From: gsmith@polyhymnia.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: APA and homosexuality,AIDS
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 18:30:31 GMT

In article <C12D3w.3w8@umassd.edu> pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU writes:

>>>Humans are biologically heterosexual. 

>>And your proof of this?  Keep in mind that homosexuality has been
>>observed in dozens of other species, who presumably have never heard
>>of the APA.

>SG Put your hand between your legs. My best guess is that their is a high 
>probability that you will find the evidence.

I just put my hand between my legs.  I found something, but it was not
evidence to the effect that human beings are biologically
heterosexual.  I am wondering if you have a problem with the English
language, and don't understand the meaning of one or more words, such
as "evidence" or "heterosexual".

For your information, heterosexual does not mean male.  Nor does it
mean female, nor does it mean simply that human beings come in two
sexes.  If you are having trouble with the word, I suggest you look it
up and find out what it *does* mean.  And check on the meaning of
"evidence" while you are at it.

>The last time i checked it takes a man and a woman to reproduce.
>Perhaps Frank knows something about homosexuality that could change
>the course of evolution. Your desire to affirm the alleged psy.health
>of homosexuality will not change reality. Reality first. Desire later.

If this is supposed to be an argument, you need to show some connection
between these ideas.  That two sexes are involved in reproduction
does not mean that homosexuality did not evolve as an adaptation via
natural selection.  Nor would the discovery that homosexuality is
not adaptive prove that homosexuals were not psychically healthy,
unless you mean something else by this than what is ordinarily
meant.  If so, I suggest you try to curb your Randian desire to
re-define words, it isn't helpful.

>You have stated that the APA had no arguments against homosexuality.
>I'm not an expert here but i know Freud discussed it.

If you did actually know something about this, you would know

(1) Freud did not consider homosexuality to be a neurosis, but rather
an "inversion"; which is not the same as saying a mental illness.

(2) Freud's ideas were very interesting, but they were not arrived at
by any version of scientific method.  He was a doctor, and despite the
claims that psychoanalysis was "science", he was *not* a scientist.

(3) The proponents of the disease model of homosexuality were in the
tradition of Freud.  Like him, they did not use science in any way,
shape or form to reach their conclusions.  They used "clinical
practice" and "psychoanalytic theory".  That is, they discovered gays
and lesbians were screwed up because it seemed to them that the ones
who came to them complaining of being screwed up were, in fact,
screwed up.

(4) The opponents of the disease model were the ones who used
scientific method.  The whole thing was not PC vs non-PC, but the
scientists vs the psychoanalists.

>	"In that world, you'll be able to rise in the morning with the spirit
>you had known in your childhood: that spirit of eagerness, adventure and cer-
>tainty which comes from dealing with a rational universe."
>                                                              AYN RAND

If the universe is rational, I suggest you began using reason to
deal with it.

-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine