Updates on past news stories and debates in the daily Pink News

Wednesday 19th August 2009 07:19am 1
Eddy
Eddy
14 Posts
This thread is for informing members of updates or new news concerning past articles on the main Pink News news page - articles which have now fallen back into the PinkNews archives. (Very often members would like to hear of updates but do not have the time to go checking through all past articles, so post updates here.)
Wednesday 19th August 2009 07:23am 2
Eddy
Eddy
14 Posts

I have just received a reply from Mr. Helmer (the Tory MEP who claimed that homophobia does not exist).  I enclose his reply below, and then below it I enclose the response that I have just sent back to him.

If anybody else receives a reply from him (it seems he has just returned to work), I suggest it's important to answer him and put him right.  He's quite forcefully and assertively trying to wriggle out of his blunder.   Not so easy, Mr. Helmer!
 

> Dear Eddy,
>
> Thank you for writing to me about my comments on homophobia,
> which seem to have been widely (and perhaps deliberately)
> misinterpreted. No one denies that discrimination and prejudice
> against homosexuals exist. No one denies that (sadly) homosexuals
> may be subject to abuse, threats or even violence (which by the
> way I forthrightly condemn). My point is that no one has an
> irrational fear of homosexuals, and that therefore the word
> "homophobia" is misplaced, and cannot describe a real condition.
> It is also used to imply that those who are less than
> fully-paid-up supporters of Stonewall are suffering from a
> psychiatric disorder. Which is why I say that this neologism is
> not so much a word, more a propaganda device.
>
> It is perfectly consistent to be in favour of equal treatment for
> all citizens, and opposed to discrimination against all
> minorities, while maintaining the fact that there is no clinical
> example (to my knowledge) of anyone who has a phobia (that is, an
> irrational fear) of homosexuals or of homosexuality.
>
> Thank you again for writing to me. I trust I have clarified my
> position.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Roger Helmer MEP
> www.rogerhelmer.com
 

Dear Mr. Helmer,

Thank you for your letter.

I am pleased to see that you now make it clear that you acknowledge that discrimination and prejudice against gay and lesbian people exists.

Regarding the term homophobia, you say that "no one has an irrational fear of homosexuals".  If that were true then you would witness no discrimination or prejudice against gay and lesbian people. 

The RATIONAL response to homosexuality does not involve discrimination and prejudice.  The IRRATIONAL, unthinking, response does.  This irrationality constitutes homophobia. 

No one says, "I absolutely love gay and lesbian people, but rationally I cannot accept them".  In other words, the only reason for knifing, stabbing, and beating up gay and lesbian people, and the only reason for sniggering at them and treating them as fifth-rate individuals is out and out irrationality, i.e. homophobia.  I hope this clarifies the position for you. 

Should you require "clinical examples" of homophobia, I suggest you turn to the British Psychological Association and ask them if their members encounter people with an irrational hatred and fear of gay and lesbian people.  They will assure you, as I do, that a great many members of British society are of this most unfortunate mindset.

Yours sincerely,

Wednesday 19th August 2009 02:13pm 3
bingbu
bingbu
5 Posts

Helmer is a very confused individual.

He seems to be "in favour of equal treatment for all citizens", and "opposed to discrimination against all minorities", yet claims as "fact" that "there is no clinical example...of anyone who has a phobia... of homosexuals or of homosexuality."

The Wikipedia article on Homophobia is a good starting point.

Helmer's position, as quoted above, is elementarily contradictory. He states that "no one has an irrational fear of homosexuals, and that therefore the word "homophobia" is misplaced, and cannot describe a real condition."

In which case, what, precisely, does he think the word "homophobia" refers to?

Presumable he believes that aversion to gays is rational.

This sort of mealy-mouthed double-speak is often used to cloud intense hatred of gay people.

If his entire dislike of the word "homophobia" is based on the single principle that it means "irrational fear of gays", then perhaps it would be better to use the phrase "anti-gay hatred" or similar.

The situation at the moment is that the word "homophobia" has no clear definition; it not being a clinical/mental illness, and its construction derived from "homo" same and -phobia fear, so is in effect a nonsense word. However, its use now commonly refers to anti-gay bias; so maybe by the next update of the OED, we shall finally have a real definition along the lines of anti-semitism: "theory, action, or practice directed against homosexuals"

It looks like people hiding behind a word to cover their hatred of gays.

Foot in mouth

Thursday 20th August 2009 02:15am 4
Jean-Paul
Jean-Paul
366 Posts


Re: Homosexuality vs pedoephilia

Reality Check/

You are, as usual, completely wrong.

According to the American (USA) National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse, in 1997, the most recent year for which reliable statistics are available, neglect represented 54% of confirmed cases of child abuse, physical abuse 22%, sexual abuse 8%, emotional maltreatment 4%, and other forms of maltreatment 12%.

The term ‘sexual abuse’ covers all forms of sexual contact including male on male, male on female, female on female and female on male and is calculated in such a way that Statutory Rape, i.e. situations in which one of the parties involved was under the legal age of consent but may, actually, have been mature enough to give informed consent – that is to say situations in which no force, emotional or physical, was actually employed by either party - is included in the statistics.

According to the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention the vast majority of incidents of child sex abuse (97.3%) occur within the child’s home and is perpetrated upon these children by a close family member. Only 4% of such attacks are gay or lesbian – 96% are heterosexual. A child is far more likely, enormously more likely, to be attacked in a sexual manner in his or her own home by a close heterosexual family member than outside, or inside, the home by a gay or lesbian person.

In Europe the prevalence of heterosexual sexual abuse of children by members of their own families is found to be even higher than in the USA – some 98.3% of abuse is heterosexual with only some 1.7% being gay or lesbian sexual abuse – and this despite Europe having a much higher proportion of out and visible gays and lesbians in the population than can be found in the USA with somewhere between 7% and 11% of the general population identifying publicly as gay or lesbian as opposed to the USA’s figure of 3% to 5%.

