Posted on 02/11/2007 8:50:23 AM PST by shrinkermd
IS THERE A NATIONAL GAY CONSPIRACY TO DETERMINE LOCAL ELECTIONS? DOES GAY MARRIAGE REALLY MATTER
As to the first question, if you asked me a week ago I would have said, “Preposterous!” But in the March 2007 issue of The Atlantic MonthlyJoshua Green’s article, "They Won’t Know What Hit Them,” proves otherwise.
According to Green, software Mogul and gay activist Tim Gill and others have taken it upon themselves to “stop the Rick Santorums of tomorrow.” A small, stealthy and effective group, of “gay donors is reshaping American politics.”
For example Danny Carroll, Republican and Speaker of the House, was defeated last November. His seat was tenuous and he won last time by only a few votes, but this time he faced Tim Gill and his network who poured big donations into the Iowa legislative races. The outcome was clear—not only did Carroll lose but the Republicans lost control of both the Iowa House and Senate.
Carroll’s crime was he had sponsored a bill for a Iowa State Referendum on “gay marriage.” He never caught on to his problem till after the election and only after author Joshua Green had him review his opponent’s list of contributors. Then he saw the many out-of-state big donations he finally realized “what hit him.” After all, who would contribute from outside Iowa for an obscure legislative race?
Gill has a very nice picture in the magazine. He is described as retiring person whose main interests are philanthropy and “Gay equality.” Last year, Gill gave 15 million to achieve this goal—almost all of it for state and local campaigns. He focuses on local races and certain key national races where the recipient favors gay marriage.
Gill alleges his favorite villain was Rick Santorum who compared “homosexual sex to man on a dog;” it took 20 million to defeat Senator Santorum. His favorite Senator is probably Barack Obama who is “solid on Gay rights.” Otherwise, Gill and his staff focus on local elections.
Gill’s successes, besides Iowa, include Colorado where he found many Republicans who supported his gay rights proposals—both legislative bodies in Colorado are now controlled by Democrats. He also organized a group of gay donors who spent 3 million on 70 key races; they won 50 of them. The group “invested” money in Washington, Pennsylvania and Michigan—at least one legislative body in these four states switched from Republican to Democrat.
Besides organizing Gill has recruited talent. He has one successful lobbyist and one former Republican Massachusetts mayor on his staff. There is now a Gill Action Fund which with others hopes to achieve a national nondiscrimination employment bill. One component of this effort is “create an atmosphere of fear and respect” for Republicans so they stop Gay bashing and permit those Republicans sympathetic to join the gay cause.
Gill’s failures include a loss on getting domestic partnerships approved in Colorado and the losing 27 of 28 state ballot initiatives.
Not discouraged Gill plans to, “continue mapping out a state-by-state conquest that already has advanced gay interests in politics…”
It should come as no surprise if you carpet bomb local elections with substantial sums you do have successes. The surprise comes when voters actually vote in a plebiscite—here the gay agenda usually fails no matter how much is spent.
So the answer to the first question is there is indeed a group of rich gay activists who are trying to influence local elections. From the perspective of the defeated local officials it is quite definitely a conspiracy, but for the winners it is just the American way.
But why this emphasis on gay marriage? After all, the point prevalence for male homosexuality is somewhat over 4%; originally Kinsey and others claimed up to 10% but this figure was never substantiated. Assuming no more than 10% of male homosexuals want to marry, we have at most one half of one percent of the male, general population wishing to marry another man.
The answer is really simple—what is desired by homosexual marriage proponents is definite proof that homosexuals are indeed “normal.”
In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association by action of its Board determined homosexuality per se is not a diagnosable mental disorder. The reasons for this action can be found HERE. The Board took this action on the basis of there not being any way to treat homosexuality as well as other issues. It was a welcome change for those homosexual psychiatrists and others who did not wish to be diagnosed and it was also a welcome change from general meetings previously disrupted by gay activists. Regardless of the wisdom or lack thereof of this action, people still act “as if” homosexuality is indeed a disorder.
