Click 
To Print
|
|
|
In discussions of homosexuality,the bad news is not allowed
Tom Teepen, in a Nov. 12 Commentary page article, hopes that President Clinton's address to the Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual rights group, will mark the beginning of an open national discussion.
The effect, however, will be exactly the opposite.
Because the issue has been defined as a civil rights matter, discussion already is impossible. This is because any negative information is automatically dismissed as biased and, therefore, only one side of the argument exists.
Thus the censorship and misrepresentation of a group attempting to help gays who want to come out of the gay lifestyle, on the campus of Harvard University, is defended by academics who would otherwise favor a free exchange of ideas. (See Jeff Jacoby's Nov. 10 Commentary article.)
Here in the Twin Cities, because of pressure from homosexual activists, research psychologist Paul Cameron was denied the opportunity to speak to physicians on the relatively mild topic of the psychological outcome of children raised by homosexual parents. His research actually needs to be discussed but probably never will be because it contradicts the current public relations campaign.
When Cameron points out that the first sexual encounter for a boy or young man, if homosexual — whether it is consensual, seduced or forced — is 60 percent likely to be followed by an ongoing homosexual attraction, this is dismissed as biased instead of being recognized as consistent with all we know about the habituating effect of sexual activity.
When he shows that even in studies done by pro-homosexual researchers, a full 25 percent of gay men admit that when they were over age 21 they had sex with boys under 16 years old, this is rejected as homophobic.
Since the data necessary for discussion is disqualified, the conclusion is predetermined.
— Ross S. Olson, Minneapolis. Pediatrician.
12/6/1997 Published by Star Tribune
The URL for this document is
|