Share

The Psychology of Gays

Public

25 July 2018

Views: 185

Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there–because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that’s a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist.
– Masha Gessen (lesbian activist)

If homosexuality is comparable to infertility, then it is a disability.
If homosexuality is comparable to straight people engaging in oral sex, then it is a fetish.
If homosexuality is comparable to friendships with the same gender, why do they have sex?
If homosexuality is safe, why do homosexuals spread the most STDs and literally tear apart each others’ sphincters?
If homosexuality is a valid means of romantic bonding, why does nature disallow them reproduction?
If homosexual “love” is as pure as natural love, why are gays so much more promiscuous?
If there is nothing inherently wrong with being a homosexual, why would an entirely homosexual society cease to exist beyond a single generation? Degenerates and liberals will take you on a wild chase through fallacious logic and appeals to emotion, but at the end of the day, the truth has always been our very first thought as children when we saw gays.
ERROR.
Errors occur in nature all the time, and homosexuality is a perfect example of error. Somewhere in the brain of every homosexual a critical error has occurred. In what other situation is an error encouraged or rewarded as it is in homosexuality in today’s media? You may ask yourself how this error affects you. The answer is simple. Homosexuality, despite what you are told to believe, can be indoctrinated. Why do you think the rate of children who “turn out” gay skyrockets in the presence of gay “parents”?

~:~

Let us dissect the delusional phrase, “homosexuality is not a choice.” First, we must establish some axioms and definitions.
– One is mentally ill if one is psychologically incapable of refraining from a biologically non-necessity activity or desire.
– Biologically necessary activities or desires are those without which a species cannot perpetuate itself through generations: e.g., procurement and consumption of resources, expurgation of waste, survival to sexual maturity, sexual reproduction, and education of the young.
– Desires are either biological or psychological in character; they are distinguished according to whether the desire leads toward a biologically necessary or biologically non-necessary activity.
– Desires are either innate or habitual. Habitual desires are acquired desires. Consider an example: A person who has never had alcohol cannot desire to drink alcohol for alcohol’s sake, but only for some other sake, e.g., acceptance in a peer group. Further, a person who has not acquired a refined taste for scotch through frequent consumption thereof cannot desire to drink Oban for Oban’s sake, but only for the sake of scotch in general, for curiosity, or for something else. Therefore, habitual desires are the result of certain activities. Innate desires, however, are not.
– Homosexual desires are by the former definitions not biological desires.
– The meaning of other terms are taken from their accepted use in ordinary discourse.
– One is a homosexual if and only if one either 1) engages in homosexual activity, 2) has homosexual desires, or 3) has homosexual desires and engages in homosexual activity.
With these laid down, what follows is all possible propositions.
If (1): One engages in homosexual activity either A) voluntarily or B) involuntarily,
(1.A): One chooses to be homosexual, and homosexuality is a choice.
(1.B): One is compelled to engage either i) psychologically or ii) physically, by another, and homosexuality is not a choice.
(1.B.i): One is mentally ill, by the definition of mental illness.
If (2): One desires homosexuality either A) innately or B) habitually,
(2.B): One has acquired homosexual desires through homosexual activity. If one acquires these involuntarily through involuntary engagement in homosexual activity, one is either coerced by another or one is mentally ill. Otherwise homosexuality is a choice.
(2.A): One is either i) able to refrain from satisfying these innate homosexual desires or ii) unable to refrain.
(2.A.i): One chooses to be homosexual, and homosexuality is a choice.
(2.A.ii): One is mentally ill, by the definition of mental illness.
If (3): One either chooses to be homosexual or homosexuality is a mental illness.

Therefore, homosexuals are mentally ill if and only if they do not choose to be homosexual and are not physically compelled by another to engage in homosexual activities. However, that is not the end of the discussion. Homosexuality, as a group of behaviors, is inherently self-destructive and causes self-harm. Homosexuality, as a group of behaviors, is statistically one of the most self-harmful. Willful pursuit or practice of a behavior–or group of behaviors–that is inherently self-harmful is mental illness. Thus, all homosexuals are, definitionally, mentally ill. Liberals have this ridiculous notion that homosexuality is state of being, instead of a form of behavior that arises from a state of being.