The problem is simple. Biologically the aim of sex is procreation not recreation--disappointing to many but nonetheless true. Usually, when behaviors fail to meet biological aims they are considered abnormal. Statistically, homosexuality is a rare event—the point prevalence for males may be as low as 4% and for females it may be as low as 2%. Biologically and statistically then, homosexuality meets the common sense, but not American Psychiatric Association, criteria of a disorder.
No doubt many successful, educated homosexuals realize this. Yet they also believe that somehow, someway just around the corner there is universal acceptance and recognition they are indeed “normal.” As a form of denial, this has many supporters and wishers who all see any contrary opinion as bigoted, fascist and homophobic.
Whether they know it or not, anyone who has attended college in the last 50 years has been exposed Michel Foucault.
Foucault, a French philosopher, believed there is no universal truth. When debate occurs it is not over truth or falsehood of the argument but the background beliefs of those debating. “What are you saying?” becomes instead, “Where are you speaking from?” Foucault both received and gave, as a licensed psychologist, mental health counseling. He focused on the “true self.” He believed there was no stable identity, no intrinsic nature waiting to be realized, and he completely rejected moral norms and standards. He also believed that for the most part those with mental illness were incarcerated for their views not for their illness. Their views were, then, their “illness.”
Foucault and his followers believe the traditional views of man, of the family and of sexual relations are simply maintained by societal power. He believed there is no reason or justification for suppressing or repressing sexual feelings or acts. No doubt, this justified some of Foucault’s personal behavior; he was a promiscuous, homosexual who eventually died of AIDS. His followers were not discouraged by this outcome; indeed, they saw him as a martyr to their faith.
Conservatives can ridicule Foucault’s beliefs but he revolutionized academic thinking and ushered in postmodernism. To this day, his views resonated on campus. Multiculturalism and political correctness grew out of Foucault’s legacy. Part of the campus political correctness is a suppression of what is now called “homophobia.”
Much effort is going into actions designed to prove once and for all homosexuals are “normal.” The hope is something like gay marriage will do the trick; if not gay marriage then gay pregnancy or gay adoption. If those don't work perhaps suppressing the "Christianists" will work. But thirty years of professionals denying homosexuality is a disorder hasn’t worked. And thirty years of homosexual marriage won’t work either.
Marriage between a man and a woman is an ancient practice. During all of this time we have had periods of polyandry and polygamy but not formal, homosexual marriage. This should tell us something about ourselves.
Trimpa, Mr. Gill’s assistant, pictures part of the problem as being the “gay ick factor.” By this Trimpa means any discussion of actual homosexual sexual practices turns off well meaning and fair voters. What he is describing is not “homophobia” but the disgust and revulsion many feel towards homosexual acts. Men in prison have died rather than submit to a forced sodomy. This disgust and revulsion may not be logical but emotions seldom are.
If Mr. Gill and his supporters hope for better and fairer laws to guarantee the civil rights of homosexuals he will surely meet with long term success. If his unstated, unconscious goal is to prove homosexuals are “normal” he will fail. The problem is human nature not the culture. And this he cannot alter except with Draconian laws that are impossible to enforce.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1320747/posts?page=11#11
Excerpt:
Gay.ru is a Soros-funded Moscow NGO that has developed "into an established and recognized Russian gay and lesbian center" and "the clearing house for lesbian and gay groups scattered across the country":
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1775611/posts?page=8#8
As per the 2003 Victory Fund Annual Report cofounded by David Mixner.
http://www.victoryfund.org/clientuploads/documents/Victory_2003_E-Resolution.pdf
Page 25 specifically says The Gay & Lesbian Fund provides financial support to openly lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender candidates and officials.
