Why Isn’t Homosexuality Considered A Disorder
On The Basis Of Its Medical Consequences?
by LifeSiteNews.com
Thu Nov 30 11:15 AM EST
By Kathleen Melonakos, M.A., R.N.
I worked as an RN for several years during the eighties and nineties
at Stanford University Medical Center, where I saw some of the damage
homosexuals do to their bodies with some of their sexual practices.
As a result of that eye-opening experience, I much admire the work of
NARTH in the research and treatment of homosexuality.
I have long been concerned about the serious medical consequences which result
from the gay-affirming attitudes that predominate in the San Francisco Bay Area.
For example, I knew personally a prominent dermatologist, a dentist, an
engineer, and a hairdresser that died in their mid-forties of
infectious diseases related to their homosexual behavior patterns.
I know of many others that have died young as a result of living a gay lifestyle.
The co-author of my own medical reference book,
Saunders Pocket Reference for Nurses, was the head of the surgery
department at Stanford.
She related case histories of homosexuals needing emergency surgery due to
"fisting," "playing with toys," (inserting objects into the rectum) and other bizarre acts.
I am certain—in light of my clinical experience, and since doing considerable
amount of studying about it since that time—that homosexuality is neither
normal nor benign; rather, it is a lethal behavioral addiction as
Dr. Jeffrey Satinover outlines in his book,
Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth.[ii]
As far as I know, there is no other group of people in the
United States that dies of infectious diseases in their
mid-forties except practicing homosexuals.
This, to me, is tragic, when we know that homosexuality can be prevented,
in many cases, or substantially healed in adulthood when
there is sufficient motivation and help.
I now live in Delaware and work in conjunction with the
Delaware Family Foundation to inform the public about
homosexual issues.
We are debating gay activists who want to add "sexual discrimination" to our anti-discrimination code.
In trying to make the case that homosexuality is not healthy and should not be
encouraged,
we come up against the fact that neither the American Psychiatric Association,
nor the American Psychological Association recognize it as a disorder.
Our opponents say we are using "scare tactics."
Dr. Satinover brilliantly laid out in his book,
Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth the solid, irrefutable evidence that
there are lethal consequences of engaging in the defining features
of male homosexuality—that is, promiscuity and anal intercourse.
It doesn't take someone trained in medicine to recognize that, as
Brian Camenker of the Parent Right's Coalition said
on national TV,
"A lifetime of anal sex does not do great things for the body."
Brian also said,
"As troubling as that statement sounds, there is no logical argument against it."
Thus, even lay people recognize what should be obvious,
especially to those trained in medicine, and who know the basic facts about
homosexuality.
It seems to me that medical professionals should be more aware and concerned
about the consequences of habitually engaging in promiscuous anal intercourse,
and other oral-anal practices of active homosexuals.[iiia]
The risk of anal cancer soars for those engaging in anal intercourse.
According to one report, it rises by an astounding 4000%,
and doubles again for those who are HIV positive.[iiib]
Can anyone refute that anal intercourse tears the rectal lining of the receptive partner,
regardless of whether a condom is worn, and the subsequent contact with fecal matter
leads to a host of diseases?
Diseases to which active homosexuals are vulnerable can be classified as follows:
Classical sexually transmitted diseases
(gonorrhea, infections with Chlamydia trachomatis, syphilis, herpes simplex infections,
genital warts, pubic lice, scabies);
enteric diseases
(infections with Shigella species, Campylobacter jejuni,
Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia lamblia, ["gay bowel disease"],
Hepatitis A, B, C, D, and cytomegalovirus);
trauma
(related to and/or resulting in fecal incontinence, hemorroids, anal fissure,
foreign bodies lodged in the rectum, rectosigmoid tears,
allergic proctitis, penile edema, chemical sinusitis, inhaled nitrite burns,
and sexual assault of the male patient);
and the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS).[iv]
Can anyone refute that increased morbidity and mortality is an unavoidable
result of male-with-male sex—not to mention the increased rates of
alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, suicide and other maladies that so often
accompany a homosexual lifestyle?[v]
People with this whole cluster of behavior patterns are somehow "normal"?
My primary question is: why isn't homosexuality considered a disorder on the
basis of its medical consequences alone?
Dr. Satinover and others have made a solid case for why homosexuality
parallels alcoholism as an unhealthy addiction.
It should have a parallel diagnosis.
There is a lot of literature, including on the NARTH website,
discussing the 1973 removal of homosexuality as a diagnosis.
The arguments against the change in diagnosis seem to center around "societal standards," moral relativism, "subjective distress" of the client, and whether or not there is
any objective standard for "psychological" normalcy
(for instance, the debate between Joseph Nicolosi and
Dr. Michael Wertheimer in
A Clash In Worldviews: An Interview with Dr. Michael Wertheimer).
