Comments about the site can be left below.

Posted by Admin on Saturday, July 15, 2006 in General
(77) CommentsNotify othersPermalink


The articles on your website seem to be biased, and make a great deal of assumptions about homosexuals and their everyday practices. I do not appreciate such generalizations on a website that poses as a resource. Straight people lick asses too.

Posted by michael on August 24, 2006 at 05:06 PM | #

This site is, without question, one of the most informative sites on this controversial subject.  This material should be presented to our students in high school to give them a balanced perspective on homosexuality and to overcome the sheer weight of pro-gay propaganda inundating our society from so many different sources.

What particularly impressed me was the scholarly, empirical tone preserved throughout.  Unfortunately, individuals like Michael have become so conditioned by the gay-rights movement and their allies in the mass media and entertainment industry that they unavoidably look upon any criticism of the practice of homosexuality, no matter how slight, as “hate” and “bias”.  The other fact that impressed me was your firm admonition to people not to use this information as an excuse to oppress gays.  We don’t need any more Matthew Sheppards.

Posted by Anchorage Activist on August 26, 2006 at 01:35 PM | #

First off I want to apologize for my language in the last post as it was crass. What bothers me about the site is you are making a generalization of a group of people. Then in the reply you are trying to justify making stereo-types. I don’t think that people need to worry about children in high school being brain washed by “pro gay propaganda”, most people already share your ignorant view on this group of people. As a human being, I think you should be ashamed. I don’t think we as people have the right to criticize the “practice of homosexuality.” You need not worry about replying to this post, as I already know it is useless to argue with bigots.

Posted by Michael on August 26, 2006 at 04:31 PM | #

Actually, Michael, I think you got me confused with the blog owner, who is a separate person.  I will take responsibility for my previous remark.

Your remark “We don’t have the right to criticize the practice of homosexuality” concerns me deeply because it reflects the anti-constitutional views being promoted by the secular cultural elite, who advocate Soviet-style censorship in this country.

The right to criticize is enshrined in the First Amendment.  If you sign away our right to criticize homosexuality just because you believe such criticism to be “bigoted”, you may be signing away your right to criticize something that affects you in the future.

With our liberties being stripped away line upon line, precept upon precept through such legislative atrocities as the USA Patriot Act, you might want to ponder this and ultimately reconsider your views towards criticism.  While you disagree with criticism of homosexuality, the website owner has used civil terminology, scrupulously avoided the use of anti-gay slurs, and meticulously cited his sources. As long as such conditions are met, any speech is constitutionally acceptable.

Posted by Anchorage Activist on August 26, 2006 at 04:45 PM | #

I understand that we as people have a right to put down, and say hateful things about whatever groups of people we would like. It just makes you a bad person. That was the point I was trying to make, one you will never understand. I took a look at your blog, I saw all those white power links, and you do seem to have a big obsession with gay sex, whats that about? I don’t know many straight men that sit around and think about it that much. Its not like you were talking about gay marriage or anything, just the sex. Hmmmm. Just so you know not every gay man shoves foreign objects up their ass. There are crazy people in every community, and its wrong to define a whole group of people because of a few insane ones. But your right you do have a right to say whatever you want. Congratulations, you are the American dream. You should feel so proud. This is what America is all about? Finding a way to put down everyone who isn’t a straight WHITE male, instead of all comming together as one.

Posted by Michael on August 27, 2006 at 10:28 AM | #

Michael: It is easy to accuse one of bias, but backing up this claim is another matter.  The differences in sexuality specified are not either-or differences.  Regarding generalization, the following quote from my introduction to the sexuality section is pertinent:

It should be kept in mind that the range of sexual practices addressed here do not characterize all homosexuals or bisexuals, but the variability of sexual behavior/interests and the incidence of bizarre sexual practices is much greater among nonheterosexuals compared to heterosexuals.

Posted by Erik on August 27, 2006 at 04:49 PM | #

Very good, excellent site. You not imagine how I regret this site and others like this are all in english. If it where in spanisch It wuould contribute to neutralize the heavy gay activism that groups supported by USA gay organizations have been consistently developing in our country (Chile).

These gay activist, as well as in the USA, are also supported by liberal leftist and also by communists.

It seems very bizarre that leftists in our country hate the USA an consider that all from USA is bad. But in issues like this, i.e: homosexuality, abortion, drugs, gay marriage, day after pill, etc., they are ready to accept any thing that cames from the USA.

Posted by Rocco on August 29, 2006 at 03:19 AM | #

I agree with Michael on this subject. I came across this page a few minutes ago, bizarrely when I was looking for a definition of schizophrenia, and have been reading some of the information presented on this website with mild disbelief and concern.

I have no idea what the US constitution states about the rights of man, and I accept that people have a right to criticise others, but surely it isn’t technically fair to be criticising them by features which they cannot help as oppose to one person’s individual beliefs (I do not in any way condone the slagging down of religions by saying this)? If it were fair to criticise these features than you are almost granting the right for people to be racist, etc.

The referrals to getting rid of “pro-gay propaganda” (WHAT pro-gay propaganda? “Gay” is considered a derogatory term for anything in schools these days, and has practically lost all relation to homosexuality anyway) are pretty ridiculous, because, as I have already stressed, homosexuality is not a conscious lifestyle choice, regardless of other environmental factors.

What else? Oh yeah, the referral to homosexuals’ tendencies to be more mentally unhinged is probably unfounded or at least biased, and your suggestion that the claims can’t possibly all be down to homophobia is true, but only because individuals tend to suffer from feelings of isolation regardless of how accepting their community is.

In my own opinion anyone’s lifestyle or beliefs are valid, provided that they do not cause harm to anyone else; however I consider this page to be a good way to start stirring up trouble.

Posted by Jude on September 25, 2006 at 02:43 AM | #

Jude: What you have read is not criticism per se but an unflattering description that you regard as criticism.  As far as granting people the right to be racist or some other kind of “ist” goes, it is normal to harbor prejudice and all people harbor some, and if some people have a negative opinion of members of a certain ethnic group, then given that one should have the freedom of thought and speech, it is certainly within one’s right to hold onto and espouse racist viewpoints, though it is not acceptable for people to commit criminal acts based on prejudice.

Regardless of whether homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle or something innate, there are negative correlates of homosexuality, and if one is to be educated about homosexuality at all, then some of these negative correlates need to be taught, too.

If you spend some time carefully going through the psychiatry section of this site, you will encounter plenty of mental illnesses—such as paraphilias—that are associated with homosexuality and not readily explained in terms of homophobia or feelings of isolation, and also studies where increased psychiatric morbidity remains after statistically adjusting for a lot of psychosocial factors.  Several of these studies also have good designs, i.e., population-based random sampling.

The argument that if someone’s lifestyle does not cause harm to others, then it should be acceptable is reasonable.  However, the behavior of homosexuals is far from something that has neutral consequences for others.  For instance, gay promiscuity was responsible for making HIV infection cross the threshold for sustaining an AIDS epidemic in the U.S., killing hundreds of thousands, including heterosexual individuals directly or indirectly infected by bisexually behaving men who have sex with men, and costing well over a hundred billion dollars in two decades.  In addition, there are people who find homosexual behavior unpalatable, and they have not chosen this attitude, yet mainstream gay activists will label them bigots if they refuse to accept a homosexual orientation as equivalent to a heterosexual orientation except for the sex of the partner, and some people have gotten in plenty of trouble just because they refuse to accept homosexuality as on par with heterosexuality on all but one or two counts.  There are plenty of related examples showing that the behavior of homosexuals is far from something that does not affect others negatively.