Page 18 of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund 2004 Annual Report shows Jon Corzine is a Silver Victory Council member
http://www.victoryfund.org/clientuploads/documents/Victory_2004_Annual_Report.pdf
StoneWallVets.org
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1687307/posts?page=4#4
thru
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1687307/posts?page=37#37
Soros monies support these political groups. The Log Cabin Republicans, Main Street Republicans, and the Victory Funds.
Giuliani to Address Log Cabin Republican Convention
|
August 23, 1999 |
|
||
|
New York City Mayor (and likely GOP Senate candidate) Rudolph Giuliani will deliver the keynote address at "Liberty for All" - the 1999 Log Cabin National Leadership Conference on Saturday, August 28 in New York City. The conference, the largest annual gathering of gay and lesbian conservatives in the nation, will also include a plenary debate on the state of the gay movement featuring author Andrew Sullivan, Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund Executive Director Brian Bond, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute Director Urvashi Vaid and Richard Tafel, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans. The conference also will focus on increasing civic activism by gay Americans through workshops on fundraising, campaigning and grass-roots organizing. For more information, please contact Log Cabin Republicans Director of Public Affairs Kevin Ivers at (202) 347-5306. |
|||
Homosexuality is a disease and disorder as far as I am concerned, while I dont have any ill will towords those whom are; I resent their actions taken to force me and those like me to accept their behavior as "OK", "normal", "etc". God can forgive them, but they will ultimately fail, and must know that they don't have to live permanents with their behavior in mind..!
I agree, I think it is a disorder also. But, those behind LGBT are a different animal then two guys that want to listen to barry manilow albums on the weekend.
IS THERE A NATIONAL GAY CONSPIRACY TO DETERMINE LOCAL ELECTIONS?
No, of course not.
DOES GAY MARRIAGE REALLY MATTER?
No, the issue is a distraction.
Yes there probably is. They did it with psychiatry in the 1970's, and also the Catholic clergy. In the 1970's homosexual behavior was concidered a mental disorder.
What you can't beat in the arena of ideas you corrupt from within.
Just so that this is quite clear to everyone casting either a primary or general election vote: a vote for Rudy Giuliani is a vote to normalize homosexuality in America.
Yeah, everyone has an opinion.
I don't buy it, nothing more than that.
That it's important or that it's happening? Just asking.
In addition to what's been said here, isn't it curious that two of the Media appointed front runners in the Republican race (Rudy and Romney) are both stauchly pro-homosexual?
I belive I have heard or read that there is a movement by certain gay activists and their supporters to make the APA do what it did in 1973, but the other way around.
Could HOMOPHOBIA ever be defined by the APA as a mental disorder?
HOMOPHOBIA, the phoniest of all phony words a mental disorder, while HOMOSEXUALITY, a practice deemed extremely abnormal by many people, worldwide, NOT?
Sounds like the supporters of thie must be HETEROPHOBES, but that is as phony a word as HOMOPHBOE is!
Sorry for DUPLICATE post, but had a minor typo in first.
I belive I have heard or read that there is a movement by certain gay activists and their supporters to make the APA do what it did in 1973, but the other way around.
Could HOMOPHOBIA ever be defined by the APA as a mental disorder?
HOMOPHOBIA, the phoniest of all phony words a mental disorder, while HOMOSEXUALITY, a practice deemed extremely abnormal by many people, worldwide, NOT?
Sounds like the supporters of this must be HETEROPHOBES, but that is as phony a word as HOMOPHBOE is!
-A Gay ( or not! ) Old Time- GM links--
But... here is the killer quote:
Forthcoming Attractions ( Gay Marriage, or "You have been conned, once again, suckers..." )
See ? It’s always the new guy who gets the Jan 1 slot of death – and, indeed, that is exactly how I feel right now. Still, the show must go on.
It’s an article of faith on Fantasy Island that Britain is five hours ahead of America and also twenty years behind. That’s true for technology but, as far as social issues go, it’s the UK that’s the canary in the mine .So read on, and see what’s coming next.
