up and
say this is good, this is bad, this is what I
believe in.

We've now entered into a stage in our
civilization of absolute nihilism, where the
opinion leaders--the people who should be the
moral exemplars--are simply espousing a
philosophy of absolute nihilism. That's simply
what it amounts to. The language is very fancy--
deconstructionism, relativism, etc.--but what it
all boils down to is that there is nothing
outside of the cogitations in one's own skull. It
seems to me that anybody with even a passing
familiarity with history should see that that
kind of an attitude leads nowhere but to
destruction.

What happened is this: when we began exploring
the mind as an object of scientific scrutiny,
independent of the spirit--which is a very new
idea--we inevitably reduced it to the
consequences of mechanism. What that means, then,
is that man is nothing but a machine. A very
complicated machine--so complicated that we won't
be able to put all the pieces together--but in
the end we're merely a gigantic collection of
molecules bumping around in a stochastic
universe.

In adopting the methods of science to understand
the human psyche, psychology and psychiatry have
inadvertently put forth a philosophy of life that
says the psyche is really illusion. Our
personalities are illusion; everything can be
seen through, reduced, turned into something
prior... and human personhood ultimately
disappears. Of course, our link to the spiritual
then becomes ever more distant.

I don't suppose that one can actually break
through the armor of nihilism using intellect. I
don't think it can be argued--you have a debate
and just go around and around. I think, and here
I'm speaking as a psychiatrist, really--I think
an individual like that can only give up those
kinds of intellectual constructions when he is so
deeply touched personally--possibly so deeply
wounded personally--that he sees that that
philosophy of life offers no succor whatsoever,
and so he's forced to throw himself into
dependency onto others. What has happened with
some people, is that they must throw themselves
onto dependency on God as well. That, then, gets
around this hyper-intellectual egotism. The gift
of grace, then, comes through suffering and its
healing...

I think what we need in this country is a very
frank, very wide-open debate, free of political
correctness, about fundamental values. And I
think that if the stifling effects of political
correctness could be eliminated, what would
happen is that many people who are possibly not
terribly articulate, but have a very firm and
accurate moral compass--it's just that they don't
have the articulation skills of the "chattering
classes"--they too would begin to be heard, and I
believe that the intellectuals would follow.

Intellectuals, I've come to believe, are
definitely creatures of fashion, and much less
leaders than they are followers.

NARTH Interviews Dr. Satinover

Q: How did you get involved in the issue of
homosexuality?

A: I had been reading Leanne Payne's The Healing
Presence. The book describes a sophisticated
system of depth psychology from a religious
context, where psychological insights are united
with healing prayer. After striking up a
correspondence with Leanne, I was invited to a
conference of hers and I accepted. At that time,
I did not even know that the conference was
related to homosexuality.

There I met hundreds of people struggling with
that issue, and many who had successfully emerged
on the other side and were married with children.
As I got to know them, I found them to be quite
remarkable. The struggle to be healed had left an
indelible imprint. I saw a humility, an empathy
and a fearlessness about life. They knew exactly
what it meant to stand up for what they believed
in, since the struggle to become who they truly
were had exacted such a cost in suffering.

The struggle against homosexuality is like so
many of the desperate challenges that are common
to our modern age--so many people are wrestling
with the results of emotional deprivation within
the family, because damaged childhoods are so
endemic. The life story of a homosexual has
parallels for anyone struggling with spiritual,
moral and character issues... which is to say,
all of us!

These people's particular problem happened to be
homosexuality, but that was incidental. Their
battle was a microcosm for the identity problems
of so many people today, who are struggling with
what it means to be a man or a woman--with the
way that men and women can best relate to one
another in the world--as well as with the larger
problem of personal identity.

These people had found their way back from the
greatest degree of brokenness to embody the
values that our culture has always held dear (at
least, until recently). They've lived through the
most extreme possible crisis and come out the
other side. They've wrestled with self-deception
to find the truth, and come out with an assurance
and self-possession which makes them exemplars of
what the therapeutic process ought to produce,
but only rarely does. I wanted to be around these
people as much as I could, because I knew I had a
lot to learn from them.

Q: Before going to this conference, what had you
believed about homosexuality?

A: I had always been somewhat of an iconoclast
and I had therefore been wary of the extent to
which the psychiatric profession consistently
sold itself out to political fashion on a lot of
issues. So I had not bought the PC line entirely.
Yet, I was still uncertain. But after meeting
these people who were struggling successfully, I
realized that to some extent, the wool had been
pulled over my eyes by both our culture and the
psychiatric profession. Clearly homosexuality was
not good, and was changeable.

