Please note that “heterosexist” is not a derogatory term and is simply a definitionally correct term to use here based upon the article that this response is directed towards.

I will detail how the sources/references of the information you provide have no validity what so ever (at least in terms of conveying the heterosexist message that your post is designed to convey) and how you may actually be violating this website’s policy by including information from recognized hate groups in your post. It would take too long and be too lengthy for me to do a response to every point made and most, if not all of it is fabricated or misrepresented or based upon flawed methodology etc (as I will demonstrate), which is why I am attacking the references.

NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

10 REFERENCES

If you actually look at the references you will see that many of them are from magazines/newspapers. Hardly peer-reviewed scientific research. You can get anything you want from a newspaper/magazine…. members of the public can and do even write in to them and journalists are not scientific researchers… to use them as a source in a proper debate is ludicrous. They are not based upon empirical evidence and are not even expert opinion, they are simply a random person’s opinion.
(1) Advocate, 1985
(10) Kaifetz, J. “Homosexual Rights Are Concern for Some,” Post-Tribune, 18 December 1992
(12) Lesbian News, January 1994
(17) Newsweek, February 1993
(18) Newsweek, 4 October 1993
(20) Rueda, E. “The Homosexual Network.” Old Greenwich, Conn., The Devin Adair Company, 1982, p. 5
(22) San Francisco Sentinel, 27 March 1992
(23) Science Magazine, 18 July 1993, p. 322
(25) “The Overhauling of Straight America.” Guide Magazine. November, 1987
* (27) United States Congressional Record, June 29, 1989

*Reference 27 is actually just a record of what is said in congress debates. So what it amounts to is that a politician (not a qualified researcher or medical practitioner) once said the things attributed to reference 27. And by “once” we mean 22 years ago. Despite being a mere politician, this source is used in your article to make claims about the history of homosexuality and a couple of STIs.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/index.html

All other references listed above are newspapers or magazines. That is 10 references, over 1 third of the references for your article that have no scientific validity whatsoever. This is indicative of what we can expect from the ones that remain.

SOME SOURCES ARE NOT USED FOR ANY RELEVANT POINT OR NOT USED AT ALL:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

6 REFERENCES

Your article Only cited the following 4 references when referring to the population of homosexuals (not for any other points in your article) and 2 of them are 2 of the more reliable looking references in your study:
(15) Morton-Hunt Study for Playboy
(23) Science Magazine, 18 July 1993, p. 322
(28) University of Chicago’s Nation Research Corp
(26) United States Census Bureau

They are used as follows:
“Current research shows that the true percentage of homosexuals is in the 1-2% range (15,23,26,28). Consider how small this number is when compared to most of the numbers above.”

Of course not only is this irrelevant but it is also only a collection of those studies/surveys showing the smallest values. Here is a more thorough quote:
“In the modern West, according to major studies, 2% to 13% of the population are homosexual.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] A 2006 study suggested that 20% of the population anonymously reported some homosexual feelings, although relatively few participants in the study identified themselves as homosexual.[19] Homosexual behavior is also widely observed in animals.[20][21][22][23][24]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality

References 14 and 21 don’t even appear to be used in the article (according to my skim read and use of Ctrl F).
(14) Manlight, G. et. al. “Chronic Immune Stimulation By Sperm Alloantigens.” J. American Med. Assn., 1984, 251(2), pp. 237-438
(21) San Francisco AIDS Foundation, “Can We Talk.”

AGE OF REFERENCES/SOURCES:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The average (mean) year in which the references in your article are from is 1986.
That’s 25 years ago… while this alone is not a total destruction of the article’s validity, it is another subtle hint about it’s reliability. Has the article’s creator had to cherry pick little bits of “information” from across the decades to try and make their argument seem valid perhaps? This also makes it significantly harder to find the originals to actually analyze their content (another ploy?).