OK, so you guys have so far managed to resist the blandishments of gay marriage, but over here the government has swallowed it wholesale, which at least means the Pink Wedge don’t have to lie about it anymore. Here’s actor John Barrowman on what it really means:
It’s been a long wait but we legitimised our relationship to each other a long time ago when we signed our mortgages together and this is just something that forces people who don’t want to recognise it that they have to.
No room for misquote there then. Yes, indeed. It was never about folks solemnly waiting for the State to endorse their lifestyles, it was always about using the power of Big Government to impose their lifestyle on third parties. Or, to put it another way, that’s what’s facing you if you break like Britain’s social conservatives did. But that’s not the end of it. The New Order is making its presence felt in the most bizarre of contexts:
The Royal Air Force has called in a gay pressure group to help solve its recruitment crisis. The Service will take advice from Stonewall on how to make itself more attractive to homosexual and bisexual men and women, and is aiming to spend tens of thousands of pounds on advertising in the “pink” media.
Because, you know, Britain doesn’t have anything else to spend the money on.
Ditto, British education. We might have 70% literacy rates, but at least the government knows what’s really important:
Schools that fail to show enthusiasm in rooting out prejudice against homosexuals should be reported to the police by pupils and parents, a Home Office report recommended yesterday.
Ah yes: block watchers as the guardians of tolerance – now, remind me again why people think Liberalism is a mental illness ? And don’t think you can avoid it all by working in the private sector. New employment regulations supposedly designed to clamp down on ‘harassment’ go a little further, requiring employers with ambitions to avoid a lawsuit to, well, it speaks for itself:
Businesses have been warned by a Government watchdog they must individually quiz every member of staff on gay rights - or risk being sued for discrimination…
Questions range from knowing how many gays live in the UK, to whether the business displays a ‘rainbow flag’ - a symbol of homosexual rights - on the premises.
Not that the La-Las have it all their own way. Lancashire County Council’s decision to plaster the walls of their offices with paraphernalia celebrating gay marriage civil partnership was par for the Liberal course, but when they sent round a police officer to threaten an elderly couple who asked for equal prominence to be given to Christian literature, that was a bridge too far even for British courts. Still, rising to the occasion Liberals have decided that the answer is to redraft the law so that just about everybody in the whole world is guilty:
(3) A person (‘A’) subjects another person (‘B’) to harassment in any circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision referred to in these Regulations where, on the grounds of sexual orientation, A engages in unwanted conduct which has the purpose or effect of
(a) violating B’s dignity; or
(b) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.
Ah yes. Let me spell this out for you. Whether or not something is offensive is not only judged solely on the basis of whether or not Big Gay Al Sharpton judges it so, but to be found ‘not guilty’ you will be required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Big Gay Al doesn’t believe it’s offensive.
An impossible standard ?
Now you’re getting it. Yes, there might be a theoretical exemption for those with religious objections, but for those who simply believe that a society which treats folks with kids the same as folks without, deserves to disappear down the demographic plughole ? You’re under arrest!
There’s probably some profound truth there. But right now, let me sum it up for you: gay rights activists have spent years singing ‘I gotta be free, I gotta be me…’ but now it turns out that their view of freedom involves the arrest of anyone who advocates the moral views held by just about every major religion. After all, if people promoting lifestyles Liberals disagree with aren’t legally harassed, why, that might lead to intolerance.
Said DJ @ 1:12 pm Comments (4) | Permalink
How about employer sponsored insurance? To think that it would have no real effect in everyones life is not think much about it. You're right, I don't think about it much at all.
How about employer sponsored insurance? To think that it would have no real effect in everyones life is not think much about it. You're right, I don't think about it much at all.
"Good question, I'll bite, how many?"
It doesn't really matter when you've already said you don't want to think about it.
"Good question, I'll bite, how many?"
It doesn't really matter when you've already said you don't want to think about it.