Psychiatry has been driven by fashion not just on
the issue of homosexuality, but on the subjects
of feminist psychology, self-esteem and
narcissism. The current concept of self-esteem is
really an upbeat popularization of the formerly
negative concept of narcissism. Now there are
whole schools of psychology devoted to the idea
that relatively unrestrained narcissism (like
relatively unrestrained, instinctive self-
gratification) is perfectly fine. In fact, this
attitude is now being taught and cultivated in
our schools.

Freud also wrestled with the problem of
narcissism, and he understood that excessive self-

interest and the vice of vanity would weaken
human character. But he couldn't solve the
problem--for without relying on the framework of
a value system, he simply didn't know what to do
with the issue. That's because character is, at
heart, a value-based concept.

We tend to forget that an internally consistent
psychoanalysis, as Freud created it, is
essentially an amoral, value-free philosophy.
Psychoanalysis is valuable as a method of
treatment, but it has limited applicability; it
cannot be taken as the fundamental basis for
man's world view.

Then the Self-Psychology School came along in
the '60's, coalescing around the work of
psychoanalyst Heinz Kohut. He was the prime mover
in developing a theory related to self-esteem in
the psychoanalytic world, and others built upon
his work.

Kohut came up with the notion that we all have a
blueprint for a preexisting self which we have an
obligation to discover. His ideas crossed over
into the popular psychology of the Human
Potential Movement led by Rogers and Maslow, and
there followed a huge interest in finding that
preexisting identity.

But the whole Human Potential and Self-Psychology
Movement fell victim to the serpent's promise--
"Ye shall be as gods!"

Soon society began to view narcissism--in
whatever form--as healthy, and began to deny that
humility, modesty and self-sacrifice were really
virtues.

We began to believe that we have no obligation to
live by any set of absolute standards of good and
evil--we could choose our own. We convinced
ourselves that self-fulfillment, self-
actualization, self-realization, and so on was
the highest standard of good. But it is an
ancient truth that indeed we must live by
standards that are outside of ourselves and which
may, at times, conflict with our own
natural "blueprints."

History has taught us that any other course will
lead us to destruction. For if we imagine that
nature and human effort and good intentions are
good enough, it will soon be undeniable that the
result is evil.

Q: Should the American Psychiatric Association
have de-pathologized homosexuality?

A: In some ways I think the psychiatric
establishment was right--homosexuality is not a
disease the way that, say, pneumonia or cancer or
schizophrenia are diseases. Homosexuality makes a
certain kind of sense as an understandable
adaptation to some types of life circumstances.
If you grow up in a Cosa Nostra family, it makes
sense to be a sociopath. By the same token, it's
profoundly confusing to label the sociopathic
responses, of, say, war orphans as "disordered"
when a war orphan must become a sociopath in
order to survive; if he fails to, he may die. So,
under the circumstances of war, which response
is "healthier"--that is to say, "adaptive"?

Homosexuality, too, is a method of adapting to
adverse circumstances. But like sociopathy, it
exacts a cost in terms of constrictions in
relationships.

There are many psychological "illnesses" which
cannot be adequately or convincingly explained
using the medical model of psychiatry. Being
homosexual is not like having a tumor. We should
throw out the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
and start carefully rethinking all of these so-
called illnesses. Right now, the DSM is mostly a
collection of problems labeled illnesses because
they are simply consensually undesirable within
our present culture. But at base, they are really
issues of values, philosophy, and character.

How can we "prove" to the psychiatric
establishment that homosexuality is
psychologically unhealthy? When we tried to
defend the idea that homosexuality is a disorder
as evidenced by the higher associated suicide
rate, gay activists said that the suicide was not
due to the inherently dissatisfying nature of the
condition--it was due to the stresses of
homophobia. When we point to the high level of
gay promiscuity, they said we were using a
narrow, "heterosexist" and outdated definition of
promiscuity. Gays could be emotionally faithful
to one partner, they argued, while being sexually
active with many partners.

And you can't get around those arguments unless
you're actually willing to say that promiscuity
is an inferior way of life. You need to be able
to say that some certain standard is better.

If we can't settle on a shared higher vision,
then it's amazing what we must be prepared to
accept. For example, there is actually a growing
body of literature in sexological journals
arguing that the psychological and emotional
benefits of promiscuity more than outweigh the
risks to life from AIDS.

So that is the fundamental flaw of psychology--it
is meaningless without the backdrop of a
framework of values.

There I believe homosexuality--like narcissism--
is best viewed as a spiritual and moral illness.

Now psychology as a discipline must step up to
the table and accept responsibility for the
extent to which it has been propagating an amoral
ethos. Dostoevsky put it best in The Grand
Inquisitor: "Without God, everything is
permissible."