Posted by Erik on October 04, 2006 at 12:48 PM | #

I am doing a research paper in School on homosexuality. I am A Christian and I am riding the fence on what to say about Homosexuality. I believe that nobody has the right to judge another person on what they want to be… I know the Bible says its wrong… But.... the bible also says to love everyone… what should I do?


Posted by Jessica on October 25, 2006 at 03:04 AM | #

Jessica: The Bible indeed says not to judge someone, but if you observe someone indulging in Biblical sin then as a Christian you are supposed to warn the sinner of the folly of his ways.  This is not supposed to be done in a spiteful or threatening manner, but in a compassionate manner.  If the sinner does not heed your word, let him be unless he threatens the well-being of others; you have done your job; God will take care of the rest.

Whereas some people have tried to argue that homosexual behavior is compatible with the Bible, the mainstream consensus among Biblical scholars is that homosexual behavior is sinful.  Your best bet, if you encounter a receptive homosexual or bisexual person, especially someone not comfortable with their same-sex attraction, is to direct them to groups that attempt to make people with same-sex attraction live fulfilling heterosexual lives.  Some such attempts are successful, though there are risks; see this page for more.  Good luck with your paper.

Posted by Erik on October 28, 2006 at 03:03 PM | #

What a load of crap!

Posted by Cock Sucker on October 31, 2006 at 10:54 AM | #

This site appears to be an eccentric, ego-boosting affair by someone with far too much time on his hands. Everything it’s saying seems to boil down to, “Look at me, I’m smarter than gay activists and the religious right!” Well, that’s great for you, Eric Holland, but it’s not much of an accomplishment, I’m afraid.

Anyway, since these days no one gives a damn what anyone says about homosexuality who isn’t clearly on either the gay activist or the religious right side, Holland’s book won’t have the slightest impact.

Posted by raot on November 17, 2006 at 06:33 PM | #

Raot:  This site is not a result of a need to boost ego.  Neither is my intent to outsmart gay activists and the religious right.  The origin of homosexuality is a curiosity for many people and a topic of interest by itself for some.  If I have an interesting literature synthesis to share, something that shows diametrically opposed groups to be partly correct but also wrong on other counts and also explains seemingly irreconcilable differences in a comprehensive, coherent and parsimonious manner, then I believe that I should let others know about it.  Time will tell what kind of impact my work has.

Posted by Erik on November 18, 2006 at 05:07 PM | #

Statements by obscure website operators that they have no need to boost their egos need to be taken with a certain amount of salt, I think.

Face the fact that no one needs you. Gay activists and the religious right have no need for or interest in a book which shows them both to be part right and part wrong. They want stuff which shows them to be right, period.

That’s why no one is going to cite you. It makes no difference what your arguments are. I wonder how much time it will take before you start to think, “Gee, no one is citing Erik Holland, my work is being ignored!”

Posted by Raot on November 18, 2006 at 06:16 PM | #

Raot: Yes, a number of people look for evidence to confirm their existing beliefs and avoid material that may result in cognitive dissonance.  But there are others willing to let evidence shape/alter their beliefs.  Such individuals interested in the nature of homosexuality will find my work to be of some interest.  Like I said, I am not working toward boosting my ego.  Some years ago, when I had lots of free time, I looked up a great deal of the literature on homosexuality, but for quite a while I have been looking up newer literature on homosexuality less frequently and update this site infrequently.  Regardless of how many people cite this site and the accompanying book, this site will remain online and I will update it whenever I have time.

Posted by Erik on November 19, 2006 at 02:35 PM | #

I can’t understand why all this overanalyzation of something as simple as human sexuality. Why don’t you study the reason for heterosexuality and you’ll have the answer: It’s natural too.

Posted by Carlos on November 29, 2006 at 05:38 PM | #

Carlos: Studying homosexuality also clarifies the nature of heterosexuality and various other sexual interests.  A thorough analysis is required to understand homosexuality well.

Posted by Erik on November 30, 2006 at 03:18 PM | #

I was wondering if you (Erik Holland) had anything to say about the recent ‘Breast Cancer Awareness” Boom.  Heart Disease kills more women than men (since 1994), and kills more women than breast cancer ever did.  Yet, after Melissa Etheridge developed breast cancer, it was made to seem like a pandemic amongst women.  Allegedly, lesbians are 3 times as likely to develop Breast cancer (via HPV and lifestyle) than exclusively heterosexual women, and I wonder if that’s why the number one killer of women (heart disease) has been ignored in favor of Breast Cancer.

Posted by POTUS on December 04, 2006 at 02:56 AM | #

Potus: The breast cancer awareness and also massive research funding of it is the result of feminist activism.  Feminists tend to focus on problems disproportionately or exclusively affecting women, are prone to exaggerating the prevalence of such problems and may resort to accusing authorities of ignoring women’s problems in order to bring more funding/attention toward them.

As far as cancers in lesbians go, one strongly expects the prevalence of breast and cervical cancer to be higher among them though this still needs to be properly documented.  A couple of years ago, a study based on the Danish marriage registry did not find a higher prevalence of cancers among lesbians compared to heterosexual women, but this study had an inadequate sample, did not follow the participants for a long time and cannot be assumed to have had a representative sample of lesbians since few eligible lesbians marry a woman.  Anyway, HPV is related to cervical cancer, not breast cancer.  The greater heterosexual promiscuity of nonheterosexual women makes them more susceptible to HPV-induced cervical cancer, the reduced likelihood of childbirth among lesbians should increase their odds of breast cancer, and the higher prevalence of substance use and obesity among nonheterosexual women should increase the odds of various cancers.

Posted by Erik on December 06, 2006 at 06:17 AM | #

A good site with a valuable catalogue of information. hoping to read your book soon.

This information is missing from the public square where most people feed at the teat of mass media.

People must learn that homosexuality is not a good thing either for the individual or for the society, and only when they understand this will they finally see through the lies of homosexuals in the media and reject their ploy to gain acceptance as if they are normal (for marriage, adoption and a hole host of stuff).

Posted by Marwan Boustany on December 12, 2006 at 10:44 AM | #

This has to be the most stupid thing I have ever seen. I know that there are alot of people who think that Americans are biggots and not so bright but this proves them all right I´m sad to say. My god!!!!!

Posted by Otto on January 26, 2007 at 03:20 PM | #

Otto: What is stupid about this site?  Americans are bigoted and not bright?  When one pictures an anti-free-speech bigot, one usually doesn’t picture an American.  In addition, America is the world leader in scientific and technological development, which has little to do with immigration in recent decades.  You need only consider your own intelligence.  A website in English is not necessarily the work of an American.  The person behind this site is neither an American nor is English his native language.

Posted by Erik on January 28, 2007 at 05:49 PM | #

I am surprised that you have included so much anecdotal “evidence” of sexuality rather than focusing on broader-based studies. By giving equal weight to single incidents and larger, statistically sound studies, you paint an inaccurate picture of the gay community.

Were you looking at the broad range of human sexuality instead of narrowing your focus on homosexuals, I expect you would find similar incidents among heterosexuals and bisexuals. As it is, your focus is on such a small number of individuals, and in a subculture that is diverse on its own and a larger culture that is even more diverse, these snapshots are simply attention grabbers rather than actually describing the greater reality. You’ve focused on the bruised thumb rather than the rest of the body that is functioning quite well.