Oh, please no, you misunderstood, you now have me curious.....
please expand on the number and costs, perhaps you can convince me that your position is important.......
it costs us a minimum of $5 million per year, every year for just my company.
It sounds like you should be discussing this issue with the management of your company. I can't imagine that a bottom line savings of $5 million annually would be something that they would choose to overlook.
Of course the board of directors might be a good place to start too.
LAMBDA members sit on the board.
Where do you work?
Are you a stock holder?
Those are the usual standards. Of course, masturbation is far different than sodomy and sodomy is far different than fistings. The usual standard for fellatio used to be if it resulted or was intended as a prelude to vaginal intercourse, it was "normal."
I didn't say this was a conspiracy only that those who lost to big dollar donors would feel that way while people who won with big donors would feel it as just usual politics.
Finally, yes when a biological event is rare and not predicted in the majority of instances, it is considered abnormal. Incidentally,a Global Sex Survey by Durex for 2005 reports that 19% of Canadians 20% of Americans have had some sort of homosexual experience at some time in their life; this is about the same lifetime prevalence as a Major Depressive disorder with men at about 15% lifetime and women about 25% lifetime.
But don't fret. The American Psychiatric Association does not even have "homosexuality" or "homosexual" in its DSM IV TR. Also, no fellatio, sodomy, masturbation or any other like term. Essentially, no matter what you do it is now "normal." Further the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Social Worker Association all have similar rules. After thirty-three years people still are not convinced that homosexual acts are "normal."
I do note, that the American Psychological Association now permits psychotherapy for homosexuality but only for those who are distressed or resentful about it.
This has been discussed many times. It is a political and semantic issue that may or may not appear in the DSM IV depending on political considerations.
My point is simply the absurdity of it all: No, HOMOSEXUALITY is NOT a mental disorder and yes, HOMOPHOBIA IS a mental disorder.
A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners.
The reference is: The 9. A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 9; see alsoBell, Weinberg and Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981).
I do agree that a crucial variable for treatment is whether the patient has personal distress or impairment in work, love and friendship. I do not agree with you on the necessity of an effective treatment. For thousands of years we have had disorders that we did not have treatments for. Presently, we still do--Huntington's Chorea (Woody Guthrie Disease) is an example. Once diagnosed it is uniformly fatal.
As far as the mental disorder sequelae to homosexuality. These occur and are severe. For example High Incidence of Mental Health Problems among Homosexuals and Lesbians. "A national survey of lesbians published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology found that 75 percent of the nearly 2,000 respondents had pursued psychological counseling of some kind, many for treatment of long-term depression or sadness:
"...Among the sample as a whole, there was a distressingly high prevalence of life events and behaviors related to mental health problems. Thirty-seven percent had been physically abused and 32 percent had been raped or sexually attacked. Nineteen percent had been involved in incestuous relationships while growing up. Almost one-third used tobacco on a daily basis and about 30 percent drank alcohol more than once a week; 6 percent drank daily. One in five smoked marijuana more than once a month. Twenty-one percent of the sample had thoughts about suicide sometimes or often and 18 percent had actually tried to kill themselves. . . . More than half had felt too nervous to accomplish ordinary activities at some time during the past year and over one-third had been depressed..." The reference for this:. Bradford, et al., "National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62 (1994): 239, cited in Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality, p. 81
A better marker for homosexual psychopathology is suicide attempts. "... A study of twins that examined the relationship between homosexuality and suicide, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry,found that homosexuals with same-sex partners were at greater risk for overall mental health problems, and were 6.5 times more likely than their twins to have attempted suicide. The higher rate was not attributable to mental health or substance abuse disorders...
"...Another study published simultaneously in Archives of General Psychiatry followed 1,007 individuals from birth. Those classified as "gay," lesbian, or bisexual were significantly more likely to have had mental health problems. Significantly, in his comments on the studies in the same issue of the journal, D. Bailey cautioned against various speculative explanations of the results, such as the view that "widespread prejudice against homosexual people causes them to be unhappy or worse, mentally ill..."
