From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Subject: Re: To be or not to be.
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 18:38:40 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.175735.22367@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
>To be or not to be, that makes all the difference in this newsgroup.
>Someone made a comment about a TV show where a lesbian mother stop her
>son from giving an opinion.
>Reaction: This person had to present references such as: name of the show,
>time, channel, city, and almost a transcript.


Reaction:  There are people who are this way.  None that I have met are
this way.   It seems, to those of us who are in the know concerning 
homosexual parents, that this is unlikely.  We speak from direct experience
on the issue.

>Someone said that an African ruler was Gay. An african said that it was not
>true.
>Reaction: The aseveration made by the Gay person was taken as true, and the
>African was asked for proof that the ruler was not gay.


Was there are reference for the original post.


>That is: If you are not Gay/Lesbian, your statements are always to be proven.
>If you are Gay/Lesbian, your statements are always true.

If you are speaking from a biased point of view, you will be asked to support
your quotes.  As the king of "supplying" references, I usually provide
references for my facts.  You know what happens when I do this, the homophobes
ignore them.


>In this debate about "babies", I was asked by el se~or FWA, to present an
>argument explaining why I thought something. I presented the argument.
>The reactions:
>
>El se~or Jeff (FWA), did not recognize the theory by me presented, so, he
>impeached me for references. I just copied the first few from over 1800
>that the University have. He just said that Freud was full of shit. 
>Was he asked for references about his affirmation: Modern psychology 
>refutes the Oedipus Complex? No.


I think that the oedipus complex is a load of shit.  Period.  Modern
psych tends to discard this theory, other people have posted references.


I will give you some history on why homosexuals do not believe in
Freud or any of the other psych people.  They have always been 
biased against homosexuals.  Homosexuality was only removed from the
list of mental illnesses in the 70s, when gay activists forced them
to realize that their classifications were not made using good science.
The psychiatric research field has never been gay friendly, or even
gay neutral.  They have always been a hostile force.

Quoting people who have shown past bias against homosexuals, as an argument
against homosexuals being "allowed" to do something is a rather circular
argument.


AAP, would you like the names of essays concerning this battle, and proof
that these people used bad researching techniques to come to there
conclusions?  I can produce them rather easily.


You see, you are arguing from a completely heterocentric point of view.
The gay academia have discarded Freud, since he comes from a homophobic
point of view.  Therefore, invoking Freud is like invoking the bible.



I get tired of having people quoting "scientists" (sneer quotes) to me
telling me that I am inherently disfunctional.  I can tell you from 
experience that homosexuals are not inherently disfunctional.  You pull
more quotes from these same scientists.  We say "we speak from experience
and what you say does not fit".  You say "But Freud says so... see, here
are my references."  Can't you see that your references are biased against
homosexuals to begin with, and therefore will fit your assertion exactly?




Learn to see the biases behind the research.  If the bias is there before
the research, you will see it in the results.  Case in point, Freud.




FWA


Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality