My reply

As many would know, there is a blog on friendster which had insulted homosexuals by stating that it plain digusts him and that homosexuality is "wrong".

Those are just his point of view and he has the freedom to actually say what he wants and write whatever he wants in his blog. But if he had stopped there, I would have just brushed it off because I have seen too many people like this who just can't seem to get their head out of their asses.

But he just HAD to say that his writings are correct because they are not his point of view but he found all those information through "research". And basically this just pissed me off. Because in my head, this is a little kid who is claiming that the has found the reasons to why homosexuality is wrong and he even LISTED the reasons WHY people become homosexuals.

So, I asked for a list of references and here they are:

To -ryu- about the links, sorry there are none. Just reference books. I'll just
put some though, the list seems unbelivable long.
References: Straight or
Narrow? page 110-111; Archives of General Psychiatry 48, page 127; The Gay
Report by K. Jay and A. Young, pg 728; Sex in America by R Michael, pg 216; The
Wounded Heart by Dan Allender pg 127 or if you just want the list and other
resources, contact Jeff Olson, RBC Ministries. (PO Box 15, Geylang Post Office,
Singapore 913801)

I shall go through each of them...

1. Straight or Narrow? page 110-111; Archives of General Psychiatry 48, page 127

I am in high doubts of this article. I did some search for this particular journal but I could not find it. It was not online or in the library.

Not to mention that when I went to the main website for this particular journal (http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/), I just couldn't find this article. You guys can go check it yourselves under the "Past Issues" tab. The volume is there, but the article is not. There is no page 110-111.

There are several reasons why it is missing: 1. The publisher realized that the publication's results are wrong or fabricated; 2. The author took the article off because he realized his results are plain crap; 3. The article has been refuted by other articles. Either way, it shows that the article is not of credible material. Therefore, that's 1 down, 3 to go.

2. The Gay Report by K. Jay and A. Young, pg 728

This one is one of the most hillarious excuse for a reference I have ever seen. The first thing I found out about this book, it that it was published in 1979!!!

Damn, if that wasn't enough for me to rub it into that idiot's little brainless face, I found out more information about the book:

• As an informal survey, the respondents were self-selecting, which encourages those who are more sexually adventurous to participate. A miniscule response rate of little more than 1% exposes the work to the heavy influence of participation bias.
• The respondents who perceived a bias on the part of the authors based on the questionnaires may have participated — or declined to participate — based on whether they believed their answers were what the authors were looking for.
• The respondents who perceive a bias on the part of the authors may have inflated, exaggerated, or otherwise altered their responses in accordance with those perceived biases.
• By relying on readers of a gay porn magazine for a significant bulk of the responses, the authors have virtually guaranteed an exceptionally heavy biased towards the opinions and experiences of those who are much more sexually adventurous. These are hardly your Redbook readers, or even your typical Advocate readers.
• The authors, are Christian activists (need I say more?)

Information from http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,005.htm

If you're interested to find out more reasons why this book is a joke of a publication, go on ahead to the website.

2 down, 2 to go.

3. Sex in America by R Michael, pg 216

This is also one resource I can't get a hard copy from, therefore I'm seriously doubting where the little brainless idiot got all this information (I have an idea but I shall elaborate further on).

Not to mention that the book was about sexual behaviours of Americans. This was not specifically focused on homosexuals. And the main aim was to focus on the risk of AIDS and sexual conduct.

There are 2 very wrong things about this book that I can confidently conclude even without reading this book: 1. It's based on the American population, not everything can be generalized just because they are the country that actually bothered to do a research on sexual conduct... what does that tell you about the condition of the country? (Btw, this book was released in 1995); 2. It FOCUSES ON AIDS AND SEXUAL CONDUCT. I bet the only connection that the little idiot found between this book and homosexuality is one sentence which could have been "Homosexuals have higher risk of getting AIDS through sexual intercourse". And from that one little sentence, he somehow got the idea that ALL homosexuals will get AIDS and use that against homosexuals.

This is not a bad book. It is very informative and could offer alot of interesting facts. But about AMERICANS who are STRAIGHT and also about AIDS. This is not a good reference for information about homosexuals.

Here's 2 links I found information about this book on. The 2nd link is about the author.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/332/21/1452

http://harrisschool.uchicago.edu/faculty/web-pages/robert-michael.asp

3 down, 1 to go.

4. The Wounded Heart by Dan Allender (1990)

Again, I could not access much information about this book. I looked through several reviews and the sypnosis and also about the authors and I can conclude what I know in 2 sentences:

1. It is written in a Christian's perspective about sexual abuse.

Oh man, I can have a field trip stomping this book... First off, written in a CHRISTIAN's perspective??? Look at the blog entry that started all this crap in the first place, it was written in a CHRISTIAN's perspective who so happens to also be a little brainless idiot.

And it's about sexual abuse. Aparently, the book is about sexual abuse victims who are Christians and how they can overcome the trauma by placing their faith in God. But guess who are the sexual abusers, they're usually not strangers, they are usually family members. And in THIS book, the study is about Christian sexual abuse victims, so what does this make the sexual abusers more likely to be? Yeap, Christians.

2. It offers a "spiritual diagnosis".

Please show me research on "spiritual diagnosis". How do you quantify "spiritual diagnosis"? I know you can quantify qualitative information or interviews but how do you quantify "spiritual diagnosis"? If a research can't provide quantitative results, it is NOT a research.

THAT'S 4 DOWN!!!

I also have to state that 3 out of 4 of the references are books. Books released in 1979, 1990 & 1995. All more than 10 years old. They are still good reads (though I beg to differ on the Gay Report) but they DO NOT qualify as sources good enough to reference (especially if you're a brainless little idiot who does not know the consequences of his actions).

And also the place where he suggested I go to for more information is RBC Ministries. A FREAKING MINISTRY!!! OF COURSE YOU'RE GONNA GET ANTI-HOMOSEXUALITY ARTICLES THERE!!!

That is my reply to that little idiot. I know I shouldn't be calling him an idiot but this is MY blog. I did not use any profanity nor was I rude to him when I commented in his blog. I have much more brains than that.

I just found out that his blog has been suspended. And if this was done by any homosexuals or TBs that was flaming him in his blog, I am ashamed to be one of you. This is much too low. He has his right to free speech just like us. Just because he chooses to flaunt his brainlessness doesn't mean you should use profanities and flame him without basis.

That's all I have to say for now.

Peace to the world people... it COULD happen someday...