~:~

Let’s use a metaphor to illustrate the problem. Say an ideology exists. We’re inventing one out of thin air, here. This ideology has, as one of its fundamental tenets, the elimination of all other ideologies in existence. Right away we might have a problem, right? First and foremost, the ideology’s demand can be either ACTIVE or PASSIVE. Active means that actions will be taken against other ideologies for the SAKE of their existence. Passive means that the ideology would fulfill this tenet on its own merits. Let us say that the ideology’s demand is active.
Next step. Let us define what the ideology is. If the ideology is anything except the expression of objective truth–truth being defined as that which continues to be in existence even when no one believes in it–we confirm that the aforementioned problem is real. Let us say that the ideology’s demand is NOT objective truth.
Final step. Let us define the means by which the ideology is going to actively eliminate all other ideologies. This ideology could choose political control and establishment of law reducing all other ideologies to illegality. This ideology could choose social control and establishment of behavioral norms that make all other ideologies outcasts. This ideology could choose open combat and the genocide–physical destruction in whole–of all persons who do not believe in it. Let us say that the ideology chooses genocide.

POP QUIZ
1. Must the other ideologies accept their genocide, or are they capable of resisting it?
2. As the initial ideology is FOUNDED on the concept of the genocide of all other ideologies–founded meaning that it cannot exist without said tenet being actively sought by its followers–can the initial ideology exist alongside other ideologies?
3. If the other ideologies choose to resist the initial ideology, what singular course of action must be taken to guarantee their security and survival?

Not trick questions. Not a trick premise. I will now leave the realm of the metaphor and give you some quotes.

We must aim at the abolition of the family, so that the sexist, male supremacist system can no longer be nurtured there.
– Gay Liberation Front manifesto, London, 1971

Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there–because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that’s a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist.
– Masha Gessen (lesbian activist)

SEX BEFORE 8 BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE.
– Official motto of the North American Man Boy Love Association

Think on your sins.

~:~

Marriage (civil union) as a government institution is designed to incentivize childbirth and attempt to ensure that children (future citizens) are raised in the most stable environment possible–that being a two parent, mother and father, household. This is because all studies of marriage and familial relationship through thousands of years of recorded human history prove said environment is the most nurturing and stable. As a government institution, gays have no claim to being recognized–nor is it unfairly discriminatory–since it seeks to create an outcome which gays simply cannot provide.
Marriage as a religious institution is defined by the parameters of that religion. Christian doctrine, for example, says gays cannot marry. Thus, they cannot, when considering marriage as a religious institution. This applies to any religion that does or does not allow gay marriage. Marriage as a social institution merely proclaims mutual love between two people. This is unregulated and unaffected by legal institution. Anyone can say they’re married to anyone as long as the other party is consenting. Essentially, gay marriage seeks to turn the institution into a purely social union, since government subsidized gay marriage is a tax drain. This will have cultural and societal implications once marriage is devalued. Regarding marriage itself, the institution is not a human right. Nor is it definitionally an all-inclusive bastion of equality. See above for its definitions. Equality of race, an equally incorrect concept, does not imply that a caucasoid could claim to be an Australian aborigine to reap the benefits of assistance programs for aboriginal groups. Nor is marriage discrimination. The creation of a definition for a word in no way intends persecution of things to which the word does not apply.
The slippery slope fallacy is often brought up, by gays, as a means by which to discredit the belief that “normalizing” homosexual relationships will lead to the “normalization” of other universally incorrect behaviors. Those who oppose gay marriage are often called ‘bigots’ (without regard for the definition of the word), but those who oppose polygamy, incest, and pedophilia (even ephebophilia) are well within their rights to do so. Those who support these things are ‘crazy’ and even ‘mentally ill’, just as gays were until a vote in 1970 ignored the science of their affliction and removed them from the DSM. But if we are allowing gay marriage to be seen as “normal”, what right do gays have to restrict polygamists, incestuals, and pedophiles from receiving the same “equality”?
Homosexuals also use appeals to emotion in claiming they are to be forcibly made equal. The argument that gays cannot see their ‘partners’ in hospitals as they are not recognized as family is one of these examples. But if a hotel banned female patrons from entering, it would not be the job of the government to redefine the word ‘women’ to mean ‘men’ so that they could enter. Nor is it the job of the government to change the hospital’s policy. In a free market society, it is the job of the collective mind of the patrons of the hospital to agree or disagree with its policies, choosing another facility if the latter.
Homosexuals denounce marriage as a failed institution due to a high rate of divorce and other problems. Leaving the cause of the rise of such problems for another discussion, why would any sane individual, acknowledging and repeating said statistics and probabilities regarding marriage, still demand to be a part of said institution? Additionally, if marriage is increasingly deviating from its original meaning, why would you desire to implement further perversion of that meaning? ‘Marriage’ has been distorted and watered down, therefore we should further distort and water down marriage?
Homosexuals claim that, as many straight couples do not have children, it is irrelevant that gays cannot reproduce. This, again, is fallacious. Marriage not universally resulting in offspring does not nullify its purpose–breeding rights. The right (decision) of a couple to ensure the continuance of their genetics by agreeing to only perpetuate said genes with each other. Age of consent laws are intended to protect children from making immature decisions, but many adults make immature decisions, as well. Age of consent laws do not universally serve their intended purpose, and they have changed many times. Straight couples not reproducing does not prove that marriage laws should be changed any more than it proves they shouldn’t.
Homosexuals will argue that they “deserve” the tax concessions and other social benefits of marriage, but many non-married, cohabiting couples in either sexual or nonsexual relationships “deserve” said advantages, as well. Why, then, does a single man not deserve or receive these benefits? Finally, homosexuals will argue that their ability to marry will “not affect” heterosexual marriage or family values. However, this, again, does not prove anything about a necessity, requirement, or even an argument for changing the definition of marriage. The definition of a word is not obliged to change based on the assertion–fallacious, in this case, or otherwise–that the majority won’t be affected.

