I agree whole-heartedly that we should be guided by the empirical literature, not by votes, political stands, or theoretical preconceptions. However, you must read a different literature than I do. You've made some very strong statements about homosexuality such as "homosexuals have terrible problems with submiisivness;that is they have an impossible time not giving in to the requests and demands of others" and "They are guilt ridden,not just garden variety guilt but industrial strength guilt." Do you seriously believe that statements such as these are based on an unbiased view of the empirical literature on homosexuality? Your opinions might be received with greater respect if you refrained from wild generalizations and stayed closer to the data. You assert that "We are bound by our duty to help and do no harm" but you advocate recommending sexual reorientation therapy on the grounds that some people say it can help. I'm sure you know that many other people say it can be harmful. The last time I looked there was little empirical support for its safety and effectiveness. You talk as though "bathhouse sex" is characteristic of homosexuality. Please remember that generalizations about homosexuals which are based on those who are involved in the bathhouse scene are no more valid than generalizations about heterosexuals based on those who are involved in the singles bar scene. While there are plenty of homosexuals with major psychopathology (and plenty of heterosexuals with major pathology as well) there are also plenty of homosexuals who are involved in long-term, committed relationships and who live happy, successful lives.
Replies:
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.