It’s kind of a sad statement about you, not about homosexuals or homosexuality in general.

Posted by Lawrence on February 06, 2007 at 12:16 PM | #

Lawrence: A wide variety of studies are cited within the sexuality section, including random and population-based studies.  It has been necessary to cite some anecdotal evidence and studies utilizing non-random samples, but the picture is clear, and consistent with the much higher rates of HIV, venereal disease and gastrointestinal infection among homosexual/bisexual men compared to heterosexual men, and also higher rates of mental illness among homosexual/bisexual men, which is something that one would expect among people who are more likely to indulge in various bizarre sexual practices.  The conclusion of the sexuality section, namely that compared to heterosexuals, homosexuals and bisexuals are relatively overrepresented among individuals with paraphilias, non-paraphilic sexual compulsion disorders and disinhibited sexual interests is fairly robust to problems with individuals studies or some anecdotal evidence cited; read this for further clarification.

Posted by Erik on February 11, 2007 at 08:35 AM | #

I am appalled that people like you exist in this world.  I am leaving here an example of a true humanitarian and saint Archbishop Desmond Tutu:

In the debate about Anglican views of homosexuality he has opposed Christian discrimination against homosexuality. Commenting days after the 5 August 2003 election of Gene Robinson, an openly gay man to be a bishop in the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, Desmond Tutu said, “In our Church here in South Africa, that doesn’t make a difference. We just say that at the moment, we believe that they should remain celibate and we don’t see what the fuss is about."[3]

Declared Tutu: “I am deeply saddened at a time when we’ve got such huge problems ... that we should invest so much time and energy in this issue...I think God is weeping.”

“Jesus did not say, ‘If I be lifted up I will draw some’.” Jesus said, ‘If I be lifted up I will draw all, all, all, all, all. Black, white, yellow, rich, poor, clever, not so clever, beautiful, not so beautiful. It’s one of the most radical things. All, all, all, all, all, all, all, all. All belong. Gay, lesbian, so-called straight. All, all are meant to be held in this incredible embrace that will not let us go. All.”
“Isn’t it sad, that in a time when we face so many devastating problems – poverty, HIV/AIDS, war and conflict – that in our Communion we should be investing so much time and energy on disagreement about sexual orientation?”
[The Communion, which] “used to be known for embodying the attribute of comprehensiveness, of inclusiveness, where we were meant to accommodate all and diverse views, saying we may differ in our theology but we belong together as sisters and brothers” now seems “hell-bent on excommunicating one another. God must look on and God must weep.”

Since then Dr. Tutu has increased his criticism of conservative attitudes to homosexuality within his own church, going as far as to equate homophobia with racism. Stating at a conference in Nairobi that he is “deeply disturbed that in the face of some of the most horrendous problems facing Africa, we concentrate on ‘what do I do in bed with whom”

Posted by Jason Cochran on February 16, 2007 at 08:27 AM | #

Jason: I am not pleased that there are people like you who fire off a comment before understanding what the site is about.  This is not a Christian site.  This site and the accompanying book are addressing homosexuality in a manner that the gay activists, the religious right, social constructionists, biologists and other groups with some take on homosexuality are not employing, namely not ignoring finds that do not fit one’s viewpoint.  If the resulting synthesis does not flatter some viewpoints, so be it.  Read around; there is a lot more to homosexuality than merely what people do in their bed.

Posted by Erik on February 17, 2007 at 08:57 AM | #

Appears like someone had a good ol’ time doing his “research”! wink

Posted by Jesus on March 11, 2007 at 06:09 PM | #

All this interest in Homosexuality… Isn’t it time the closeted self-hating homosexuals that put so much energy into this site, just go out and get the gay sex they are not allowing themselves to have?

Posted by Gregory May on March 17, 2007 at 07:35 PM | #

Again, I am amazed at the massive amount of one-sided and self-serving information that people seem to preech.  Let’s look at the comments made so far, I have a few of my own.

Anchorage Activist:
“This material should be presented to our students in high school to give them a balanced perspective on homosexuality and to overcome the sheer weight of pro-gay propaganda inundating our society from so many different sources.”
You’ve got to be kidding!!  I would definately agree to information about a culture being presented to high school students as information to help them learn and understand others.  However, the information provuded on this site is not information that gives insight unto a population as a whole.  This is from a corner of a society and does not represent them as a whole. Would you make the same inference of blacks and welfare?  Mexicans and dry-wall jobs? Irish as drunks?  These have all been descriptions of populations in the past which are not acceptable today.  So, why would anyone entertain the information provided ont his website as anything close to true and accurate unbiased information about a culture as a whole.  The only people that take this information to heart are the ones that would still be oppressing black people today and making them sit in the back of the bus.  These are also the same people that persecuted withces in Salem, and opposed science in medieval times as heracy(sp?).

Also, the constitution does afford someone the right to be critical of others.  However, it was not meant as a means to be critical towards people because they live a life different from your own.  The constitution affords you the right to be critical of the actions of others where those actions will violate the rights or safety of others.  Because I am gay, or black, or hispanic, or have 5 wives gives anyone the right to be critical of me as a population in general because I am different.  By saying you don’t have the right to be critical of others on this basis is acceptable.  Once we can totally seperate church and state will be a time when stupid issues of race, sexuality, origin, etc.. can truly be a thing of the past.  When the church isn’t allowed to force it’s moral beliefs on society (even those with opposing religious beliefs, people won’t care about your skin color, who you sleep with, where your from, etc… Maybe then the true issues that need dealt with will be given the credibility they have so long deserved.

“It should be kept in mind that the range of sexual practices addressed here do not characterize all homosexuals or bisexuals, but the variability of sexual behavior/interests and the incidence of bizarre sexual practices is much greater among nonheterosexuals compared to heterosexuals”

You have got to be kidding!!  Have you ever watched any heterosexual porn???  You should state both sides of the coin when presenting stories like the one of the man that put the resin in his rectum.  You should also be showing evidence that herterosexuals also practice hugely bizarre sexual practices.  When you present “facts” about a population, you can never be taken seriously by any medical or research professional when only stating one-sided, obviously biased studies.  All reputable researchers show data that isn’t favorable to their objective outcome in the name of fair and true statistics.

The only interest your literary documents will have are for those closed minded individuals who can’t see beyond their own psychosis to form an intelligent, informed opinion.  The only way someone will get an informed decision is to read studies that show the good with the bad, are complete, and begin without prejudice or bias.  I will not be reading your documents, but I am sure I already know what kind of information will be included in them.  Being a medical professional in the mental health field, I have seen many studies on many different topics.  I havent always liked the outcome of these studies, but when presented with facts that are accurate and clearly factual I have no choice but to accept the results.  When you can show findings that arent one-sided and baised, I amy begin to take what you say with some truth.

In your comment to Jason, you stated this site has nothing to do with religion.  However, you continually show support for the religious belief of homosexuality.  Jason was merely stating religion has no play in society accepting people as being homosexual.  A persons sexual preference has nothing to do with who they are.  I find it amazing that someone has been in the closet all their life, loved by their community/family/friends can all of a sudden become someone who these same people push out of their life.  Why is that, when this person hid his sexuality he was loved and no one cared.  But as soon as they know he is gay they act like he just dropped a bomb on a playschool full of children. 

You’ve also stated you KNOW that the studies on this site didn’t use appropriate practices in sampling for statistical research.  How can you consider using information you KNOW is inaccurate due to bad sampling.  What should that tell people about how your entire books will be written?