Dr. Satinover's new book Homosexuality and the
Politics of Truth is available from Hamewith
Distributors (203) 221-0031.


Copyright © NARTH. All Rights Reserved.

Updated: 5 February 2001

Fags live filthy, unhealty, dangerous, unhappy,
and in many cases, violent lives.
MEDICAL CONSEQUENCES Of WHAT HOMOSEXUALS DO.
On April 25, 2001, the CDC reported that "We are
seeing substantial increases in sexually
transmitted diseases among men who have sex with
men in multiple locations across this country."
(31, 32).
Fags are responsible for the "first sexually
transmitted outbreak of typhoid fever" in the
history of the United States. This disease is
caused by ingesting human feces (32).
More than 10% of fags in major U.S. urban areas
are infected with HIV. To this day, they still
make up more than 50% of reported AIDS cases in
the United States (30, 31).
Fags fellate almost 100% of their sexual contacts
and ingest semen from about half of those. Semen
contains virtually every germ carried in the
blood stream, so this is about equivalent to
ingesting raw human blood (6).
One study reports 70% of fags admitting to having
sex only one time with over 50% of their partners
(3).
One study reports that the average fag has
between 20 and 106 partners per year (6). The
average heterosexual has 8 partners in a
lifetime.
Sperm readily penetrates the anal wall (which is
only one cell thick) and gains direct access to
the blood stream. This causes massive
immunological damage to the body's T- and B-cell
defensive systems (14).
50% of male syphilis is carried by fags as a
rectal infection and can enter through the
urethra of another fag during anal sex (7).
Around 67-80% of fags lick and/or insert their
tongues into the anuses of their partners
(called "rimming", anilingus, fecal sex, etc.)
and ingest biologically significant amounts of
feces (7), which is the chief cause of hepatitis
and parasitic infections among fags (8). This
practice is called the "prime taste treat in sex"
in the bestseller The Joy of Gay Sex.
33% of fags admit to fisting (inserting the hand,
sometimes part of the arm, into the rectum of his
partner) (7).
Urinating on each other ("golden showers") and
torture has doubled among fags since the 1940s,
and fisting has increased astronomically (7).
17% of fags eat and/or rub the feces of their
partners on themselves (4).
12% of fags give/receive enemas as part of sexual
pleasure (4).
In one study, the average fag fellated somewhere
between 20 and 106 men, swallowed 50 seminal
discharges, had 72 penile penetrations of the
anus, and ingested feces of 23 different men
EVERY YEAR (6).
Many fag sexual encounters occur while drunk,
high on drugs, or in an orgy setting (7).
Many fags don't pay heed to warnings of their
lifestyles: "Knowledge of health guidelines was
quite high, but this knowledge had no relation to
sexual behavior" (16).
Activities of fags involve rimming (anilingus),
golden showers, fisting, and using "toys" (21).
Fags got homosexuality removed from the list of
mental illnesses in the early 70s by storming the
annual American Psychiatric Association (APA)
conference on successive years. "Guerrilla
theater tactics and more straight-forward
shouting matches characterized their presence"
(2). Since homosexuality has been removed from
the APA list of mental illnesses, so has
pedophilia (except when the adult
feels "subjective distress") (27).
Fags account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60%
of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital
admissions (other than for STDs) in the United
States (5). They make up only 1-2% of the
population.
Fags live unhealthy lifestyles, and have
historically accounted for the bulk of syphilis,
gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, the "gay bowel syndrome"
(which attacks the intestinal tract),
tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus (27).
73% of psychiatrists say fags are less happy than
the average person, and of those psychiatrists,
70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social
stigmatization (13).
25-33% of fags and dykes are alcoholics (11).
Of fags questioned in one study, 43% admitted to
500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admitted
to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these
people, 79% said that half of those partners were
total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts
were one night stands (or, as one fag admits in
the film "The Castro," one minute stands) (3).
Also, it is a favorite past-time of many fags to
go to "cruisy areas" and have anonymous sex. See
www.cruisingforsex.com (NOTE: this site may
contain pornographic images - please don't go to
it if you are under age or don't want to see this
type of material. This site is referenced only
for illustrative purposes.)
78% of fags are affected by STDs (20).
Judge John Martaugh, chief magistrate of the New
York City Criminal Court has said, "Homosexuals
account for half the murders in large cities"
(10).
Captain William Riddle of the Los Angeles Police
says, "30,000 sexually abused children in Los
Angeles were victims of homosexuals" (10).
50% of suicides can be attributed to fags (10).
Dr. Daniel Capron, a practicing psychiatrist,
says, "Homosexuality by definition is not healthy
and wholesome. The homosexual person, at best,
