Dear Editor,
I write this letter in response to Vidyaratha Kissoon’s ‘Freud did not think homosexuality a mental disorder’ which was published in the Stabroek News May 23, 2008, and in support of the stance Roger Williams has taken so far on the issue.
I see that the subject of homosexuality is now dominating our national conversation and the participants in this conversation are using all kinds of arguments to support their stance be it for or against homosexuality. The latest of these arguments centered on Freud and whether or not he countenanced homosexuality. I think whether or not Sigmund Freud accepted homosexuality as a normal way of life is not at all important to the argument. One must also be aware of the social consequences of Freudianism, especially in relation to homosexuality, because as revealed by his letter to Mrs N, dated April 9, 1935 his psychoanalysis was aimed at exorcising from the individual any qualms or feelings of guilt. In other words, Freud’s psychoanalysis would have removed from the young man, who was obviously perturbed by his own homosexual behaviour, his conscience. Think of the consequences of a conscienceless society.
Others in support of homosexuality rest their arguments on the basis of individual freedom. Those who hold this view must be instructed, to use a quote from Kant, that “freedom is the ratio essendi of the moral law,” therefore freedom must be balanced by the adherence to the moral law. Also we have so many other issues of violations of individual freedom that beset us in this society that I doubt those that use freedom as the basis for their arguments are any more interested in individual freedom than in pursuing their own hedonistic agenda.
There are those who also argue that homosexuality is not a choice but it is genetic. This is a very frightening argument because it removes the basis upon which we can hold people responsible for their actions especially in light of the conclusions below by Dr Simon LeVay in his study of the hypothalamic differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men.
“It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay centre in the brain.”
As a Rastafarian my view on the Gay issue is akin to that of Roger Williams. I use him as the point of reference because he is the only person apparently (with access to a pen or keyboard) that has a keen understanding of the dire consequences of a society gone gay. He is the only person that is stressing the need to look at the issue from its sociological point of view.
Homosexuality is an aberration, a social pathology, just like suicide, murder, substance abuse and other such social ills. And it would be unscientific to treat it as a normal and natural way of life. And while I will in no way advocate the killing of gays, I would definitely advocate some form of psychotherapy and behaviour control.
In concluding, I would like to draw attention to SASOD’s website (http://www.sasod.-org.gy/?q=node/8) where there are testimonials by teenagers of their experiment with homosexuality; this is a clear indication that ours youths are being targeted.
Yours faithfully,
Ras Ashkar
“August 1996
WASHINGTON — Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia — the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay individuals — is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware of or denies. A study appearing in the August 1996 issue of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA), provides new empirical evidence that is consistent with that theory.
Researchers at the University of Georgia conducted an experiment involving 35 homophobic men and 29 nonhomophobic men as measured by the Index of Homophobia scale. All the participants selected for the study described themselves as exclusively heterosexual both in terms of sexual arousal and experience.
Each participant was exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual and lesbian videotapes (but not necessarily in that order). Their degree of sexual arousal was measured by penile plethysmography, which precisely measures and records male tumescence.
Men in both groups were aroused by about the same degree by the video depicting heterosexual sexual behavior and by the video showing two women engaged in sexual behavior. The only significant difference in degree of arousal between the two groups occurred when they viewed the video depicting male homosexual sex: ‘The homophobic men showed a significant increase in penile circumference to the male homosexual video, but the control [nonhomophobic] men did not.’
Broken down further, the measurements showed that while 66% of the nonhomophobic group showed no significant tumescence while watching the male homosexual video, only 20% of the homophobic men showed little or no evidence of arousal. Similarly, while 24% of the nonhomophobic men showed definite tumescence while watching the homosexual video, 54% of the homophobic men did.
When asked to give their own subjective assessment of the degree to which they were aroused by watching each of the three videos, men in both groups gave answers that tracked fairly closely with the results of the objective physiological measurement, with one exception: the homophobic men significantly underestimated their degree of arousal by the male homosexual video.
Do these findings mean, then, that homophobia in men is a reaction to repressed homosexual urges, as psychoanalysis theorizes? While their findings are consistent with that theory, the authors note that there is another, competing theoretical explanation: anxiety. According to this theory, viewing the male homosexual videotape may have caused negative emotions (such as anxiety) in the homophobic men, but not in the nonhomophobic men. As the authors note, ‘anxiety has been shown to enhance arousal and erection,’ and so it is also possible that ‘a response to homosexual stimuli [in these men] is a function of the threat condition rather than sexual arousal per se. These competing notions can and should be evaluated by future research.’