~:~

Same-sex marriage objectively turns children into second-class citizens and violates their most essential rights.
1) Every child has a basic human right to know and be raised by their biological mother and father. This is confirmed and reiterated in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
2) The sole reason for civil marriage is to secure this right for children and to ensure as many of them as possible are born and raised by their married, biological parents as an intact family unit. Secondarily, it also encourages sane people to get married and procreate.
3) It is impossible for same-sex couples to ethically acquire children. Third-party reproduction violates their rights as a willful act to intentionally deprive the child of their biological mother and/or father, planned before their conception. Same-sex adoption violates their rights by depriving the adoptive child to have both a mother and father. Handing them over to same-sex couples is a political stunt when there are millions of sane couples waiting to adopt (ratio of 30:1 couples to babies). This puts the selfish desires of politically advantaged adults above the best interests of children. It turns adoption into a human trafficking industry. This does not even take into account the fact that same-sex partners are 50% more likely to have secret or open affairs (and their incidence of child abuse is astronomical), an act that renders prospective sane couples instantaneously disqualified.
4) By extending to same-sex couples the same legal and financial incentives and rewards specifically designed to subsidize procreative union for the sake of establishing the goals laid out in point 2, the state is encouraging same-sex couples to have offspring who they cannot acquire except through the means above, therefore officially endorsing and incentivizing the systematic state-sanction abuse of the human rights of children.

~:~

I laugh at queers. I really do. What is the aim of marriage? Is it to be close to someone? To move in together? Friends can do that, and often do. Is it to have sex? As if people even need to know each others names in today’s degenerate culture to do that. What is it? The aim, quite simply, is to have a child. To be locked together so that your two physical forms can come together and the fruit of this action bring forth a new life. A very real example of the two forms made one. I read this great paper written by a few philosophers, theologians, etc. They argued that there is no such thing as gay marriage, because there is no such thing as gay sex. Sex is the activity of inseminating for the man and being inseminated for the woman. Pregnancy the ultimate aim of the physical act. You can mutilate a guy in the anus or two woman can rub their clitori together, but it isn’t really sex. It’s more like assisted masturbation.
This is where the real pain starts. Two queers, coming together, can never, ever, have a true family. They can never come together, and from both of their forms produce a new one, both unique and combined from both of them. One can get a surrogate pregnant, but it isn’t the couple’s child. It is the person and the surrogate’s forms come together. They can take someone else’s child, but it is then wholly not theirs. And nothing can or will ever change this. What greater hell can there be than to have literally everything someone else has–to have the state, the great leviathan, proclaiming you have what others have–but at the end of the day, as you fall asleep, in those few moments you lose the ability to even lie to yourself, you realize no, you can never, by design, have what others have. You are left to life in a hazy illusion for the duration of your life–a cocoon of lies and false reality. One that will niggle at the back of the mind forever, whispering pain.
They did win. They got what they wanted. And they deserve it.