You don't reply to the points I made in my previous posts, namely that your claims that statistics and your biological approach 'prove' that something is either abnormal or a mental disorder. Rather, you missed or ignored those.
With respect to the availability of treatments, I was strictly speaking about mental disorders. Of course there are diseases of the body for which there is no treatment. But psychology is a science of the mind, and it strives to cure the diseases of the mind. If it's certain that psychology can do nothing about it, I don't think that it can be considered a mental disorder.
You cite a few studies. Unfortunately, studies done about this subject are heavily politicized - on both sides, people set out to prove themselves right. It's time that they did a transparent study on this subject.
I don't doubt for a moment that, today, there is a correlation between homosexuality and pathology. I don't know for certain what causes that, and you don't know that. It might be that homosexuality inherently causes mental distress to the people involved. It might be that the societal reaction to the people causes mental distress. And it might be that growing up in a society as a minority causes mental distress.
The conclusions you draw (rather, the website you copied this from) showing a higher incidence of depression and suicide are quite dubious. It seems to blame the victims and brand them as evil, because they are more likely to be suicidal or depressed. If poverty, depression, suicide is more widespread among blacks than among whites, does that make black people evil?
I take it that you have some experience as an M.D.? I'm very interested in the human mind, as well as in conspiracy theories. So this thread is ideal for me. ;-)
Angus Ramsay, PhD, Katherine Johnson, PhD, Clive Cort, MSc, Lucie Wright, MSc and Robert Blizard, MSc
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences, Royal Free and University College Medical School, London
Oliver Davidson, PhD
Department of HIV & Sexual Health Psychology, London, UK
Correspondence: Dr Michael King, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences, Royal Free Campus, Rowland Hill Street, London NW3 2PF, UK. E-mail: m.king@rfc.ucl.ac.uk
Declaration of interest None. Funding detailed in Acknowledgements.
Background Little is known aboutthe mental health of gay men and lesbians living in Europe.
Aims To compare psychological status, quality of life and use of mental health services by lesbians and gay men with heterosexual people.
Method Cross-sectional study in England and Wales using ‘snowball’ sampling.
Results Participants: 656 gay men, 505 heterosexual men, 430 lesbians and 588 heterosexual women. Gay men were more likely than heterosexual men to score above threshold on the Clinical Interview Schedule, indicating greater levels of psychological distress (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.07–1.43), as were lesbians compared with heterosexual women (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11–1.52). Gay men and lesbians were more likely than heterosexuals to have consulted a mental health professional in the past, deliberately harmed themselves and used recreational drugs. Lesbians were more likely to have experienced verbal and physical intimidation and to consume more alcohol than heterosexual women.
Conclusions Awareness of mental health issues for gay men and lesbians should become a standard part of training for mental health professionals, who need to be aware of the potential for substance misuse and self-harm in this group and of the discrimination experienced by many lesbians.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR RESEARCH AND THERAPY OF HOMOSEXUALITY
Mothers of Male Homosexuals: A Study
A recently completed doctoral dissertation by Gregory Dickson, Ph.D. found statistically significant differences between the childhood recollections of heterosexual and homosexual men. The dissertation was entitled, "An Empirical Study of the MotherSon Dyad in Relation to the Development of Adult Male Homosexuality: An Object Relations Perspective."
A total of 135 men were surveyed--57 egodystonic homosexuals; 34 egosyntonic homosexuals; and 44 heterosexuals from various parts of the U.S. Utilizing the ParentChild Relations Questionnaire (PCR-II; Siegelman & Roe, 1979), the study found that heterosexual males recalled a much better relationship with their mothers. These men reported a significantly more loving, less demanding, and less rejecting mother than did homosexual males.
The study further found that male homosexuals reported significantly higher levels of current depression, as well as significantly higher levels of childhood sexual abuse than their heterosexual peers.