will be unhappier and more unfulfilled than the
sexually normal person" (10). For other
psychiatrists who believe that homosexuality is
wrong, please see National Association for
Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.
It takes approximately $300,000 to take care of
each AIDS victim, so thanks to the promiscuous
lifestyle of fags, medical insurance rates have
been skyrocketing for all of us(10).
One study reports that 90% of fags have engaged
in anal sex, and 66% engage in anal sex regularly
(6).
Fags were responsible for spreading AIDS in the
United States, and then raised up violent groups
like Act Up and Ground Zero to complain about it.
Even today, fags account for well over 50% of the
AIDS cases in the United States, which is quite a
large number considering that they account for
only 1-2% of the population.
Fags account for a disproportionate number of
hepatitis cases: 70-80% in San Francisco, 29% in
Denver, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, 42%
in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne (8).
10% of fags admit to eating feces and/or drinking
contaminated enema water (8).
29% of fags engage in urine sex ("golden
showers") (8).
37% of fags engage in sadomasochism, which
accounts for many accidental deaths. In San
Francisco, classes were held to teach fags how to
not kill their partners during sadomasochism (8).
In large cities, hospitals are often called on to
remove objects from the rectums of fags.
Sometimes, the fags do so much damage that they
have to wear colostomy bags for the rest of their
lives (8).
41% of fags say they have had sex with strangers
in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex
with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these
encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs
(8).
Depending on the city, 39-59% of fags are
infected with intestinal parasites like worms,
flukes and amoebae, which is common in filthy
third world countries (8).
The median age of death of fags is 42 (only 9%
live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause
of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a
married heterosexual man is 75 (8).
The median age of death of dykes is 45 (only 24%
live past age 65). The median age of death of a
married heterosexual woman is 79 (8).
Fags are 100 times more likely to be murdered
(usually by another fag) than the average person,
25 times more likely to commit suicide, and 19
times more likely to die in a traffic accident
(8).
21% of dykes die of murder, suicide or traffic
accident, which is at a rate of 534 times higher
than the number of white heterosexual females
aged 25-44 who die of these things(8).
50% of the calls to a hotline to report "queer
bashing" involved domestic violence (i.e., fags
beating up other fags) (18).
About 50% of the women on death row are dykes
(12).
Fags prey on children.
"Homosexuals in UK propose teaching about anal
sex to 4-year-olds"
33% of fags ADMIT to minor/adult sex (7).
There is a notable fag group, consisting of
thousands of members, known as the North American
Man and Boy Love Association ( NAMBLA). (Note:
this web site is sometimes down). This is a child
molesting fag group whose cry is "SEX BEFORE 8
BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE." This group can be seen
marching in most major fag parades across the
United States.
Fags commit more than 33% of all reported child
molestations in the United States, which,
assuming fags make up 2% of the population, means
that 1 in 20 fags is a child molestor, while 1 in
490 heterosexuals is a child molestor (19).
73% of all fags have had sex with boys under 19
years of age (9).
Many fags admit that they are pedophiles: "The
love between men and boys is at the foundation of
homosexuality" (22).
Because fags can't reproduce naturally, they
resort to recruiting children. Fags can be heard
chanting "TEN PERCENT IS NOT ENOUGH, RECRUIT,
RECRUIT, RECRUIT" in their fag parades. A group
called the "Lesbian Avengers" prides itself on
trying to recruit young girls. They print "WE
RECRUIT" on their literature. Some other fags
aren't as overt about this, but rather try to
infiltrate society and get into positions where
they will have access to the malleable minds of
young children (e.g., the clergy, teachers, Boy
Scout leaders, etc.) (8). See the DC Lesbian
Avengers web page. Also, see AFA Action Alert.
Kinder, gentler pedophiles?
The fag agenda.
The fag agenda includes desensitizing the
public: "The first order of business is
desensitization of the American public concerning
gays and gay rights.....To desensitize the public
is to help it view homosexuality with
indifference instead of with keen emotion.
Ideally, we would have straights register
differences in sexual preferences the way they
register different tastes for ice cream or sports
games....At least in the beginning, we are
seeking public desensitization and nothing more.
We do not need and cannot expect a
full 'appreciation' or 'understanding' of
homosexuality from the average American. You can
forget about trying to persuade the masses that
homosexuality is a good thing. But if only you
can get them to think that it is just another
thing...then your battle for legal and social
rights is virtually won" (25).
Part of the fag agenda is to ge

kirjoitti:

Anonyymi

Kirjoita kommentti

5000

Lähetä