While these considerations are important, it seems like we can set aside,
for the moment, the debate on whether homosexuality should be classified
as a developmental disorder.
Very simply, it seems, an objective person just looking at homosexuality's lifestyle consequences would have to classify it as some kind of pathology.
Does it or does it not lead to a dramatically shortened lifespan?
Studies say it does, some by as much as 40%;
the Cameron study being only one of many other
studies that suggest this.[vi]
Taken together, these studies establish that homosexuality is more deadly
than smoking, alcoholism, or drug addiction.
However, it appears that far too few physicians or other professionals are
making arguments in favor of homosexuality as a diagnosis based on
its adverse health consequences.
While doing research into the history of the 1973 decision to remove
homosexuality from the diagnostic manual of disorders,
I have been shocked to find out the specious reasoning upon which the decision
was based, and that qualified physicians have allowed the decision to stand.
On Feb. 5, 2002, I corresponded by e-mail with Dr. Robert Spitzer of the APA and
asked him to send me references for the position papers and studies upon which his
committee based its decision to remove the diagnosis.
He told me to read Ron Bayer's book,[vii] the
"closest thing to a position paper"
(American Journal of Psychiatry,130:11,1207-1216), and he said,
"There was no specific list of references, but what was influential too was the
Evelyn Hooker Rorshach study and the Eli Robins community study."[viii]
I have read many of the criticisms of the Hooker study—how respondents were
specifically selected rather than at random, and other methodological limitations.[ix]
Dr. Charles Socarides, who was also on the Task Force on Nomenclature,
informs us also that Spitzer was influenced by the Kinsey Report,
which was recognized as early as 1976 by "social progressives"
like Prof. Paul Robinson of Stanford as
"a pathetic manifestation of Kinsey's philosophical naivete..
a mechanical contrivance, which...bore little relation to reality,"[x]
and since has been discredited by the work of Judith Reisman and others.
It is clear that Dr. Socarides was right when he said that the decision to remove
homosexuality as a diagnosis
"involved the out-of-hand and peremptory disregard and dismissal
not only of hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports,
but other serious studies by groups of psychiatrists, psychologists and
educators over the past seventy years..."[xi]
It appears even more obvious that the Task Force on Nomenclature cavalierly ignored
(and the APA's continue to ignore!) the substantial and unambiguous evidence that
homosexuality involves a life-threatening behavior with an addictive component which
has serious health implications.[xii]
That the APA's have escaped accountability for their lack of scientific and professional integrity is especially incredible since the advent of the AIDS epidemic.
There are currently an estimated 900,000 people in the United States that are
infected with the HIV virus, or 1 in 300 Americans.
Though there has been a decrease in AIDS deaths per year due to drug therapy,
(which costs an average of $12,000 per patient per year)
the rate of new infections per year has remained the same, at 40,000,
despite the twenty year "safe-sex" campaign.[xiii]
These facts demonstrate the failure of current policies in containing the AIDS epidemic.
While drug therapy will briefly extend the life of these patients, AIDS remains the fifth
leading cause of death among those aged 25-44, and 60% of new cases are contracted by
men who have sex with men.[xiv]
According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC),
homosexual men are a thousand times more likely to contract AIDS
than the general heterosexual population[xv]
Dr. Satinover has said in an interview with NARTH:
"A recent article in a psychiatric publication informed
us that 30% of all 20-year-old homosexual men will be HIV
positive or dead by the age of thirty.
You would think that the objective, ethical approach would be:
let's use anything that works to try to take these people out of their posture of
risk.
If it means getting them to wear condoms fine.
If itmeans getting them to give up anal intercourse, fine.
If it means getting them to give up homosexuality, fine.
But that last intervention is the one intervention that it absolutely taboo.
"There is no doubt that a cold, statistical analysis of this epidemic would
lead you to believe that this attitude of political correctness is killing
a substantial proportion of these people.
I think there is an element of denial, in the psychological sense, of what
gay-related illnesses really mean."[xvi]
It seems to me that the APA's should be aggressively pressed to recognize the facts
about the morbidity and mortality directly attributed to homosexuality,
or be exposed for the recklessly irresponsible "guardians of the public health"
they have become, at least on this issue.
When will doctors and other health care workers demand that
officers in the American Psychiatric Association respond to the clear evidence
in the following:
Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth:
the mortality rates listed in their own
"APA's Practical Guidelines for Treating Patients with
HIV/AIDS";[xvii]
and other important reports, such as the Monograph put out by
the Institute of Sexual Health,
Health Implications of Homosexuality?[xviii]
Lest we think that APA officers justify their neglect of medical consequences of
homosexuality on the basis that sexual orientation cannot be changed,
we note that Robert Spitzer acknowledged in his original 1973 position paper
on Nomenclature that
"modern methods of treatment enable a significant proportion of homosexuals
who wish to change their sexual orientation to do so."[xix]
He has now confirmed the fact that sexual orientation
can be changed with his recent study.[xx]
We know that changing sexual orientation only became "impossible" in
the nineties, as part of a political strategy by gay activists.[xxi]
Spitzer and his allies' rationale for removing homosexuality as a diagnosis in 1973
was that to be considered a psychiatric disorder,
"it must either regularly cause subjective distress, or regularly be associated
with some generalized impairment in social effectiveness or functioning....
