Posted on 05/03/2008 10:15:45 AM PDT by wagglebee
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 beings."
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".
in the old dvsm iii it was treated as a disorder. after gays took over the field the newest version deleted it.
this doctor is right on the mark
Yes, but if it’s genetic...which I doubt...throughout history women have had little or no say in matters of reproduction. They were given in marriage to whomever their parents chose. There was no birth control. Not to mention all the non-marital situations.
Marry she usually did, and procreate she did, even the humpbacked woman that Thackeray postulated. So about half of any genetic source of homosexuality was not self-eliminating.
their desire is to recreatethe sexual abuse they experienced as a child..
when an adult male has sex with a young boy it imprints his mind and the injection ofmale hormones into the child causes more damage.
They obviously haven't been to San Francisco, or browsed the internet for that matter. Type in some of those search terms with the safe filter off and see what pops up.
Talk about your blasphemy. Isn’t there a civil rights tribunal to condemn him? Burn him at the diversity stake?
Maybe the common sense pendulum is swinging back and people are starting to think again.
Wow, it will be a miracle if some gay group doesn't hang this guy, or some so called "diversity" group. How terribly un-PC of him to tell the truth! Normal is hetero, anyone who says "normal" can't be defined except by each individual is a total idiot or a liar.
Library administrators who defend the privacy rights of people to view pedophile porn on their library computers will be quick to put this book on the “banned List.”
If Rojas is Catholic, anything he may have to say on the subject of homosexuality will be dismissed out of hand.
Homosexuals need to keep in mind, however, that the good news of the gospel is not about how God despises same-sex sexual relationships. In fact, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 indicates that certain members of that church had been slaves to such relationships but had been cleansed in Jesus' name. So these former homosexuals had evidently repented and accepted God's grace to straighten their lives out.
John 3:16
Revelation 3:20
I’m shocked. Homosexual, incestuous, and bestial behavior can be cured. Imagine that.
Rioting lesbians have stormed a speech by "Born Gay Hoax" author Ryan Sorba on the campus of Smith College in Massachusetts, shutting down his address,
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2010763/posts
For speaking the truth, this man must be lynched. Call out the Gaystapo.
bookmark
Sorry, but I don't accept the notion that all men were natural rapists until 100 years ago and that proclivity for reproductive sex has no bearing on the number of offspring. I too doubt that it is purely genetic.
It isn’t a notion, it’s a historical fact. And “natural rapists” is your spin. The men didn’t have much choice about marriage either, people married for social and economic reasons of their elders.
In ancient times (not to mention the Stone Age or prior), the idea that women ought to choose their own mates would have been funny — or decidedly not.
Then produce the evidence that lesbian women had as many offspring as heterosexual women. If it is a historical fact as you state, then it shouldn't be hard. I'll wait.
And “natural rapists” is your spin.
B.S. You said women had no choice and that their desire for sex had no affect on frequency of sex, thus reproduction. If the woman is forced to have sex, despite not wanting to, there is a term for it, "rape". That isn't spin, it actually is A FACT. Try a dictionary.
If the woman is forced to have sex, despite not wanting to, there is a term for it, "rape". That isn't spin, it actually is A FACT.
Ridiculous. Every woman in history who was forced to marry or commanded to marry, was raped in every marital encounter?
That's a rhetorical question. I don't seek or desire responses from people who respond to thoughtful discussion by blurting "B.S."
Hmmm. You make silly, irrelevant statements and then want to hide behind calling them rhetorical.
I said that a lesbian woman would have less reproductive sex than a heterosexual woman and thus, if homosexuality were genetic, it should be self eliminating. You stated that it was a non-factor because women had no choice until recently.
I pointed out that a woman who is having sex against her will is being raped and that I don't accept the notion that this was normal behavior. You answer that by going off on a tantrum that makes no sense at all.
One need only read historical fiction and/or factual accounts to conclude that there were many sexless or near sexless marriages throughout history. For you to make the statement that homosexuality would have no meaningful affect on the number of offspring is absurd.
I asked for evidence of your "facts", you provided none. Your entire argument rests on the notion that the man and only the man determined the frequency of sex until recent times, and that women fully placated the men.
Did you not understand me? This discussion ended when you became abusive and vulgar.
You consider a BS flag abusive and vulgar? Well then, go back to your tea and crumpets. At the very least report me to a moderator. I'm sure they'll be flabbergasted as well at such abusive vulgarity.
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.