~:~

You know the old “Bonobos, our closest living relative species, have intercourse with members of their own gender. That means it occurs in nature and it’s perfectly acceptable to do it!” mantra slung around by amateur biologists and gays in the course of a debate on homosexuality? Did you know that bonobos lynch their own kind and go out of their way to not only expel wrongdoers from their pecking order, but to kill them in packs? Did you know that bonobos sling their feces at other during fights? Did you know that bonobos eat the flesh of their own kind after killing them in territorial disputes and then proceed to rape the other pack’s females?
People tend to forget the fact that despite bonobos being our closest living relative, they are fucking animals. I, as a member of homo sapiens sapiens, didn’t scratch and claw my way to the top of the food chain, create fire, survive the brink of extinction during the ice age, domesticate and artificially select animals and plants for agriculture, create cultures, languages, and religions, wage wars, make empires, create the written word and numerical systems, write epics, create artistic wonders, devise banking and currency, make exponential technological and scientific leaps in just the past 2000 years, land on the moon, and create an information technology-linked global economy to be compared to a fucking lice-eating, shit-throwing, cannibalistic beast who still lives in the trees and is considered endangered because of the fact that he is, in all likelihood, to go extinct without human intervention. Do you now understand that what applies to the animal kingdom does not translate to human society?
“But humans do the exact same things!” you say, crying out feebly. Yes, I reply. And we have a word for humans that exist closely to a state of nature and who act like animals. UNCIVILIZED. “But who are you to espouse cultural superiority? All humans are created equally!” You are confusing the ‘human condition’ for that of civilization and culture. The human condition remains relatively unchanged due to common experiences shared by all individuals. Civilization, however, is ever-changing. Civilization allowed us to move from an agrarian and primitivist society, barbarous in nature, to creating social institutions that advance law, science, philosophy, common morality, and cultural values seen in successful modern civilizations.

~:~

The gay 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.”
Part of the gay agenda is to get the public to affirm their lifestyle, as one gay admitted in the October 1987 gay rally on Washington: “We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right–as heterosexual Americans already have–to see government and society affirm our lives.” Part of the gay agenda is to turn people from Christianity: “The teaching that only male-female sexual activity within the bounds and constraints of marriage is the only acceptable form should be reason enough for any homosexual to denounce the Christian religion.” Homosexuals knowingly lied (and still lie) about the 10% figure (i.e., gays make up 10% of the population). As Tom Stoddard (formerly of the Lambda Legal Defense Fund) said, “We used that figure when most gay people were entirely hidden to try to create an impression of our numerousness.”
US CENSUS: HOMOSEXUAL “COUPLES” MAKE UP ONLY 0.5% OF ALL COUPLES 10-22-2002

~:~

Life isn’t fair. Get used to it. It’s better to put on slippers than try to carpet the entire world. The misguided quest of the modern left is to deny basic human nature and try to implement a system of “fairness” and “equality.” The basic human nature they try to deny, in this case, is that your behaviors are disgusting and sphincters are not for sex. Even the ancient Greeks had the sense to do outercourse instead of ruining their anuses. Actual homosexuality–the modern definition–resulted in you being put to death. You want a solution to being discriminated against? Go back in the closet. You don’t want to be treated equally. You want to be praised by society for your faggotry. You want to wave your dicks in our face and then you want us to applaud. Nobody needs to know about your faggoted behaviors and we’re all sick of hearing about them.

~:~

Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems
By N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D.
(Author of “My Genes Made Me Do It”)