Clearly homosexuality per se does not meet the requirements for a psychiatric
disorder, since, as noted above, many are quite satisfied with their
sexual orientation and demonstrate no generalized impairment in
social effectiveness or functioning." (Spitzer, et.al, p. 1215).
The Task Force's reasoning fails for several reasons.
First, even if we grant the validity of their stated criteria (which is questionable),
the fact that many homosexuals "are satisfied with their sexual orientation,"
fails to take into account the large number of homosexuals who are not satisfied
with their sexual orientation and who doexperience
"subjective distress and generalized impairment in social functioning."
The removal of the diagnosis is not just unfair,
but cruel to those who would seek treatment for their condition.
Secondly, there are unambiguous reasons to think that homosexuality per se
does cause "generalized impairment in social effectiveness or functioning."
If in fact it is a lethal addiction, and the many studies documenting the behavior
patterns of homosexuals are correct
(that show compulsive patterns of promiscuity, anonymous sex, sex for money,
sex in public places, sex with minors, concomitant drug and alcohol abuse,
depression, suicide),
for the APA to argue that these features do not constitute an
"impairment of social effectiveness or functioning,"
stretches the boundaries of plausibility.
To argue that early death does not constitute an
"impairment of social effectiveness or functioning" is absurd.
The APA claims its mission is
"to promote a bio-psycho-social approach to understanding and
caring for patients, in all aspects of health care, including illness prevention"
(APA's Stategic Goals Statement).
Thus the APA violates its own goals then when it ignores evidence that
homosexuality can in many cases be prevented, and denies reorientation therapy
to those who want it.
A careful reading of the articles opposing reorientation therapy reveals their authors'
rationale that they find such therapy to be "oppressive" to those who
do not want therapy.[xxii]
What if this logic was applied to any other lethal illness?
What if doctors said,
"We refuse to treat cancer (or, say, alcoholism) because we only achieve a
50% cure rate—and many people who don't want to be cured find it oppressive
that we do cure the others?"
Why wouldn't the lawsuits for malpractice be filed?
We know that Ronald Gold of the Gay Activist's Alliance, an openly gay man,
was a member of the committee to remove homosexuality as a diagnosis in 1973.
We know that gay activists were disrupting meetings, threatening doctors,
and using other strong-arm tactics to get their way at that time.[xxiii]
We also know that homosexual activists like Dr. Richard Isay in the APA have
pressed for resolutions to punish therapists for practicing reorientation therapy,
and that threats of lawsuits appear to be the main reason the APA has
not implemented his proposals.[xxiv]
We know homosexual advocates in the APA continue to suppress debate about
Spitzer's new study documenting that sexual orientation can be changed
(and to suppress debate about other supporting studies).[xxv]
We also know that active homosexuals such as Clinton Anderson at the
American Psychological Association refuse to permit NARTH to
engage in open debate or announce NARTH meetings in APA publications
simply because he disagrees with the premises upon which
reorientation therapy is based.[xxvi]
For these reasons, I do not think it is far-fetched to use the analogy that
the "drunks are running the rehab center,"
in reference to the APA's—at least as far as homosexuality is concerned.
Active homosexuals can hardly be objective about an addictive behavior
they engage in themselves.
In light of the medical evidence, it seems that the Galenic dictum,
"physician heal thyself," should apply, as it did it in the past,
as Dr. Satinover suggests.[xxvii]
It seems to me the situation in this country will only get worse
until the APA is held directly responsible for what is
arguably their criminal negligence.
In failing to reckon with serious medical consequences of
the homosexual behavior pattern,
they are harming our whole society,
and especially the upcoming generation.
The recent decision by the American Academy of Pediatrics
to endorse gay adoptions is yet another disturbing example
of how the decision to "normalize" homosexuality by the APA has had
a broad ripple effect.
Health professionals especially, should heed Dean Byrd's outcry on the NARTH
website that it is time that the American people
"insist on truth, not politics, from all of our professional organizations."
What will it take to insist on truth? Lawsuits? Protests?
In my opinion, doctors and other health professionals must exert pressure,
or share culpability.
What if every person reading this article sent a copy of it
to the president of the American Psychiatric Association and
asked for a response?
Reasoned debate is the least that psychiatrists owe our society—especially those
whose lives and loved ones are at risk.