Get one of your studies published in a reputable publication like JAMA, then let’s talk about your findings and I’ll consider your attempt at gathering your information in a factual manner.

The problem with many people today, and I will include you in this, is they simply take what has been written as fact.  It seems no one bothers to check or authenticate the information so they can make an accurate informed decision.

The old saying “....lambs to the slaughter” comes to mind.

Posted by Robert Williamson on March 28, 2007 at 07:01 PM | #

I makes me giggle when I am on a clearly homophobic site and look at the Google adds on the side bar and see adds for gay singles sites. YOu just made my day.

Posted by Amused on March 29, 2007 at 10:30 AM | #

I am so glad that, now, only homosexuals get sexually transmitted infections. My sister will be so happy that she no longer has the HPV infection that is, er, was making her susceptible to cancer.
It is about time that the issues of rampant HATERosexual promiscuity, the HATERosexual affairs of politicians, and the abortions that HATERosexuals have are nudged out of the scrutiny of the liberal media.
Remember: Jesus was a conservative. He followed all the rules established! (We better vote on having Christianity as the Federal religion soon; I hear Islam is the fastest growing religion. Can you believe it? Some people don’ even worship Jesus!)

Posted by Bret on April 12, 2007 at 06:05 PM | #

Just for clarrification, Gaurdisil, which is the vaccine for HPV only works on certain strands, not all.  It also is only effective on someone who has NOT been infected, that is why they are targeting children and not adults.  Many adult women (where this STD is most prevelant) do not know they have it.  Only a few strains of the virus causes displasia which leads to cervical cancer.  Those strains are what Guardisil is targeted at, not the numerous other strains that exist.  So, even though you may have taken the HPV vaccine, you are only being protected from about 6 of the strains of the virus.

Posted by Robert Williamson on April 26, 2007 at 06:19 AM | #

Dear Robert,
So, how do women get the infection? It is only spread through skin-to-skin contact. So, as current research is finding, HPV is equally prevalent in males who do not know that they have it and are passing it to women. Wait, I know that ALL men and All women in the Holy Sacrament of Marriage (which should be regulated by the church, since it is a sacrament)entered the union as virgins. ONLY homosexuals are promiscuous. So, again, how do women get the infection? Probably the Clintons. . .
There it is spread by men who are asymptomatic and are ignorant to the fact that viruses do not concider gender, or there is a LOT of girl-on-girl action going on. If that is the case, I say “Right on!” and “Can I watch?”

Posted by Bret on April 28, 2007 at 07:25 AM | #

Ok! Who knows what will happen when we die???
I would rather die believing in God and his truth than die and go to hell wondering why I never opened my mind to the things people were saying!! ... use your noodle people! Open your minds to things you feel like you could never belive… like homosexuality. Dont Judge or you will be judged! Give your opinion but be reasonable about it! DEont act like you are the only one who knows somthing.... BE SMART< NOT RETARDED. now… thats my opinion!

Posted by Jessica on April 30, 2007 at 03:30 PM | #

Sorry for all the spekking errors… smile

Posted by Jessica on April 30, 2007 at 03:32 PM | #

the fact that, in this day and age, excrament like this site is still online, and that some sad individual takes the time, day in day out, to write it, depresses me. Who ever you are, you must be a sad, lonely, and most certainly traumatised individual. Why do you spend so much time obcessing on such an issue if it so obviously disgusts you, what are you trying to prove? You must have some small amount of intelligence, so dedicate it to something usefull and benificial to humanity instead of this pile of biased, outdated and outmoded dog turd! Get over it, better yet, get a life.

Phew.. I had to let that out.

Posted by Francisco on May 07, 2007 at 05:02 AM | #

The inflammatory comments posted on this site by “antis” are strong evidence of the effectiveness of this site. Obviously the truth touches some very raw nerves. The strength of this site is in the dispassionate and meticulously-documented and sourced information presented, without the excessive hyperbole customarily associated with this topic. Most every “anti”, except for Robert Williamson, resorts to ad hominems and straw men rather than attempting to engage in intelligent discourse, offering rebuttal information.

And Mr. Williamson’s only real problem is his post-modernist interpretation of the Constitution. The First Amendment permits ALL criticism. There is NO right not to be offended. The only type of speech which is actionable, other than libel, is incendiary speech immediately leading to a crime or a breach of public order (the “fire” in a crowded theatre syndrome). All other speech is protected.

Posted by Anchorage Activist on May 07, 2007 at 11:53 AM | #

Thank you “Anchorage Activist” for the compliments.  You are correct, the constitution doesn’t give consideration that free speech may hurt someone’s feelings.  However, I do feel that when the constitution was written they couldn’t have anticipated the huge depth of change and societal complexities it would have to deal with. 
I would like to give an example of the societal complexities that free speech wasn’t meant to deal with.  Forgive me for not taking the time to get the exact details for the following. 
The following made national news.  Coal miners were trapped and killed in a collapsed coal mine in West Virginia.  These rural miners lead a simple life and thought they were going to another routine day on the job the day their life ended.  Their wives, children, families and community all had their life changed forever that fateful day.  The nation was on the edge of it’s seat waiting to see if there would be any survivers from the accident.  However, the loss of life was immense.  After the ordeal, the community thought they would be able to conduct memorial services and bury their friends and family in peace.  However, a christian church (one who has had repeated incidents with thier own local governments) were plotting to remove the civil and moral rights of these coal miner families.  They picketed, blocked churches and funeral homes, held up signs, shouted obsenities, and completely interupted all the funeral services in this small town.  There was no local news coverage and no national media on this event.  Why?  Because this religous cult has conducted theirself in such a manner so many times that media is hoping they will eventually go away when they don’t get the media coverage they are wanting (this coming from my local news stations).  Why did they feel the need to do this against this simple town?  Because they town they lived in just so happened to have the same name as a place in the movie Brokeback Mountain!!  Now, I am not an expert on politics by any means, but I’m pretty sure the constitution wasn’t designed to deal with something of this magnitude. For religious organizations to act in such a manner just reinforces why I have so much contempt for religious organizations.  But, that’s another subject.

So, I do agree there is no right to not be offended.  But I believe when organizations are allowed to publicly criticize a population, especially when those organizations have such political influences, there should be some measure civil rights put into place.  After all, if a group conducted themselves in such a manner towards african americans, the jewish, etc… they would be protected.  Yes, there is the KKK, but I have seen first hand how local governments have grossly restricted their activities on the grounds of protecting the citizens and to some degree the KKK.

I could go more, but let’s see some rebuttal.

Posted by Robert Williamson on May 07, 2007 at 06:57 PM | #

ANCHORAGE ACTIVIST, even though I try to be argumentative in a postivie and intelligent manner, sometimes it is incredibly hard when responding to the types of people that comment on this site and the comments they leave.  Sometimes I think the internet should have an IQ restriction.

Posted by Robert Williamson on May 07, 2007 at 07:00 PM | #

Gregory May: Time for you to learn that people describing unflattering correlates of homosexuality are usually not repressing a homosexual inclination among themselves.

Amused: What is “homophobic” about this site?  The ads are generated by software; I am not controlling them.  Besides, this site is not aiming toward persuading people to refrain from gay sex, and hence a software-generated ad for a gay singles site is not at odds with the educational nature of this site.

Bret: Quite joking.  This is not a religious site.  The heterosexual community is not a community of saints, but is much less afflicted by venereal diseases and an inclination toward bizarre sexual practices compared to homosexuals and bisexuals.