HATE GROUPS, PAUL CAMERON AND MISREPRESENTED STUDIES:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

REFERENCE (7)

Those references that sound semi-credible actually aren’t, such as reference 7:
“(7) Family Research Institute, Lincoln, NE”

“The Family Research Institute is considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.[10][11]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Institute

The SPLC is not an agenda-laden extremist hate organization (unlike the FRI) either:
“The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an American nonprofit civil rights organization. It is internationally known for legal victories against white supremacist groups; free legal representation for victims of hate groups; monitoring of hate groups, militias and extremist organizations; and educational programs that promote tolerance.[2][3][4]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center

Paul Camron is the founder of the Family Research Institute. Surprise surprise, his work is used quite a bit in your article. Please observe how he was kicked out of multiple prestigious scientific associations due to malpractice. His work has also been frequently demonstrated to be methodologically flawed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Cameron#From_professional_organizations

REFERENCE (4)

For instance, your reference 4 (based upon some earlier surveys by him) actually has multiple methodological flaws, each sufficient to destroy it’s validity (see the URL).
(4) Cameron et. al. ISIS National Random Sexuality Survey. Nebraska Med. Journal, 1985, 70, pp. 292-299
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_survey.html

REFERENCE (19)

Reference 19 is almost certainly another reference to some of Paul Cameron’s work, which as detailed in the following link is a very poor journal in terms of the standard means of testing a journals prestige (and therefore likely value). See the link for that info (the quote makes other points).
(19) Psychological Reports, 1986, 58, pp. 327-37

“Psychological Reports publishes a larger number of articles and has a lower rejection rate than is typical for psychology journals. According to JCR in 1994 and 1995, for example, Psychological Reports was the third largest journal for which statistics were collected, publishing 510 articles in 1994 and 504 articles in 1995.

Psychological Reports is also different from the vast majority of psychology and social science journals in that it requires contributing authors to pay a fee (in recent years, $27.50 per page). The practice of charging a per-page fee or requiring purchase of preprinted copies of the article is rare in
psychological and social science journals. Such per-page fees are not charged by the high-prestige psychology journals (e.g., those published by the American Psychological Association and the Association for Psychological Science).”
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_journals.html

REFERENCE (3)

The very first point in your article cites reference 3:
(3) Bell, A. and Weinberg, M. Homosexualities: a Study of Diversity Among Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978

I was unable to find the original because it is sooo old… however, I found a review which includes details of this studies findings, as follows (your reference 3 is the first one mentioned in the quote below):

“RESEARCH ON HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES: AN OVERVIEW”
Letitia Anne Peplau, PhD

“Evidence (e.g., Bell & Weinberg, 1978) indicates that most homosexuals want to have a steady love relationship and find this preferable to having only casual liaisons. Research also shows that lesbians and gay men look to their relationships primarily for affection and companionship-goals much like those of matched groups of heterosexuals ( e .g. , Peplau & Cochran, Note 1; Ramsey, Latham, & Lindquist, Note 2).”

“Two studies (Cardell, Finn, & Marecek, 1981; Ramsey et a l .Note 2) compared lesbian, gay male, and heterosexual couples on measures of relationship adjustment. In both studies, the homosexual couples scored in the “well-adjusted range and were indistinguishable on this basis from the heterosexuals. Peplau and Cochran (Note 1) compared matched samples of lesbians, gay men, and heterosexuals on measures of love and liking for their primary partner; again, no significant differences were found among groups”
http://www.peplaulab.ucla.edu/publications_files/peplau%2082.pdf

So it seems that the findings of the study you referenced are not actually the findings depicted within your article. Paul Cameron is also known for misrepresenting the findings of a number of studies (in some cases using them to argue conclusions that the study authors specifically identified as not being the case).

REFERENCE (9)

Does anybody know what “The Gay Report” is :D?
(9) Jay and Young. The Gay Report. Summit Books, 1979, p. 275

The following link provides a full, logical critique of it’s methodology:
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,005.htm

If you don’t want to read all of that then here is a brief quote from it:

“They were also heavily criticized by reputable researchers in the field for suffering from some very serious methodological flaws. The many shortcomings of these informal surveys have become so widely recognized that they are rarely performed anymore, except for those magazines which continue to perform them purely for the sake of titilating entertainment. Their methodological flaws have rendered them largely useless from a statistical standpoint. The Gay Report provides a typical example of these shortcomings.”

The article goes on to describe many specific ways in which the methodology of the survey was flawed.

REFERENCE (8)

The Anti Defamation League has a page dedicated to Edward Fields, the author of Reference 8 (a Neo-Nazi, White supremacist, anti-Semitic, anti-Communist according to them).
(8) Fields, Dr. E. “Is Homosexual Activity Normal?” Marietta, GA
http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Fields.asp?xpicked=2&item=Fields

Again this reference also appears to be little more than the opinion of a random member of the populace, not an expert on anything (it is not a scientific, peer-reviewed paper). As an added bonus, this person is a known associate of hate groups…

REFERENCE (13)

In an American Psychological Association article on bias against LGBT people within the mental health profession, reference 13 of your article (which is used to suggest that psychologists believe homosexuals to be less happy due to being homosexual) is listed under the heading “Bias in Therapy with Lesbian and Gay Men”. I.E. your reference 13 is a study specifically designed to show prejudice among mental health practitioners at the time. So using it to show the opinion of some mental health practitoners in that study at the time shows nothing more than their prejudice…
(Page 12 is the references)
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/issues.aspx
(13) Lief, H. Sexual Survey Number 4: Current Thinking on Homosexuality, Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 1977, pp. 110-11

The original study is soo old (34 years old) that I unfortunately could not find it.

