RogerWilli

Response to "Anonymous" 1/10/08 Part 2 What is the impact of adult sexual liberation on families and children? I will be brief here. Anonymous" should read and rebut the considerable rationalization on the issue by Professor Carson Holloway in the article entitled “From Playboy to Pedophilia: How Adult Sexual Liberation Leads to Children's Sexual Exploitation “ (http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WT02G1) Secondly, "Anonymous" should read and rebut the following statement in Steve Baldwin's law Review "Child Moleststion and the Homosexual Movement: ""Unfortunately, the truth is stranger than fiction. Research confirms that homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals, and the mainstream homosexual culture commonly promotes sex with children. (See W.D. Erickson et al, Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters, 17 ARCHIVES SEXUAL BEHAV. I, 83 [1988] and numerous other references on page 2 of 16 in Dr. Baldwin's review). Homosexual leaders repeatedly argue for the freedom to engage in consensual sex with children, and blind surveys reveal a shockingly high number of homosexuals admit to sexual contact with minors...

Continuation of Part 1: Response to "Anonymous" 1/10/08 8. Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth, by Judith Reisman. 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 283, 326 (2002 (http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/academics/lawreview/articles/14_2Reisman.PDF) 9. The American Psychiatric Association’s Destructive and Blind Pursuit of Political Correctness; by Ben Kaufman. 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 423 (2002). (http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/academics/lawreview/articles/14_2kaufman.PDF) Of particular concern is Steve Baldwin’s review of the linkage between child moleststion and the homosexual movement. We should proceed to Part 2 … and assess the impact of sexual liberalism on families and children …

Response to "Anonymous" 1/10/08 Part 1 We can now leave off Ousepe for the moment to assess a rather intriguing and passionate response from "Anonymous". And we should begin by stating that a "phobia" is usually defined as an "irrational fear". The evidence I have led thus far will show that “fearing” gay militancy is not the product of irrationality, but rather the prudent and logical response to hard, fact-based evidence. Anonymous' response is therefore a text-book application of the ad hominem argument. But I should explain, and to do so I will borrow verbatim the words of Roger Magnuson (Are Gay Rights Right? ... page 139 onwards) to save time: "These issues merit serious discussion and rational analysis. Unfortunately, gay rights proposals have often received neither. The seriousness of the issues has not been matched by a seriousness of analysis. There has been a curious inversion: a high level of public policy interest; a low level of public policy debate. “… Those who have studied homosexual initiatives have observed a fourfold tactical plan: 1. Avoid, whenever possible, serious public debate over gay measur...

Continuation of Part 4: Response to Ousepe 1/10/08 A 1993 review of 11 published studies on condom effectiveness in reducing heterosexually transmitted HIV concluded that condoms "may only lower risk somewhat," and that "high risk behaviour" (in this case, only heterosexual intercourse with HIV carriers) "should be...ELIMINATED" [S.C.Weller, Social Science and Medicine, 36, 1635 (1993)]. As the HIV epidemic marches on, I reiterate that there is a wealth of information in the scientific community that promoting condom usage creates an illusion that feeds the spread of the disease. There is more ... See for example the article by John Kelly, FRCS, FRCOG at http://www.catholic-family.org/Information/kelly.html (Condom failure and the Transmission of HIV Infection). Kelly is forced to conclude: “Hurst and Hulley (l988)[5] stated 'In this report, we used quantitative estimates of the risk of HIV infection in various circumstances to show that the single most important recommendation to give our patients is 'Avoid choosing asexual partner who may be at risk of carrying HIV'. They go on 'Encouraging the use of condoms may, in some circumstan...

Response to Ousepe 1/10/09 Part 4 We should now welcome "Anonymous" to the discussion even as we continue the response to Ousepe. Comparing gay militancy to the civil rights issue is a travesty, and Anonymous in the interim urges to read "Homosexuality is not a Civil Right" by Daniel Garcia and Robert Regier. It is found at http://shakinandshinin.org/HomosexualityIsNotA CivilRight.html He/she will find no comfort in the fact that, as Dr. Joseph Nicolosi points out in "The Removal of Homosexuality from the Diagnostic Manual", many therapists/pshchiatrists are turning away persons who want to be rid of same-sex attraction disorders. But now on to assess Ousepe's comments on condoms. There is a wealth of information in the scientific community that promoting condom usage creates an illusion that feeds the spread of HIV/AIDS. Read the articles by the Williams Gairdner, Chairman of the Gairdner Research Foundation. “Condoms Can Prevent Aids" was plastered over two letters critical of my recent article about the natural holes in latex condoms and surgical gloves. Don't believe it. Critics made the point that HIV tends to travel...