Francisco: Who is working on this site day in and day out?  Haven’t you noticed that it is updated infrequently?  Speaking of excrement, I do believe you know what kind of people often have intimate contact with it.

Posted by Erik on May 09, 2007 at 12:21 PM | #

Robert Williamson: Don’t blame the Church for all of society’s ills.  There is good separation of Church and State in the U.S.  Mainstream U.S. Churches have also been promoting a message of ethnic amity for quite a while.

If organized religion were responsible for anti-gay sentiment in society, then American society would also be expected to be anti numerous other sins that America is awash in, especially usury and gluttony.  How often do you encounter the religious right railing against usury and gluttony?  It is time for you to learn that anti-gay attitudes primarily stem from people being intrinsically repulsed by the sexual behaviors of homosexuals.

You need to quit repeating your assertion of biased portrayal of the nature of homosexuality within this site and my deliberately ignoring evidence to the contrary unless you can back it up with a sufficient amount of data from sources of a similar or better quality.  You need to come up with sources much better than your reference to heterosexual pornography, which you mentioned in response to my statement that the variability of sexual behaviors/interests and the incidence of bizarre sexual practices is much greater among nonheterosexuals compared to heterosexuals, evidence for which is mostly sourced from papers published in peer-reviewed journals.  So don’t tell me to get some papers published; I am citing published papers.

No, I haven’t said that I “KNOW that the studies on this site didn’t use appropriate practices in sampling for statistical research.” I have cited a variety of studies, including random and population based studies, studies based on non-random sampling and anecdotal evidence.  What one needs to consider is whether all the evidence lends itself to a coherent, comprehensive and parsimonious explanation, and here is a detailed explanation justifying the big picture as it is portrayed. 

If I were the kind of person that simply took anything I read as fact, then this site wouldn’t exist because a lot of people have written mutually inconsistent essays and papers on homosexuality.  How would I know what to trust and what not to?

The following quote by you shows that I am wasting my time arguing with you since you, supposedly a mental health professional, have made up your mind before reading my arguments:

I will not be reading your documents, but I am sure I already know what kind of information will be included in them.

What do you mean that I am continually showing support for “the religious belief of homosexuality”?  I have not recommended that people ostracize their loved ones if they turn out to be homosexual, let alone used any religious justification for this.

So you believe that the behavior of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) should not be constitutionally protected?  What do Fred Phelps and other members of this Church do that should not be allowed?  They have an offensive message, protest at funerals, and indulge in numerous outrageous but legal acts designed to bring attention to their message about homosexuality.  Some people find their antics very offensive, but you bet the WBC members find the behaviors of homosexuals and their “enablers” very offensive, too.  Who decides which of these two groups has the right to not be offended?  You must understand that fairness demands that either all parties should have the right to not be offended (translation: most speech is outlawed) or that none should have the right to not be offended.  The best choice, having the greatest appeal to all people taken as a whole, is to lean toward no people having the right to not be offended.  In practice, there are some limitations of speech, but a general effort to expand them should be opposed.

Posted by Erik on May 09, 2007 at 12:22 PM | #

You have got to be kidding!!!  Good seperation of church and state?  Do you actually live in the US?  Where every law, every moral fundamental, even the money we use is based on christian religion.  IN GOD WE TRUST, what do you think will happen when the notion to take that off money will happen.  An interesting debate indeed. 

Its not about the SEX.  How in the world do you think society doesnt like homosexuals because they hate walking down the street and seeing us going at it like rabbits on the corner???  I can’t remember the last time I saw that one.  Really, explain how it’s because of sex.  Because there are a lot more preachers picking up prostitutes on the corner than there are guys having sex in the open on a busy street!

Your citing published papers, from what journals have they been published in?  Prove your argument, after all thats what this site is for, just give me a list of journals that have published these papers.  I will go look them up.  And don’t say I repeat myself and give an example that I gave one remark about porn.  I may have graduated a long time ago, but I do think it takes more than one singular incident to become repeated, or was there something about porn that made you forget everything else.

Again, you’ve got to be kidding.  Your “detailed explanation” only lends to your attempt to justify that you can’t find valid studies to prove your theories and you have to resort to making studies with similar outcomes fit your needs.  I find it hard to believe you cannot find random sampled studies on homosexual relationships from researchers who are unbiased.  I can remember from all my research classes that NO professor would find your results valid if you did not have a random sampling.  Hell, for my graduating thesis, the emphasis on a random sample was enormous.

Your correct, until you can prove to me that you have a book that is unbiased and filled with accurate and relavent information I will not read it.  However, if you can show me that the sources you collected data from are legit, then I would take that into consideration.  After all, I do enjoy different views of accurately collected data.  But I will not purchase a book such as your that I consider, from the findings on your website, to potentially be a waste of my time and money.

You have stated a religious belief against homosexuality.  When you stated to me that you did not think homosexual people should be able to get married, that was plainly religious.  Marriage is a religious aspect for the heterosexual community, or at least it started as such. 

Your correct, people should have the right to free speech, and I agree that many people are offended by many others in this matter.  However, you are ignoring what I was trying to tell you earlier.  People should be allowed to have their opinions and be able to express them, however, with WBC to picket a town where a tragic accident happened, and to picket that town on the day of a mass funeral and in front of the churches where the funerals were held is going far beyond what free speech was meant to be.  To picket a place because it had the same name as a place in a movie they did not agree with????  To disrespect an entire town on a day of incredible grief and suffering?  Your right, they had the right to voice their opinion.  If you can tell me what it was they were trying to do I will gladly listen.  They werent knowingly picketing gay people, or knowingly picketing openly gay people, they were picketing a town because of their name.  Serioulsy, maybe you can see their justification, I can’t.  And in all fairness, maybe you can help me understand that.

Posted by Robert Williamson on May 09, 2007 at 08:50 PM | #

Erik, I do not understand “quite joking.” It does not make any sense. Are you a stroke victim? Or are you just a terrible proof reader? (Hire a Mexican!)
The frequency of high STI’s are not among heterosexuals? Are you kidding? Check out the information on the CDC website. Did you know that Viagra has caused a +300% increase in STI’s in the aged? And really, we all know that poor people are riddled with diseases. As for paraphilias, did you know most child abusers are straight men? There are more “plushies” in the straight community than the GBLT. Heck, even the last republican candidate for Senator in Illinois, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race because he and his wife went to sex clubs and had sex in front of other people—or so the story goes. Most Internet porn is heterosexual. Please do an Internet search for “swingers” or “cream pie” and see how many GLBT sites show up. Oh, and at least look up the word “sublimation.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_&#x28;psychology&#x29;
Please take your head out of your fanny hole; you would do better to replace it with a nice hard..... Well, you know.

Posted by Bret on May 10, 2007 at 02:29 AM | #

Bret: I apologize for misspelling “quit” as “quite.” But, you really do need to quit joking and not pretend as if no data to counter the substance of your comment has already been provided.  Compared to heterosexuals, STIs are much more common among homosexual and bisexual individuals.  As for the 300% increase, STIs are very uncommon among the elderly and even a small increase in infections will translate to a large percentage increase.  If you are going to address the relationship between child sexual abuse and sexual orientation, you must take into account the proportion of people with various sexual orientations.  Homosexuals and bisexuals are clearly overrepresented among child molesters in reference to their numbers in the population.  So what if most internet porn is heterosexual?  Most people are heterosexual, and the consumption of pornography does not constitute indulgence in sexual behavior.  The sexuality section of this site cites an abundance of data showing a much higher prevalence of bizarre sexual practices among homosexuals and bisexuals, the vast majority of it taken from peer-reviewed journals.  If you are going to dispute the arguments, you must cite data of similar or better quality or please don’t comment here.