SUMMARY:
~~~~~~~~

Not all of your references have been covered, simply because I believe enough has been said to completely destroy the validity of any points you could possibly claim to have made.

I have demonstrated a range of massive flaws in your article. Over a 3rd of your references are newspaper or magazine articles, others are not even used in your article, some that are make a mute and incorrect point and finally, multiple sources of yours have been misrepresented or are known hate groups. Your post therefore seems to be nothing more than propaganda, with no substance to it whatsoever.

Finally, this is a study showing the effects of family rejection of LGB people’s sexuality upon the characteristics they are often criticized for:

Caitlin Ryan PhD, ACSW et al. 2009:
“Lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults who reported higher levels of family rejection during adolescence were 8.4 times more likely to report having attempted suicide, 5.9 times more likely to report high levels of depression, 3.4 times more likely to use illegal drugs, and 3.4 times more likely to report having engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse compared with peers (other LGBT people) from families that reported no or low levels of family rejection.”
http://tinyurl.com/LGBTStudy

This is one of many studies that demonstrates the great hypocrisy of heterosexists, who’s (often hateful) stigmatization of homosexuals and homosexuality result in a number of negative effects, which ironically are then attributed by those heterosexists to homosexuality. Note that this study is not 25 years old and is not published in a fringe journal by a known hate group or individual and (unlike your article’s references), a link is provided. Many others show the same trends.

Gee, I must be perfect!!!

Oh, wait… I’m not! Shit, wait… the above mentioned statistics are all BULL SHIT!

Men on average lie about their sexual encounters. More straight men hang out at gay cruise sites than gay men… Oh yes, some straight men LOVE getting and giving it up the ass!!!

Yes, we happy homo’s are, well, that much closer to happiness than the average Republican Housewife. Statistics show that most of your husbands have had sex – more than once – with a prostitute, rent boy and/or both.
It’s the Catholic Priests that like the little boys. We gay men prefere proper COCK! I want to suck on something substantial, not some little skin flap the size of a tooth pick!

Think about it when your husband tells you that he has to work late :-) I bet you most of you are thinking about this right now… Strange hours, him not answering his cell… oooh, what on earth is he up to?

So you don’t eat pork either? Which means that you should not celebrate Christmas because it is a Pagan Holy Day… Which means that you would be a bigot if you do… which means that you do in fact have no real idea what you are on about. SPOT ON!!! I had sex with a republican once… poor fool. Small penis. It was bad.

At Shelly. I am sorry for what I said about you, though I hope you were horrified and hurt! I would love to have you walk in the shoes of some of the gay people I know. If you don’t kill yourself by the end of one week, good for you. But I promise you that your life will never be the same after that!!!

You might think that God is so anti gay, but let me tell you a little something. The first translated version of the Bible was done by the Romans… December 25th is a Roman/ Pagan Holy day, it marks the rebirth of the sun god… I have a million other little facts to throw at you about religion, sexuality and that horrible nation of yours…

I hope all goes well. Thanks for those who stood up to this silly woman! I pray you all have a blessed life!

God be with you!

Fact, Homosexual men take better care when it comes to sex and STD’s
Fact, More than 60% of people wth STD’s and STI’s are HETEROSEXUSAL!!!

Fact, I would rather have my dick sucked by a gay man than a woman.

Fact, Freedome of speach doesn’t mean you have the right to judge people just because some book written by a non Christian party thought it wrong.

Here’s a sad little reminder for you. You wouldn’t have nice hair, good clothes or anything tasteful if it wasn’t for the gay community. They are the trendsetters and the people who braught good taste to the world…

But then again, you are probably some fat chick with a mullet living in a trailer with a dog named after some local beer brand and a husband who can’t get it up, thus leaving you craving sex and an overwhealming appitite for fried chicken while watching your sister on the Jerry Springer show kissing your brother while pregnant with your cousin’s son.

A bit harsh? Deal with it. You can dish out the hate, then so can everybody else… freedome of speach!!!