For references see:
Child sexual abuse by David P. H. Jones, Paul Ramchandani
and:
Children and young people who sexually abuse others by Marcus Erooga, Helen C. Masson, 1999.
The child protection handbook by Kate Wilson, Adrian L. James, 2002.
The APSAC handbook on child maltreatment by John E. B. Myers, American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, 2002.

The overwhelming bulk of the evidence emerging from the developed world, and the third world, for that matter, is that sexual attacks on children are disproportionably perpetrated by heterosexual people: by people such as you claim to be – so-called normal, heterosexual people. Gay and lesbian people are not represented in the statistics in the numbers and percentages that one might expect to find if the propensity to sexually abuse of young children were naturally distributed over the entire population of the planet. Instead, it seems that heterosexuals such as you are far more likely to sexually abuse young children than gay and lesbian people are, and that you are far more likely to abuse them in this way when they are close family members.

Now, that is very interesting. What is it about your heterosexuality that makes you, not necessarily specifically 'you' but others of your sexual orientation – heterosexuals that is – many times more likely to sexually abuse children than gay and lesbian people are, and, what is more, to abuse family trust and the supposedly safe family home that all of you make such a noise about. Equally as interesting to my mind is precisely why you, and others like you, seek to project that type of behaviour onto us gay and lesbians (your hate group of choice) when the evidence simply does not support your wild assertions, deliberately evil mis-directions or the attempted propagation of your projected guilt onto us gays and lesbians on this issue. Rather, as the facts support, it is your sexual orientation that does the damage, not ours!

As far as I can make out you are indulging in classic ‘projection’, ‘mis-direction’ and ‘displacement’ activity in order to justify your faux position of superiority on this issue. The fact remains – justified by survey and the statistics of Court, and Police, Records, and such facts backed up by the findings of Government Child Welfare Departments, and other reputable organisations, on both sides of the Atlantic and throughout the world – that heterosexuals are far more likely, in a statistically disproportionate way, to be the sexual abusers of young children than gay or lesbian people are. Pluck the beam from your own eye before addressing the mote in ours.

(Report comment to the moderator)

Comment by John M.J. — August 19, 2009 @ 4:30

Thursday 20th August 2009 07:25am 5
Iris
Iris
43 Posts
Thanks for posting that, Eddy. I found this bit particularly enraging:

It is also used to imply that those who are less than
> fully-paid-up supporters of Stonewall are suffering from a
> psychiatric disorder. Which is why I say that this neologism is
> not so much a word, more a propaganda device.


What a nasty, vicious thing to say.

I'd also add that if no-one feared homosexuals, there'd be no-one using the Gay Panic Defense would there?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic_defense

To me that implies that the defendant was so irrationally afraid of gay people he felt compelled to attack them out of fear.
Sunday 30th August 2009 04:20am 6
Jean-Paul
Jean-Paul
366 Posts

Here's one by Will:

NARTH is not scientific.

Never was.

This is where you (and your many personalities) source your nonsense. Lets have a look at the lies, shall we:-

2008 May: THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF PSYCHIATRISTS, expressed the opinion that not only do the methods recommended by the NARTH group of Christian Psychiatrists not work, but that the methods create a setting in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.

July 2009 NARTH: "a singular conclusion: Homosexuality is not innate, immutable or without significant risk to medical, psychological, and relational health." Yet, despite the fact that NARTH concludes that homosexuality develops after a person is born, they provide no review of the evidence which addresses that topic. How very unscientific of them.

Surely the evidence is in abundance as they suggest? No? Clearly not.

NARTH's Dr. Spitzer's "Archives of Sexual Behaviour" paper has been criticized for using non-random sampling and poor criteria for success:-
- The then APA president, Lawrence Hartmann, a professor at Harvard Medical School, called Spitzer's study "too flawed to publish."
- Psychologist Douglas Haldeman of the University of Washington commented that there is no credible scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed, "and this study doesn't prove that either."

The key issue here was all or almost all of the 200 subjects interviewed were referred by reparative therapists or by Christian transformational ministries. Apparently all or almost all of the clients were evangelical Christians.

…one can only conclude after reading this appallingly written study that he found his MD in a dumster. Why would he produced a flawed and biased paper if the evidence was so easy to get? Conclusion is that there is not evidence for his ridiculous theories, and the poor fool had to make some up. Sad. So sad.

All the following Organisations have spoken out against NARTH, stating that NARTH is not scientific, and anti-gay agenda driven:-

- American Psychiatric Association
- American Psychological Association
- American Counseling Association
- National Association of Social Workers
- American Academy of Pediatrics
- American Association of School Administrators
- American Federation of Teachers
- National Association of School Psychologists
- National Education Association

Wow. Thats a lot. And Agenda driven? So, its NARTH that are the propaganda nazi's? What a surprise. What shall we call this, then, the "antihomostapo"?

Your lies are simply the rantings of a foolish, and uneducated old nobody, who doesn't have the brains even to imagine an argument that's not a house of cards.

Sunday 13th September 2009 03:05am 7
Burty
Burty
69 Posts

The Alan Turing Thread: I did not address Monkeychops at all, even though he tried to entice me into his web.
I could not resist telling the thread the 'True Story' of Hartlepool which was where they hung the monkey:  During the Nepolionic wars, a French Brigg was taken and brought into Hartlepool docks. on board was a Monkey dressed in French civilian clothes. The Authorities on the dockside thought it was a spy and there was a sumary court-martial on the dockside. The monkey was duly convicted of spying and hung.

Please login or sign up to post on this network.
Click here to sign up now.