Robert: Just because U.S. currency has “In God we trust” written on it does not mean that that Christianity is the law of the land.  Why was Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore removed from office for refusing to bring down the 10 commandments monument from the State Supreme court building if America is so Christian?  Why do attempts to teach intelligent design in science classes usually end up defeated by courts?  Why have nativity scenes sometimes been banned by judges, why have retailers been renaming Christmas trees as “Holiday trees,” why have schools increasingly forbidden children from singing Christmas carols?  Christianity has an increasingly limited influence in the U.S., and separation of Church and State is the law of the land.

You really believe that anti-gay sentiments do not primarily stem from disgust at homosexual behavior?  It will be difficult for you to understand that what comes naturally to you is regarded with revulsion by most people.  People do not need to catch homosexuals in the act to be disgusted by homosexual behavior.  Knowledge of what homosexuals do/what they are attracted to is enough to disgust most people.

What do you mean what journals the papers that I have been citing been published in?  Have you not noted the citations at the bottom of most pages/sections within this site?  These citations mention the journal names.  Look them up.

Where have I said that I have not been able to find studies with random sampling?  I have found and cited plenty of such studies.  So you will read my book if I prove that it is unbiased and filled with accurate and relevant data?  The only way for you to find out the answer to this question is to read the book and see for yourself.  After all, any other person’s view could be biased, couldn’t it?  Of course, I cannot meet your requirements.  Here is a list of the sources of the data that I have used in my book, but I don’t think this will persuade you to read the book.  Most of the citations in the book are from peer-reviewed journals, and whereas there are rare references to anti-gay sites, these references are not used to support the arguments but to provide illustrative examples of anti-gay sites or some other context.  It is obviously inappropriate to criticize someone unless you have read the person’s argument, so please quit doing so.

Just because someone is not in favor of same-sex marriage does not mean that this attitude stems from religious beliefs.  Nowhere have I stated that my belief that homosexuals do not have a right to same-sex marriage is a religious belief.  My argument is clear and free of religion: one does not have a right to demand equivalence for non-equivalent phenomena.

Like I said, WBC members use outrageous tactics to bring attention to their anti-gay message.  If you need to understand why they chose to picket certain locations you need to ask yourself the question what would cause more outrage and you will understand their choices.  I do not endorse their tactics.  However, if you find their behaviors going beyond what free speech “was meant to be,” I am positive that they find the freedom afforded to homosexuals going beyond what was meant to be, too.  When multiple groups are offending each other, who decides whose right to not be offended supersedes that of others?  Please don’t say free speech for me but not for thee.

Posted by Erik on May 10, 2007 at 11:47 PM | #

ERIK: I’ll make a comment shortly but I have a suggestion.  Could you or the website administrator make this text box larger?  I would make comments so much easier to do.  Thanks

Posted by Robert Williamson on May 11, 2007 at 05:24 PM | #

Congratulations! You have obviously put a lot of work into your website, and it is surely leading to a great deal of self-discovery about who you are and who you long to love. Your in-depth research will help you determine the lifestyle with which you will ultimately feel most comfortable.

Keep working toward resolving your guilt issues and ridding yourself of the hatred you have internalized.  Gradually, as your ignorance is replaced with understanding, you will grow to accept yourself (and your gay peers) as God made you. May you be blessed during this difficult but rewarding journey.

Posted by Harriet on May 14, 2007 at 05:15 PM | #

Focusing pedophilia on non-incest molesters is not adequate to address the problem, since conceivably pedophiles may be using others as proxies for what they have done, or are prevented from doing.

Focusing instead on the first time an adult molests a child is more likely to decipher the nature of the problem, and the circumstances that help to bring it about - offering insight into how such patterns become established in the first place.

For a child, one time is enough to leave a lifelong imprint that destroys relationships; hence, repetition is not required for harm.

For predators, one time is never enough since the probability of repetition is extremely high if guilt does not form a part of the experience as disgraceful, shameful or disgusting. The ability to escape once means that a predator will try again.

Hence, the very first contact in that framework is equally critical to address, and should be the focus of examination, and habit forming preoccupation.

Posted by Pat R. on May 22, 2007 at 06:20 AM | #

Everything here makes me so sick & sad…
Anger, discrimation, hatred and mistrust has overwhelmed rationality, justice & wisdom of the human kind.
I hope you can truly release yourself from all these devils, I pray

Posted by JC on June 01, 2007 at 09:00 PM | #

Man, real neat site! Seems quite academic - so much so that homosexuals would rather turn hetrosexuals than read about it! (just kiddin’)
Way to go man!

Posted by Faezal Yunus on July 08, 2007 at 07:50 PM | #

wow. the worst kind of anti-gay propaganda - hatred and ignorance in the guise of an ‘un-biased’ report. just because you’ve thrown in some footnotes doesn’t make your ‘information’ credible. it’s clear you’re getting your rocks off writing about this. you should spend your time examining why you’re so fascinated with the ‘gay lifestyle’, not in culling bs info from gay porn and skewed ‘statistics’ and passing them off as truth.

one of the most ridiculous things i’ve heard in a long time: “it is worth noting that a number of gluttons that insist on the acceptance of obesity are feminists, who are typically both obese and practicing homosexuals. Therefore, practicing homosexuals appear to be especially unique sinners from a Christian standpoint.”

feminists are typically both obese and practicing homosexuals???? i can understand this kind of backwards nonsense from the likes of drug-addicted Rush Limbaugh or self-addicted Bill O’Reilly, but from a website that pretends to be objective?? shameful. NONE of the women i know who would call themselves a feminist are obese lesbians! and i know a LOT of women that are feminists! as do i know a lot of women and men who are gay, and i can honestly say that nothing that i’ve read here is even close to being true about the way they live their lives.

i only hope that others who come across this embarassing site can see it for what it is - biased hateful material for ‘straight’ men to affirm their bigotry towards people they are simultaneously disgusted and titillated by. porn in disguise. shame on you.

Posted by jill on July 16, 2007 at 03:16 PM | #

I think it’s terrifying that the Christian faith chooses to focus so much attention on just a few scriptures.

The fundamental message on this site is that homosexuality is wrong.  What is the fundamental message of the Bible and how does hate mongering convey that message?

Historically, the church has made mistakes.  Protestants and Catholics have only recently stopped killing each other.  The Church has alternately promoted slavery, torture, murder, and disenfranchisement of women throughout its history.  Just in case you want to dispute that, I welcome you to visit Cape Town and I will take you to the “Slave Church”.  A church built in the 1800’s especially for slaves to worship in, away from the white folk. 

The Bible hasn’t changed in that time, but the Churches interpretation has.

The children of today’s Church are going to have to apologize for your behaviour just as you have to apologize for the behaviour of the historical Church.

Nobody says anywhere on this site that “Jesus loves you and wants you to get to know him”.  I have a real problem with Christians who promote hatred and forget the central message of the Bible.  The Bible is GOOD NEWS, not a means to judge and divide.  It should be shared with love and not used to hit people over the head with. 

Jesus said that he came for prostitutes and sinners, yet now his followers disdain to show love.  What harsh judgment awaits them who ignore our Lords commandment to love one another?