Homosexual Men Experienced Their Mothers More Negatively
The study's results supported previously published empirical research that homosexuals and heterosexuals have significantly different recollections of their childhood motherson relationships.
Going beyond the scope of previous research, the study found that egodystonic (dissatisfied with their orientation) homosexual males recalled having experienced a more demanding mother than egosyntonic (satisfied) homosexual men. Otherwise, no significant differences in the recollection of the childhood motherson relationships were found between the two subgroups of homosexual men.
Commenting on the findings, Dr. Dickson stated, "A cursory review of research to date suggests a lack of uniform findings on the role of the motherson relationship in the development of male homosexuality. Some authors have found a close, overly protective mother, while others have found the oppositea less loving, more demanding, and more rejecting mother. While these results are seemingly contradictory, further investigation reveals an underlying consistency, in that the homosexual male has repeatedly reported a significantly different relationship with his mother than that reported by his heterosexual peers. Whether he reported her as overly close or distant, a negative relational pattern is apparent."
He added, "It is reasonable to assume that either type of relationship (overly close or distant) may negatively impact the developing boy's ability to complete the necessary steps leading toward the accomplishment of the developmental tasks of individuation and separation. The overly close and binding relationship with the mother may prevent the young boy from "abandoning" her in order to join his father and his male peers. Likewise, the overly distant relationship may not allow him to feel secure enough in the mother's love to leave it in order to explore peer relationships with other boys."
The Homosexual Male Often Had to "Choose" One Parent Over Another
Findings of this study and of Dickson (1996) also support findings in the literature which suggest that the adult male homosexual has experienced a greater dissimilarity of relationships between his mother and father during his developmental years than did his heterosexual peers. The current study drew upon previous literature regarding the healthy early triangulation in which the boy is able to develop both a sense of connectedness to, and distance from, both parents. "A lack of this healthy triangulation," stated Dr. Dickson, "may result in the developing boy finding himself 'stuck' between parents. He must choose one parent over the other. It appears that this phenomenon is present and much more extreme in homosexual development."
While both heterosexual and homosexual groups reported a significantly higher sense of attachment to mother and a higher sense of love from mother, the study found that the dissimilarity experienced between parents among the two groups of men is most apparent in the areas of love, demand, and rejection. Dr. Dickson stated, "A further complicating factor appears in that while the motherson relationship demonstrates a negative relational pattern, in comparison to the fatherson relationship, the homosexual son feels, at the same time, relatively closer to mother than to father. In other words, compared to the father, the child may consciously feel closer to the mother, yet unconsciously feel unsafe with her. That unsafe sense may be triggered by either a closebinding impingement and/or a lessloving distance."
He continued, "It appears the process of growing into a mature masculine identity may be impeded by any of these factors including the motherson relationship, the fatherson relationship, the dissimilarity between the mother and father relationship, and/or a combination thereofand this conscious and unconscious organization may have resulted in the many seemingly contradictory retrospective findings reported in the literature."
Gender-Identity Development is Thwarted by an Unbalanced Parent-Child Relational Pattern
These findings regarding the motherson relationship, combined with those found by Dickson (1996) regarding the fatherson relationship with the same group of participants are consistent with the object-relations theory of an unhealthy and unbalanced triangular parentchild relational pattern that may thwart the boy's gender and identity development from both the mother's and the father's side, hindering the accomplishment of developmental tasks necessary in order to attain and sustain adult heterosexual relationships.
Furthermore, the study sheds light on the potential relationship of a history of sexual abuse and the development of adult male homosexuality. An alarming 49% of homosexual surveyed, compared to less than 2% of heterosexuals, reported sexual abuse.
Dr. Dickson also found results suggesting that homosexual men are significantly more depressed than heterosexual men. However, his findings do not support the experience of sexual abuse alone as an adequate explanation for the homosexuals' level of current depression. Significant differences in the depression scores remained in the comparison of nonsexually abused homosexual and heterosexual participants for current levels of depression.