Summary: Recent studies show homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems than do heterosexuals. We see higher rates of suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse. This paper highlights some new and significant considerations that reflect on the question of those mental illnesses and on their possible sources.
The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its diagnostic list of mental disorders in 1973, despite substantial protest (see Socarides, 1995). The APA was strongly motivated by the desire to reduce the effects of social oppression. However, one effect of the APA’s action was to add psychiatric authority to gay activists’ insistence that homosexuals as a group are as healthy as heterosexuals. This has discouraged publication of research that suggests there may, in fact, be psychiatric problems associated with homosexuality. In a review of the literature, Gonsiorek (1982) argued there was no data showing mental differences between gays and straights–or if there was any, it could be attributed to social stigma. Similarly, Ross (1988) in a cross-cultural study, found most gays were in the normal psychological range. However some papers did give hints of psychiatric differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. One study (Riess, 1980) used the MMPI, that venerable and well-validated psychological scale, and found that homosexuals showed definite “personal and emotional oversensitivity.”
In 1991, the absolute equality of homosexuality and heterosexuality was strongly defended in a paper called “The Empirical Basis for the Demise of the Mental Illness Model.” (Gonsiorek 1991) But not until 1992 was homosexuality dropped from the psychiatric manual used by other nations–the International Classification of Diseases (King and Bartlett, 1999)–so it appears the rest of the world doubted the APA 1973 decision for nearly two decades. Is homosexuality as healthy as heterosexuality? To answer that question, what is needed are representative samples of homosexual people which study their mental health, unlike the volunteer samples which have, in the past, selected out any disturbed or gender-atypical subjects (such as in the well-known study by Evelyn Hooker). And fortunately, such representative surveys have lately become available.

New Studies Suggest Higher Level of Pathology
One important and carefully conducted study found suicide attempts among homosexuals were six times greater than the average (Remafedi et al. 1998). Then, more recently, in the Archives of General Psychiatry–an established and well-respected journal–three papers appeared with extensive accompanying commentary (Fergusson et al. 1999, Herrell et al. 1999, Sandfort et al. 2001, and e.g. Bailey 1999). J. Michael Bailey included a commentary on the above research; Bailey, it should be noted, conducted many of the much publicized “gay twin studies” which were used by gay advocates as support for the “born that way” theory. Neil Whitehead, Ph.D.
Bailey said, “These studies contain arguably the best published data on the association between homosexuality and psychopathology, and both converge on the same unhappy conclusion: homosexual people are at substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression, and anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, and nicotine dependence… The strength of the new studies is their degree of control.” The first study was on male twins who had served in Vietnam (Herrell et al. 1999). It concluded that on average, male homosexuals were 5.1 times more likely to exhibit suicide- related behavior or thoughts than their heterosexual counterparts. Some of this factor of 5.1 was associated with depression and substance abuse, which might or might not be related to the homosexuality. (When these two problems were factored out, the factor of 5 decreased to 2.5; still somewhat significant.) The authors believed there was an independent factor related to suicidality which was probably closely associated with some features of homosexuality itself.
The second study (Fergusson et al. 1999) followed a large New Zealand group from birth to their early twenties. The “birth cohort” method of subject selection is especially reliable and free from most of the biases which bedevil surveys. This study showed a significantly higher occurrence of depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance abuse and thoughts about suicide, amongst those who were homosexually active. The third paper was a Netherlands study (Sandfort et al. 2001) which again showed a higher level of mental health problems among homosexuals, but remarkably, subjects with HIV infection were not any more likely than those without HIV infection to suffer from mental health problems. People who are HIV-positive should at least be expected to be anxious or depressed!
The paper thus concluded that HIV infection is not a cause of mental health problems–but that “stigmatization from society” was likely the cause–even in the Netherlands, where alternative lifestyles are more widely accepted than in most other countries. That interpretation of the data is quite unconvincing. The commentaries on those studies brought up three interesting issues.
1. First, there is now clear evidence that mental health problems are indeed associated with homosexuality. This supports those who opposed the APA actions in 1973. However, the present papers do not answer the question; is homosexuality itself pathological?
2. The papers claim that since only a minority of a nonclinical sample of homosexuals has any diagnosable mental problems (at least by present diagnostic criteria), most homosexuals are not mentally ill.
3. In New Zealand, for example, lesbians are about twice as likely to have sought help for mental problems as heterosexual women, but only about 35% of them over their lifespan did so, and never more than 50% (Anon 1995, Saphira and Glover, 2000, Welch et al. 2000) This corresponds with similar findings from the US