Gays are welcome in my church and I don’t know anybody in my church who isn’t a sinner of some sort.  Your site makes them feel unwelcome and denies them the opportunity to know the love of Jesus.

Posted by Andy on July 31, 2007 at 07:58 AM | #

"The person behind this site is neither an American nor is English his native language.”

Erik certainly does has an American mailing address:

[Address removed by webmaster; do not post it.]

Posted by Informer on August 01, 2007 at 03:43 AM | #

That was a great one INFORMER… LOL

Why would someone say they aren’t American or speak english but have a postal address within the United States?

Posted by Robert Williamson on August 02, 2007 at 06:09 PM | #

What a load of SHIT… It’s a shame that you and your members have so much time to devote to hatred of other people, you obviously have nothing better in your lives to do than end up at sites like this… I suggest you look at your own lives before you start bitching at others.. You also seem to be missing the fact that the majority of pedophiles are hetrosexual.. So maybe you could explain that away… Get a life you cock sucking closet queens… You also missed the statistic that the majority of poofter bashers are themselves gay or bi, which I think says more about hetrosexuals than it does about homosexuals…

Posted by George Bush on September 09, 2007 at 02:20 AM | #

I’m Gay.

I’m healthy.

I contribute to the world and make it a better place.

I believe in mankind.

This website makes me laugh… keep up the good work!?!

Posted by drew on November 05, 2007 at 01:40 PM | #

On your defintion of gay terms, you state that a “fag hag” and a “fruitfly” are the same thing. You are completely misinformed. A “fag hag” is a straight woman who is sexually attracted, often exclusively, to gay men. “A fruitfly” is a straight woman who loves to hang out with gay men and will have many gay male friends, but she is sexually attracted to straight men.

Posted by Bob Amsel on November 16, 2007 at 07:12 AM | #

Erik: It’s sad how uninformed you are.

“STIs are very uncommon among the elderly and even a small increase in infections will translate to a large percentage increase.”

This is quite wrong. As a holder of an advanced degree in psychology with emphasis on sexuality and LGBTA, I can say even this fact is incorrect. The elderly are the fastest growing group of individuals and are the most at risk for STIs.

“Some STIs (sexually transmitted infections) are rare, which means that whereas the promiscuous will have a several-fold higher prevalence of these STIs, the absolute prevalence of STIs among the promiscuous will be low/very low.”

There is absolutely no backing for this! If STIs were rare, there would be no need for the massive educational movement, medical treatment, and research advancement that has taken place. I would like to see EXACTLY where you found this information, because it certainly isn’t true. Your data also refers to “self-reported infections”. Even an elementary understanding of statistics would tell you that self-reporting is almost always drastically below the actual amount, and frequently completely incorrect.

“Regardless of whether homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle or something innate, there are negative correlates of homosexuality, and if one is to be educated about homosexuality at all, then some of these negative correlates need to be taught, too.”

An individual with basic knowledge of research would know that CORRELATION DOES NOT MEAN CAUSATION. There is a correlation between ice cream cones sold in New Jersey and the number of shark attacks on the coast of the United States every year. This does not mean one causes the other. Yet again, please show real and reliable sources if you are going to spout ignorant bigotry.

Posted by Jenn on January 13, 2008 at 02:50 AM | #

This site claims to be info?
From when, 300 years ago?
Haven’t you ever heard of heterosexual men and women inserting things in their ass?  I’m sure if you do even five minutes of searching on the net, you will find many stories of heterosexuals engaging in this “homosexual activity”.  Whats with trying to link pedophilia to homosexuals?  Unfortunately, many little girls are molested in todays messed up society.  Or would you try to claim that it’s a homosexual mad at the girl for not being a boy?  I suppose it’s good that the net is a place for freedom of expression with websites but, you’re fighting a losing battle here.  Mostly because your theories fall apart the second you apply logic to them, and i’m a very happy bisexual with an awesome girlfriend and a trusting and respectable male partner to occasionally mingle with.

Posted by brian on May 09, 2008 at 12:17 AM | #


It’s good to hear from an intelligent, educated, informed individual.

Thank you

Posted by Robert Williamson on May 09, 2008 at 07:31 PM | #

I think not enough attention is given to the role that copper toxicity has in both bipolar and homosexual individuals.  Boys are more likely to be gay or bipolar than girls.  This might be because boys are more vulnerable to copper toxicity than girls. 

I’m getting more and more convinced that copper is playing a huge role in both conditions.  I hope someone out there takes this post seriously.

It’s relatively easy to find out if you are susceptable to copper.  Just down a half gallon of soy milk.  Eat a huge bar of chocolate and then gorge on pate or other foods high in copper content. 

If you notice insomnia and other difficulties then you might be suffering from copper toxicity or maybe even Wilson’s disease.

Posted by Carl Linne on March 23, 2009 at 11:57 AM | #

Well having read this blog I would like to make the following comments:

1. Go to lube tube and you will see how many hetero films are only doing anal sex - constant references to “disgusting behaviour of gay sex practices is what people abhor” - is this referring to them kissing?  Surely its not anal sex as it seems all the heteros are now on that bandwaggon.
2. I have never met (and I am in my 40s now) a gay man who has had to wear panty pads as he is incontinent - rubbish.
3. You seem to think that HIV “crossed over from gay sex via bisexual men” - there is absolutely no proof of this as HIV types have been around for decades… the African strains and example does disprove this statement.
4. Mental health issues with gay men - I would say personally that mental health incidence in the UK is higher in the afro-carribean community, but I would not dream of attributing mental health issues to them being black - again rubbish statement.
5. Incidence of parasitic presence in the gut of gay males you say is higher than heterosexuals - I can inform you now that the figures you present cannot be true - ano-bocal contact between gay males is not frequently practised, yet your site seemed to suggest that this was normal sexual behaviour.  Of my own experience I would say that under 10% of gay men I have ever had sex with have wished to engage in this activity - again your figures do not add up.
6. I have seen nothing from the Lancet - you need to get proper studies - also cross sample studies of healthy gay men vs healthy heteros - not just studies of out-patients.
7. Sad that the internet is a voicebox for such blatant homophobia masking as emprical research and evidence.

Posted by Peter Bradley on July 09, 2009 at 07:19 PM | #

Peter, I find that all you points are valid, but I particularly want to zero in on your comment regarding mental health issues with gay men.

Many years ago, I was actively involved in the gay equality movement in New York. This was at a time when the psychiatric community was still split on whether or not homosexuality was a “mental illness.” Ultimately, the American Psychiartic Association ruled that it was not. But despite this, some renegade shrinks continued to preach that being gay was a “sickness” and that they could “cure” the sickness. Dr. Charles Socarides was the the most vocal of this lot, and we used to debate him regularly. I think he was well meaning, but this shrink never did understand that the gay folk who came to him in hopes of changing their orientation were indeed unhappy and depressed, as he suggested. Our side tried to point out that there were many more gay people who did not wish to change or to seek his therapeutic help, some who were actually content being true to their own natures.

Although Dr. Socarides died four years ago, his god played a little trick on him by providing him with an attractive gay son, Richard, who grew up to be a gay activist and now manages to make up for all the sins of his father.

As for the right-wing Christian bible-thumpers, they like to cherry-pick their way through the Old and New testaments, ignoring the hundreds of thou-shalt-nots that don’t promote their personal bigotry. What Jesus had to say on this subject (nothing) doesn’t really interest them. They also ignore everything Jesus was attributed to have said about not judging others or loving one’s neighbors.