Childhood Sexual Abuse is Correlated with Male Homosexuality Results of this study underscore the importance of a need for increased understanding of the effects of sexual abuse in the development of adult male homosexuality. Dr.
Dickson's findings are congruent with those of Finkelhor (1984) which found that boys victimized by older men were four times more likely to be currently involved in homosexuality than were nonvictims. All of the respondents in Dr. Dickson's study reported their molestation as having occurred by a male perpetrator; none reported female abusers. This finding, perhaps one of the most significant of Dr. Dickson's study, suggests that sexual abuse should be considered in evaluating etiologic factors contributing to the development of adult male homosexuality. He Dickson stated, "An experience of sexual abuse could possibly contribute to the sexualizing of the unmet needs for male affection, attention, and connection."
The study's findings do not support the experience of sexual abuse as an adequate explanation of the difference in the way adult males experienced their mothers during childhood. The differences in the recollection of parentchild relations reported by the two groups remained significant following the removal of all sexual abuse cases. Nonsexually abused homosexual males continued to report having a less loving, more demanding, and more rejecting mother than nonsexually abused heterosexuals.
The Relationally Deficient Child Is Vulnerable to Sexual Abuse
Commenting on the abuse factor, Dr. Dickson stated, "It is possible that the male child who experiences the negative relational pattern with his mother along with the less present and negatively perceived father becomes more susceptible to the perpetrator's advances. Given the relational deficits experienced by the male child, it is also possible that the molestation, as devastating as it may have been emotionally, simultaneously may be experienced by some of the boys as their first form of adult male affection, as well as something relational that is not shared in common with his mother. The abuse could, theoretically, be perceived by the boy as a facilitation of some form of separationindividuation between himself and mother."
Dr. Dickson continued, "It is also reasonable to assume that the sense of shame, secrecy, violation and anger which may result from childhood sexual abuse contributes to the development of a distorted paradigm through which the child views subsequent relationships with self and others. The duty of the parent to protect the child from all harm, as understood by the child, may be perceived as having been forsaken. If the abuse is left unresolved, subsequent parental behaviors may be experienced in a more negative way by the child and later, the adult. Additionally, the established negative relational pattern present in the family may impede the child's ability to look to his parents for assistance in resolving the pain resulting from the molestation."
The multifaceted approach of Dr. Dickson's study helps to clarify some of the previous literature's apparent contradictions about potential contributing factors in the development of male homosexuality. His study underscores the significance of the influence of multiple environmental factors in the development of adult male homosexuality. It further emphasizes the complex, often subliminal, yet powerful forces of not only the childhood motherson and fatherson relationships, but the childhood experience of sexual abuse as all of these factors relate to the development of the child's sense of self, including gender identification and future relational choices.
Pop culture and political rhetoric suggest that it is society's lack of acceptance which is solely responsible for pathology associated with homosexuality. Such a simplistic conclusion ignores homosexuals' repeated reports in psychology literature of conflicted parental relationships, as well as other important issues such as sexual abuse.
Dr. Dickson stated, "The current study, in concert with past literature, suggests that the issues surrounding committed adult homosexual identification may be more core structural and relational, rather than sexual in nature."
He concluded, "Recent investigation of homosexuality has been hindered by the American Psychological and Psychiatric Associations' philosophical shift, which fails to consider the role of environmental factors in the development of male homosexuality. The clearly complex nature of the issue should not be oversimplified, nor should scientific exploration be limited by politics."
The cryptofascist left is going to try and shove this filth down our throats through stealth or edict. America does not want it. However
Your various attempts at comparisons don't make sense.
You cannot compare being left-handed or having red hair or having dark skin to homosexuality because the first three are physical characteristics which have nothing to do with the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
Thanks for your "insider" comments. I hate to say it, but I'm glad it's you and not us. Best wishes for a speedy recovery.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.