Continuation of Part 3: Response to Ousepe 1/10/08 “Estimated HIV infection rates for homosexuals in large U.S. cities range from 11.9% in Baltimore to 13.8% in Detroit, 14.1% in Seattle, 16.3% in Chicago, 17.9% in Newark, 21% in Philadelphia, 22.6% in Los Angeles, 24.2% in the District of Columbia, 26.6% in Dallas, 27.1% in Houston, 28.6% in Atlanta, 29.2% in New York, 31.4% in Miami and 40.7% in San Francisco. Scott D. Holmberg, MD, MPH, "The Estimated Prevalence and Incidence of HIV in 96 Large US Metropolitan Areas", American Journal of Public Health, May 1996, Table 1, pages 646-647.” Kate Leishman reported that in 1988, though representing less than 5% of the U.S. population, homosexuals were responsible for 50% of the nation’s cases of syphilis and a “phenomenal incidence of venereal disease” … including the spread of gonorrhea, rectal gonorrhea, gonorrhea of the throat, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, herpes, CMV, urethritis, pediculosis, scabies, venereal warts and intestinal parasites. (Kate Leishman, “AIDS and Syplillis”, The Atlantic Monthly. January 1988, 20, 21; E. Rowe, “Homosexual Politics”, CLA, 1984, , 17; P. Buchanan and J. Muir, “Gay Times and Dis...

Response to Ousepe 1/10/08 Part 3 The following statement by Ousepe is irresponsible, or else the product of a monumental delusion masquerading as scholarship: “Heck, if No one has any sex ever, vaginal, anal, or oral, there would be no questions of any STDs, but let's be practical. The greater risk of anal sex over vaginal sex is only realized if the individuals involved are not educated or sexually responsible. It is NOT an exclusive characteristic of homosexual relationships” We MUST now bring greater detail, and education, to the discussion! Other literature in the Journal of the American Medical Association reveals the real issue: “The physiology of the rectum makes it clear that sodomy is unnatural. The inward expansion of the rectum during anal intercourse frequently tears the rectal lining, resulting in spasms, colitis, cramps, and a variety of other physical responses. Furthermore, sperm can readily penetrate the rectal wall (the vagina cannot be so readily penetrated) and do massive immunological damage, leaving the body vulnerable to a bewildering variety of opportunistic infections.” (David Ostrow et al, eds., “Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Homosex...

Continuation of Part 2: Response to Ousepe 1/10/08 The DSM III was further revised, and now homosexuality is not referred to at all: no reference is made to it by name within the diagnostic manual. Actually, there is an oblique reference in the catch-all category of "Other Sexual Disorders Not Otherwise Specified." Here they describe "Persistent and Marked Distress About One's Sexual Orientation." Reference to homosexual orientation is avoided as if "persistent and marked distress" could also apply to heterosexuality. Yet in the history of psychiatry, has a heterosexual ever sought treatment for distress about his heterosexuality and wished to become homosexual? When I put that question in correspondence to the chairman of the DSM Nomenclature Committee, Robert L. Spitzer, he replied: "the answer, as you suspected, is no." Why does the profession no longer consider homosexuality a problem? … ”

Response to Ousepe 1/10/08 Part 2 Below, Dr. Joseph Nicolosi discusses the American Psychiatric Association's well-known removal of homosexuality from its list of mental disorders ... (and) Asserts that now homosexuals who seek treatment for their condition are often denied help by psychologists and psychiatrists. “The Removal of Homosexuality from the Psychiatric Manual”; by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi; (http://www.catholicsocialscientists.org/Symposium2--Nicolosi--mss.htm). “All three great pioneers of psychiatry--Freud, Jung and Adler--saw homosexuality as disordered. Yet today, homosexuality is not to be found in the psychiatric manual of mental disorders. Were these three great pioneers just reflecting the ignorance and prejudice of their times? Is this radical shift due to our modern-day enlightened, sophisticated attitude? Has there been any new research to account for this shift of opinion? I submit that no new psychological or sociological research justifies this shift. Research did not settle the question. Research simply stopped, and it is politics that has silenced the professional dialogue. Now, the only studies on homosexuality are from an advocacy...

Continuation of Part 1: Response to Ousepe 1/10/08 The Congressional Record of May 1996 writes that “Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth” is … the best book on homosexuality written in our lifetime! One comment in the book that should concern you, Ousepe? It is this: “Homosexuality is but one of the many forms of ‘soul sickness’ that that are innate to our fallen natures!” Sickness? Is it possible that we are in fact talking about a treatable mental and emotional “disorder”? To answer that, we should refer to Joseph Nicolosi’s commentary on the issue in Part 2.

Response to Ousepe 1/10/08 Part 1 Ousepe, thanks again for your frank responses! As readers peruse these exchanges, they will be exposed to more and more detail and evidence. This is why I would in fact encourage you to keep them coming. I will respond the same day. Now, at first glance, much of your “evidence” is either flawed, inaccurate, or misapplied, and the volume of inaccuracies demands that I address your latest response(s) in multiple parts. Firstly, your arguments thus far vindicate Roger Magnuson’s contention (“Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of the Controversy!”; Multnomah Press), when challenged, gay militancy ALWAYS retreats to the outrage, fury and spittle of the ad hominem argument. No real evidence is offered, and desperate refuge is sought in unreferenced allusions beginning with “research shows” or “studies show”, grasping at “rights” and “privacy” straws, all translating into an awesome denial of medical and scientific evidence that shocked even Dr. Satinover. Roger Magnuson’s book ((“Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of the Controversy!”) should be required reading for policymakers. Secondly, since you addressed his thoughts very ...