Relationship Breakups Motivate Most Suicide Attempts
Next, we ask–do the papers show that it is gay lifestyle factors or society’s stigmatization that are the motivators that lead a person to attempt suicide? Neither conclusion is inevitable. Still, Saghir and Robins (1978) examined reasons for suicide attempts among homosexuals and found that if the reasons for the attempt were connected with homosexuality, about 2/3 were due to breakups of relationships–not outside pressures from society. Similarly, Bell and Weinberg (1981) also found the major reason for suicide attempts was the breakup of relationships. In second place, they said, was the inability to accept oneself. Since homosexuals have greater numbers of partners and breakups, compared with heterosexuals, and since longterm gay male relationships are never monagamous, it is hardly surprising if suicide attempts are proportionally greater. The median number of partners for homosexuals is four times higher than for heterosexuals (Whitehead and Whitehead 1999, calculated from Laumann et al 1994).
A good general rule of thumb is that suicide attempts are about three times higher for homosexuals. Could there be a connection between those two percentages? Another factor in suicide attempts would be the compulsive or addictive elements in homosexuality (Pincu, 1989 ) which could lead to feelings of depression when the lifestyle is out of control (Seligman 1975). There are some, (estimates vary, but perhaps as many as 50% of young men today), who do not take consistent precautions against HIV (Valleroy et al., 2001) and who have considerable problems with sexual addiction and substance abuse addiction, and this of course would feed into suicide attempts.

The Effect of Social Stigma
Third, does pressure from society lead to mental health problems? Less, I believe, than one might imagine. The authors of the study done in The Netherlands were surprised to find so much mental illness in homosexual people in a country where tolerance of homosexuality is greater than in almost all other countries. Another good comparison country is New Zealand, which is much more tolerant of homosexuality than is the United States. Legislation giving the movement special legal rights is powerful, consistently enforced throughout the country, and virtually never challenged. Despite this broad level of social tolerance, suicide attempts were common in a New Zealand study and occurred at about the same rate as in the US. In his cross-cultural comparison of mental health in the Netherlands, Denmark and the US, Ross (1988) could find no significant differences between countries–i.e. the greater social hostility in the United States did not result in a higher level of psychiatric problems. There are three other issues not covered in the Archives journal articles which are worthy of consideration. The first two involve DSM category diagnoses.

Promiscuity and Antisocial Personality
The promiscuous person–either heterosexual or homosexual–may in fact be more likely to be antisocial. It is worth noting here the comment of Rotello (1997), who is himself openly gay: “…the outlaw aspect of gay sexual culture, its transgressiveness, is seen by many men as one of its greatest attributes.” Ellis et al. (1995) examined patients at an clinic which focused on genital and urological problems such as STDs; he found 38% of the homosexual men seeking such services had antisocial personality disorder, as well as 28% of heterosexual men. Both levels were enormously higher than the 2% rate of antisocial personality disorder for the general population (which in turn, compares to the 50% rate for prison inmates) (Matthews 1997). Perhaps the finding of a higher level of conduct disorder in the New Zealand study foreshadowed this finding of antisocial personality . Therapists, of course, are not very likely to see a large number of individuals who are antisocial because they are probably less likely to seek help.
Secondly, it was previously noted that 43% of a bulimic sample of men were homosexual or bisexual (Carlat et al. 1997), a rate about 15 times higher than the rate in the population in general--meaning homosexual men are probably disproportionately liable to this mental condition. This may be due to the very strong preoccupation with appearance and physique frequently found among male homosexuals.

Ideology of Sexual Liberation
A strong case can be made that the male homosexual lifestyle itself, in its most extreme form, is mentally disturbed. Remember that Rotello, a gay advocate, notes that “the outlaw aspect of gay sexual culture, its transgressiveness, is seen by many men as one of its greatest attributes.” Same-sex eroticism becomes for many, therefore, the central value of existence, and nothing else–not even life and health itself–is allowed to interfere with pursuit of this lifestyle. Homosexual promiscuity fuels the AIDS crisis in the West, but even that tragedy it is not allowed to interfere with sexual freedom.
And, according to Rotello, the idea of taking responsibility to avoid infecting others with the HIV virus is completely foreign to many groups trying to counter AIDS. The idea of protecting oneself is promoted, but protecting others is not mentioned in most official condom promotions (France in the ‘80s was an interesting exception). Bluntly, then, core gay behavior is both potentially fatal to others, and often suicidal. Surely it should be considered “mentally disturbed” to risk losing one’s life for sexual liberation. This is surely among the most extreme risks practiced by any significant fraction of society. I have not found a higher risk of death accepted by any similar-sized population. In conclusion, then, if we ask the question “Is mental illness inherent in the homosexual condition?” the answer would have to be “Of course.“