Posted by Bob Amsel on July 09, 2009 at 10:23 PM | #


One must be extremely devoted… no, obsessed ...with a subject to create an AMAZING site like this.  What I find most amazing is the author’s repeated use of the word “empirical” as if to dress up the sad truth (that the author is homophobic) while generously congratulating himself on his scholarly acumen (which is debatable). 

The real meat appears to be in the “Sexuality” tab, where the author painstakingly describes every act of homosexual expression he could get his hands on.  It must have been fun writing that.  Unfortunately, the readers will be shocked and disappointed to know that homosexuals and bisexuals neither invented nor corner the market on any of these activities. 

I jest, of course.  The only readers taking this stuff seriously are those looking to fortify their self-righteousness and perhaps a handful of gullible individuals who cannot, nor will probably ever have the opportunity even write a term paper.

I could go on, but I must get back to my job of raising millions of dollars for a gay cause.  Do yourself a favor, please… Get some real scholarly review before you publish.  Things like limiting the spiritual topic strictly to good old Christianity (you didn’t even title the section “Religion.” Nope, just Christianity… that’s all there is!), are not even smart enough to insult people with a bachelor degree. 

Bottom line, this is truly sensational stuff (as in sensationalism, in case you didn’t get that).


Posted by Mike Ator on July 14, 2009 at 05:34 PM | #

Someone played a trick on me.  I thought this was a site for HOT FISTING ACTION.  He’s right about one thing:

“Inserting a fist into the rectum is not easy.”

...but it sure is fun!  Remember kids, play safe and don’t use drugs!

The Milkman

Posted by Harvey on July 14, 2009 at 05:45 PM | #

As a scientist, it’s fairly appalling to me that you would present scientific research skewed and invariably misinterpreted to serve your own purpose. As a second observation, for an individual who quite clearly has an agenda against homosexuality, you certainly have spent a great deal of time and have done fairly extensive research in some “interesting” areas. Another idea is that you might have a greater propensity for this topic than you may like to admit.

Posted by Roger on October 29, 2009 at 01:15 AM | #

ROGER:  Thank you.  You’re another name on the list of the numerous people who have been able to see the true intent of this information.  Not only that, but also able to see the true “behind the scenes” message about the moderator reflected through this material.

Posted by Robert Williamson on December 15, 2009 at 05:58 PM | #

Although clearly trying not to appear bias, there is bias within this site, however, ignoring that, your section on aids annoys me, because, being gay, I understand there is an increased risk in homosexuals catching it, but that isn’t what you’ve said, you’ve said that it enrages some homosexuals. What about the others that it hasn’t enraged? There are other points on this site that show similar biasy that make homosexuals appear out to be irrational and mentally unstable social retards. Well done.
Also, I can’t help but notice that your section on Christianity completely defends Christians and their views, however you must remember Christianity is used to justify such irrational views. You haven’t explored the fact that their disgust towards homosexuals is irrational, because, although hetrosexual sexual acts frankly disgust me, I do not express hate towards hetrosexuals. Some are my best friends. I am not hetrophobia, because it’s irrational, but so is homophobia. Or rather. Hetrophobia is no more irrational than homophobia.

Posted by Ed on June 08, 2010 at 04:44 PM | #

What the fuck?
Why do some people take it upon themselves to be utter CUNTS?
You’re trying to RUIN the lives of people you know NOTHING about.
I’m SO fucking glad that where I live, people like you are recognised for what you are; fucking thick bigots.
You’ve made me fucking angry tonight. Well done.

Posted by You're a bunch of cunts on June 08, 2010 at 07:20 PM | #

Lol Barney. Nice comment wink
They are idiots. And when I say idiots, I mean, ignorant, arrogant, self-centred, selfish, overly-smug, hypocritical milfs, except you don’t want to fuck the milf, because she’s so ugly, homophobic and actually she turned you gay in the first place.

Posted by Ed on June 09, 2010 at 05:26 AM | #

Here’s a thought.
If 87% of the population hate gays, why are entirely all of these comments so negative toward this page and it’s disgustingly medieval views?
I’ll be honest, I’m not gay or bisexual. I’m just accepting. Tolerance is one thing, accepting is another. You can be tolerant and hold a grudge, but even that has a sense of negativity. Homosexuals will always be attacked, and it’s thanks to idiots like you. My best friend is gay, and I love him to bits. He means the world to me. I might not like what he does sexually, but to be honest, he doesn’t like what I do sexually. That is absolutely NO excuse for homophobia, or he’d be just in being hetrophobic. Instead he has to accept all us hetrosexuals and accept our [[and when I say our, I mean your]] disgusting attitudes towards him.
Go die.

Posted by Tom on June 09, 2010 at 05:31 AM | #

Thank you for the christian perspective! After reading many of the pages here I decided to break up with my girlfriend of 9 months and start sleeping with guys. Its been great! Thanks for your help.

Posted by Jarrod on July 16, 2010 at 10:17 AM | #

i found the tips on fisting helpful, it worked well during our threesome, i recommend it for everyone out there

Posted by Jozsef Polinski on July 16, 2010 at 10:20 AM | #

Nice one Jarrod. I’m not sure on the ethical side of dating a girl is, before breaking up for a guy, unless you’re bisexual, in which case good on you, but otherwise it gives homosexuals a negative image to deceive and lie, although I’m sure you wouldn’t for 9 months smile.
Just be true to yourself.

Posted by Ed on July 19, 2010 at 02:14 PM | #

married, if you cannot see that these views are clearly of a warped narrowminded man, then you need some serious reflecting time to reassess yourself.

Posted by joe on September 12, 2010 at 05:06 PM | #

Very good, very informative.
Sometimes provocative, but in a good way.
I intend to use some of the material on our website. Thanks.

Homoseksualizm, ani duma, ani wybór.

Posted by homoEDUpl on October 20, 2010 at 04:10 PM | #

Well, I am back after five years and I guess it’s refreshing to find that Erik and Anchorage are still bitter, hateful, closeted homosexuals. You seem more obsessed and more interested in gay sex than any gay person I know. Come one now, you know what homophobia really says about you, right??? I am happy to see that so many of you have argued with these clowns. The sad thing is they are too close minded to see any other point of view, so it’s almost a waste of time.

Posted by Michael on May 17, 2011 at 05:22 AM | #

<< Back to main

Blog navigation

Latest comments by...

  • Michael in Welcome!.

  • paris sportifs in Anal Eroticism: Self-administration of an Epoxy Resin Adhesive into the Rectum.

  • Alison in Restroom (Public Toilet) Maintenance: How to Protect Them from Homosexuals.

  • LLY in The Latvian Attitude toward Gay Pride.

  • Dave in The Latvian Attitude toward Gay Pride.

  • Salata in Anal Eroticism: Self-administration of an Epoxy Resin Adhesive into the Rectum.

  • Rain in The Latvian Attitude toward Gay Pride.

  • Rain in The Latvian Attitude toward Gay Pride.

  • LLY in The Latvian Attitude toward Gay Pride.

  • Nick Jones in The Latvian Attitude toward Gay Pride.

  • Nick Jones in The Latvian Attitude toward Gay Pride.

  • Akea in The Latvian Attitude toward Gay Pride.

  • LLY in The Latvian Attitude toward Gay Pride.

  • Concerts torrents in The Latvian Attitude toward Gay Pride.

  • barbie games in Anal Eroticism: Self-administration of an Epoxy Resin Adhesive into the Rectum.