Article: ‘Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?’ by Henry E. Adams, Ph.D., Lester W. Wright, Jr., Ph.D. and Bethany A. Lohr, University of Georgia, in Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 105, No. 3, pp 440-445.
(Full text available from the APA Public Affairs Office.)
The American Psychological Association (APA), in Washington,DC, is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and is the world’s largest association of psychologists. APA’s membership includes more than 142,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its divisions in 49 subfields of psychology and affiliations with 58 state and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance psychology as a science, as a profession and as a means of promoting human welfare. ”
Gap1, I believe my work here is done!
A “phobia” is properly defined as an irrational fear.
What’s irrational about the following?
Kate Leishman reports 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”. (Source: 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 Diseases,” The American Spectator, August 1984, 15-18; L. Corey and A. Holmes, “Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men”, New England Journal Of Medicine 302 1980 435-8; Gerald Mandell et al., eds., Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases, 3rd ed., New York, John Wiley 1990, 2280-84; J. Kassler, “Gay Men’s Health”, New York, Harper & Row, 1983, 38;)
Gap1’s is therefore a callous and cruel approach, since it indicates a willingness to sacrifice lives in protecting two activities (sodomy / homosexuality) that are medically dangerous, morally repugnant, spiritually destructive, disease ridden, whose population form a major risk factor in tandem with the bisexual crossover to the heterosexual population.
Drug-resistant forms of gonorrhea are rising, and then there came MRSA 20 years later in 2008 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22665539/ …
This is precisely why gay militancy has always focused on influencing / seizing the health and judicial / legislative sectors.
Finally it is cruel and callous because Gap1 offers nowhere reparative treatment for persons who want to withdraw from the disease, apathy, depression, suicidal tendency and death of homosexuality. Philip Lee’s ministry offers some solutions in that direction (http://www.hiswayout.com )
Now let’s leave Roger Williams to talk to himself – I’m sure, judging by his personality, that he’s had plenty of practice.
Tonks, I sense that you are torn. Remember that God loves you, and that His truth is far better than the obvious lie that the enemy hopes to foist upon unsuspecting millions. So, for you, a word of advice, and encouragement …
“In today’s relentless barrage of words, images, slogans, and ideas that assault us from all sides, many of us have become dependent on sound bites – short, simple, predigested, emotion-laden, one-stop conclusions. We have neither the time nor the ability to sort through the primary information for ourselves in order to arrive at our own considered conclusions. As a result, the deep complexity of the scientific research into homosexuality is easy for people to misinterpret and easier still to misuse.”
“To disentangle this confusion and form solid principles by which to reach responsible conclusions requires effort. But readers who persist and grasp the basic truths about the science of human behavior will gain an invaluable insight into the debate …”
(Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., “Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth”, circa 1996; page 27)
Buy the truth, Tonks … and don’t sell it for the world … Jesus is faithful, and will do it.
END NOTES:
Source: “Gay Orthodoxy and Academic Heresy”, by Ty Clevenger
( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Clevenger.doc )
“Those who discount the effect of systemic bias and political correctness in academia, such as Professor Mary Coombs of the University of Miami Law School, are willfully ignorant, if not dishonest. Coombs argues, somewhat like my former colleagues, that only pro-gay articles are published in academic journals because the other side is so bereft of substance. While that notion may suit her own intellectual vanity, it overlooks mounting evidence to the contrary.
At a recent meeting of the American Psychological Association (APA), for example, former APA President Robert Perloff denounced the organization as “too politically correct” and beholden to special interests. He noted that the organization had tried to prevent research into “conversion therapy” (therapy to change one’s sexual orientation) and had tried to label it “unethical” a priori, even when the patient wants conversion therapy. The APA blocked presentations from researchers on whether sexual orientation can be changed through counseling and therapy, yet it published controversial research suggesting that sex between children and adults may not be harmful and then styled itself a defender of academic freedom (prompting both houses of Congress to take the unusual step of passing a unanimous resolution of condemnation).
Meanwhile, the American Psychiatric Association [not to be confused with APA, which is American Psychological Association] offered luridly titled presentations on counseling aspiring transsexuals.
This creates a rather bizarre contrast.
On the one hand, “mainstream” academic/professional organizations publish research suggesting adult-child sex may not be harmful, and they endorse supportive therapy for individuals who wish to surgically alter themselves (some would say physically mutilate themselves) from one sex to the other. Yet, they denounce as unethical any healthcare professionals who offer therapy to homosexuals who wish to become heterosexuals. In other words, it is ethical to counsel a man to have his penis removed so he can have sex as a heterosexual woman, but it’s unethical to counsel a man to have sex as a heterosexual man even if he wants to have sex as a typical man.”