References
Anon. (1995): Lesbians use more mental health care. The Dominion (NZ) Nov 1, 14.
Bailey, J.M. (1999): Commentary: Homosexuality and mental illness. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 56, 876-880.
Bell, A.P.; Weinberg, M.S. (1978): Homosexualities. A Study Of Diversity Among Men And Women. Simon and Schuster, New York.
Carlat, D.J.; Camargo, C.A.; Herzog, D.B. (1997): Eating disorders in males: a report on 135 patients. Am. J. Psychiatry 154, 1127-1132.
Ellis, D; Collis, I; King, M (1995): Personality disorder and sexual risk taking among homosexually active and heterosexually active men attending a genito-urinary medicine clinic. J. Psychosom. Res. 39, 901-910.
Fergusson, D.M.; Horwood, L.J.; Beautrais, A.L. (1999): Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people? Arch. Gen. Psychiat. 56, 876- 880.
Gonsiorek, J.C. (1982): Results of psychological testing on homosexual populations. In: Homosexuality. Social, Psychological and Biological Issues. (Eds: Paul, W.; Weinrich, J.D.; Gonsiorek, J.C.; Hotvedt, M.E.) Sage, Beverly Hills, California, 71-80.
Gonsiorek, J.C. (1991): The empirical basis for the demise of the illness model of homosexuality. In: Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy. (Eds: Gonsiorek,J.; Weinrich, J.D.) Sage, 115-136.
Herrell, R.; Goldberg, J.; True,W.R.; Ramakrishnan, V.; Lyons, M.; Eisen,S.; Tsuang, M.T. (1999): Sexual orientation and suicidality: a co-twin control study in adult men. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 56, 867-874.
Kalichman, S.C.; Dwyer, M.; Henderson, M.C.; Hoffman, L. (1992): Psychological and sexual functioning among outpatient sexual offenders against children: A Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) cluster analytic study. J. Psychopath. Behav. Assess. 14, 259-276.
King, M.; Bartlett, A. (1999): British psychiatry and homosexuality. Brit. J. Psychiatry. 175, 106-113.
Laumann, E.O.; Gagnon, J.H.; Michael, R.T.; Michaels, S. (1994). The Social Organization of Sexuality. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Matthews, R. (1997): Game theory backs crackdown on petty crime. New Scientist 156(2078), 18.
Pincu, L. (1989): Sexual compulsivity in gay men: controversy and treatment. J. Couns. Dev. 68(1), 63-66.
Remafedi, G.; French, S.; Story, M.; Resnick, M.D.; Blum, R. (1998): The relationship between suicide risk and sexual orientation: Results of a population-based study. Am. J. Publ. Health 88, 57-60.
Riess, B. (1980): Psychological tests in homosexuality. In: Homosexual Behavior: A Modern Appraisal. (Ed: Macmor,J.) Basic Books, New York, 298-311.
Ross, M.W. (1988): Homosexuality and mental health: a cross-cultural review. J. Homosex. 15(1/2), 131-152.
Rotello, G. (1997): Sexual Ecology. AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men. Dutton, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, UK.
Saghir, M.T.; Robins, E. (1973): Male and Female Homosexuality, A Comprehensive Investigation. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore Maryland. 335 pages.
Sandfort, T.G.M.; de Graaf, R.; Bijl, R.V.; Schnabel (2001): Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 58, 85-91.
Saphira, M.; Glover, M. (2000): New Zealand lesbian health survey. J. Gay Lesb. Med. Assn. 4, 49-56.
Seligman, M.E.P. (1975): Helplessness - On Depression, Development And Death. Freeman, London.
Socarides, C.W. (1995): Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far. Adam Margrave Books, Phoenix, Arizona.
Valleroy, L. A.; Secura, G.; Mackellor, D.; Behel,S. (2001): High HIV and risk behavior prevalence among 23- to 29- year-old men who have sex with men in 6 U.S. Cities. Poster 211 at 8th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic
Infections, Chicago, Feb. 2001. http://64.58.70.224/2001/posters/211.pdf.
Welch, S.; Collings,S.C.D.; Howden-Chapman,P. (2000): Lesbians in New Zealand: Their mental health and satisfaction with mental health services. Aust. N.Z.J. Psychiatry 34, 256-263.
Whitehead, N.E.; Whitehead, B.K. (1999): My Genes Made Me Do It! Huntington House, Lafayette, Louisiana.

Advertisement

Disable Third Party Ads