Dear Editor,
I refer to the letter captioned ‘That homosexuality is neither a pathology nor mental illness has been recognized internationally and in varying political contexts’ (SN, July 3). The premises used by Ms D M Roper are factually inaccurate, and are better chanted than analyzed. Indeed, one senses that the scope of gay-advocate deception is only now beginning to sink in for Ms Roper, but that “ the denial” (Satinover).
That homosexuality is a pathology, and has to depend on Ms Roper’s political spin to validate it, is confirmed by the Centers for Disease Control in its FastFacts on HIV and AIDS Among Gay and Bisexual Men 2010. Otherwise, we should present the evidence in the article by RN Kathleen Melonakos, ‘Why isn’t homosexuality considered a disorder on the basis of its medical consequences?‘ Indeed, the issue of pathology relative to the LGBT community has long been settled in the online article ‘Surgical Sex’ by Dr Paul McHugh, Distinguished Service Professor in Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University. After a careful and detailed analysis of fact, truth, detail and evidence, he is forced to come to the following conclusion: “We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it.” Here’s the imperative for Christians in Guyana to enjoin fully in the fight for good public policy focusing on treatment and healing rather than “decriminalization.”
Gay advocacy depends for its success on the premise that its detractors will not read or consider the evidence for themselves. Ms Roper has not pointed to a single factual inaccuracy in the account by Dr Charles Socarides ‘Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of Homosexuality.’ Instead, she chooses to spin it politically.
Objectivity and good social policy, on the other hand, can only be accommodated by careful attention to fact, truth, detail and evidence. As the very liberal Justice Kirby once said, the very least our politicians and leaders can do is to become acquainted with the details of an issue. Good law is based on good data. An unedited version of the previous letter sent to Stabroek News is found online as ‘Sasod’s Continuing Deception on Gay Rights, Courtesy of Ralph Ramkarran.’
Ms Roper would be hard pressed to find a single medical doctor who would agree with his analysis, or who would disagree with Dr Satinover’s. Indeed, <s Roper ignores Dr Satinover’s careful citation of 15 secular outcome studies at Table 7 in his book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth which all illustrate success at the treatment of same-sex-attraction disorders.
The point is that we cannot ‘legislate‘ any mental/psychosexual disorder into ‘normalcy‘ when there is evidence that a medical remedy exists, or that severe personal and social consequences attach themselves to the aberrant behaviour. That would be delusional.
The easier way out for Ms Roper, in true gay-advocate deceptiveness, is to attack Satinover’s religious affiliation. We had addressed this dubious approach in the online article ‘The Case Against Pancap…‘ Ms Roper has not addressed Kathleen Melonakos’ question in the online article of the same name, ‘Why Isn’t Homosexuality Considered a Disorder on the Basis of Its Medical Consequences?‘ Gay advocacy, like abortion ‘rights,’ needs entire medical brigades to ensure its survival which is why the organization will always without exception seek to influence or suborn the health care apparatus, leadership and policy in accommodating states.
Nor has she attempted to consider the Centers for Disease Control’s viewpoint in its ‘FastFacts on HIV/AIDS 2010‘ that the “gay” community (“MSM” in the CDC parlance) has always had a hugely disproportionate effect on health services. A stunning account of the effect that 3-4% of the population has on the nation’s health is found in the following summary:
1. MSM account for nearly half of the approximately 1.2 million people living with HIV in the United States (49%, or an estimated 580,000 total persons).
2. MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the United States each year (61%, or an estimated 29,300 infections).
3. While CDC estimates that only 4 per cent of men in the United States are MSM, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the United States is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522 – 989 per 100,000 MSM v 12 per 100,000 other men).
Number 3 is important; an infection rate that’s 44 times that of other men.
And readers should note that the CDC was apparently under pressure, and forced to delete the following fourth point from their analysis: “MSM are the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections are increasing. While new infections have declined among both heterosexuals and injection drug users, the annual number of new HIV infections among MSM has been steadily increasing since the early 1990s.”
But Ms Roper will not consider this “significant” or “relevant.“
Yours faithfully,
Roger Williams
