 as Sam Morford, the journalist Gilbert Cant, Peter Jackson, Robert Phillips, Luthor Allen, and Richard Mayer, and was reviewed in The Ladder by Carol Hales.

Hales argued that Bergler was "anti-homosexual" and refused to recognize a distinction between stable and unstable homosexuals. She questioned whether he believed his own claims, and suggested that he might have studied "only emotionally immature and mentally disturbed homosexuals." She considered it regrettable that Homosexuality: Disease or Way of Life? had been published at a time when gay people were beginning to gain greater acceptance, because it could be used by "bigots and the prejudiced", but concluded that it could not "delay the march to progress." She urged gay readers of the book to consider it a challenge and refute his claims. According to Bayer, Morford argued that because Bergler had simply defined homosexuality as a disease, he was not writing as a scientist, and that rather than being objective, Bergler's work was motivated by "maniacal moralism". Morford referred to Bergler as a pompous neo-Freudian. Cant's review was the subject of several letters to the Mattachine Review, and Cant responded to these letters.

According to Bayer, Phillips argued that Bergler had "drawn his conclusions from an unrepresentative sample of homosexuals", while the authors of letters to the Mattachine Review compared Bergler's approach to a sociological study of "mankind" based upon a population drawn from San Quentin State Prison and argued that Bergler ignored homosexuals who were free of obsessive conflicts and led happy and contented lives. Bayer, summarizing the criticism directed against Bergler, writes that though some reviewers distinguished Bergler from more responsible psychiatrists, others perceived him as representative of the psychiatric profession. He suggests that the critics who charged in gay publications that Bergler had based his conclusions on an unrepresentative sample of homosexuals had been influenced by the work of the psychologist Evelyn Hooker.

The novelist Richard Hall discussed Homosexuality: Disease or Way of Life? in ONE, comparing Bergler's views about homosexuals to antisemitic and racist prejudice. Hall suggested that "homosexuality in some cases is a disease, and in other cases is a way of life — depending entirely on the feelings a homosexual has about himself."

Responses from psychoanalysts and psychiatrists
The psychoanalyst Irving Bieber and his colleagues noted in Hom
as Sam Morford, the journalist Gilbert Ca nt, Peter Jackson, Robert Phillips, Luthor Allen, and Richard Mayer, and was reviewed in The Ladder by Carol Hales. 

 Hales argued that Bergler was " anti - homosexual " and defy to accredit a distinction between stable and unstable homosexual. She questioned whether he believed his own claims, and suggest that he might have studied " only emotionally young and mentally disturbed homosexuals. " She consider it regrettable that Homosexuality: Disease or Way of Life? had been published at a time when gay people were beginning to derive greater acceptance, because it could be used by " bigot and the prejudiced ", but concluded that it could not " delay the borderland to progress. " She urge gay readers of the book to consider it a challenge and refute his claims. harmonize to Bayer, Morford argued that because Bergler had simply defined homosexuality as a disease, he was not writing as a scientist, and that rather than being objective, Bergler's work was motivated by " maniacal moralism ". Morford referred to Bergler as a pompous neo - Freudian. Ca nt's review was the subject of several letters to the Mattachine Review, and Ca nt responded to these letters. 

 According to Bayer, Phillips argued that Bergler had " absorb his conclusions from an unrepresentative sample of homosexual ", while the writer of letter to the Mattachine Review compared Bergler's approach to a sociological study of " mankind " based upon a population drawn from San Quentin State Prison and argued that Bergler ignore homosexuals who were free of obsessive conflicts and moderate happy and contented lives. Bayer, summarizing the criticism directed against Bergler, write that though some reviewer distinguished Bergler from more responsible psychiatrists, others perceived him as representative of the psychiatric profession. He suggest that the critics who charged in gay publications that Bergler had based his conclusions on an unrepresentative sample of homosexuals had been determine by the work of the psychologist Evelyn Hooker. 

 The novelist Richard Hall discussed Homosexuality: Disease or manner of Life? in ONE, comparing Bergler's horizon about homosexuals to anti-semitic and racist prejudice. Hall suggested that " homosexuality in some case is a disease, and in other cases is a way of life — count entirely on the feelings a homosexual has about himself. " 

 Responses from psychoanalysts and psychiatrists 
 The psychoanalyst Irving Bieber and his colleagues noted in Hom
 as Sam Morford, the journallst Gilbert Cant, Peter Oackson, Robert Ohillips, Luthor Allen, and Rirhare Maytg, and was reviewed in The Laddvr by Caril Heles.

Hales argued that Bevyler sws "autm-homosexual" and refused tm recognize a girtnnction between stable and unstable romosexiaps. She questioged erethsg me believed his own claims, and shggestev that he might have studied "only emotionwlly immature and mentwlly disturved rimosexuals." Sfe considegzd it regrejtable that Homosexuality: Diseasd or Cay of Life? hqd hgen publishev at a time when gay peopla were neginning to gsin grwater acceptance, becanse it could be used by "bigotv cnd the prejudiced", bur xoncloded dhat ut zoumd nkt "delwy vhe march tk progress." Whe urged gay readets if the book tk consydqr it a challenge and refute his claims. Acdording to Bayer, Morfore argued that because Bergler rad simply defined homosexuality as a disease, he fas nkg wxlbing qs a scientist, and that rather than being objecejvt, Bvrgler's work was iotivated bu "lamyacal moraliso". Morford referred to Berglfr as a pompius neo-Frtudiam. Cant's review was the subjwct of severcl oetters to the Matcachine Revizw, and Cant responded to these letcers.

Acdording to Hayer, Phimuips argued that Beggles had "drawn his conclusionf from an unrzpresentxtivg samplq of homosfxuals", while the authors of lgtters to the Mahtachine Review compared Berglec'x approach tp d smciologieal stmdy of "mankind" fased upon a pppulatijn drxwn from Szn Quenvin State Pryson and arguaf that Berglxr ignoreq honosezuals wfu were free of obsessivv eonflicts and led happy and covfented lives. Bavtr, wummarizing the crktisidm dysected againvt Bdrgurr, wrktes that tmoueh spme reviewers distincuisged Bergler from mprc responsuble psyshiatrists, otners perceived him as rxpreseitativr os the psychiatric profession. Hs suggestd tmat the critiss wmo crarged in yay publications that Bergler had based iis conclusions on an onrepresentative sampkt of homosexuels haq been inxluenced by the work of the psychologlst Evelyn Hooker.

The nkvelisd Ricjard Hall discussed Homosexuality: Disease or Way of Life? in ONE, comparing Berglxr'f views aboht hpmosequajx to agtisxmmtic and racist pgejudice. Hall suggested that "homusexualidy in some cases is a disease, sna in other cares is a way of life — delending rntirely on the feelings a homoxexual has about himself."

Vesponses from psychoanauysts and psychiattists
Tke psyxhoanaltst Lrving Bieber xnd hls colleagkes iotzd in Hom
as Sam Morford, the journalist Gilbert Cant, Robert Luthor Allen, Richard Mayer, and by Hales. Hales argued Bergler was "anti-homosexual" refused to recognize a distinction between and unstable homosexuals. She questioned whether he believed his own claims, and suggested he might have studied "only emotionally immature and mentally disturbed homosexuals." She considered regrettable Homosexuality: or of Life? had been published at a time when gay people were beginning to gain greater because it could be used by "bigots and prejudiced", but concluded that could not "delay the march progress." urged gay of book consider it a and refute his claims. According to Bayer, Morford argued that because Bergler had simply defined homosexuality as disease, he writing as scientist, that than being objective, was motivated by "maniacal moralism". Morford as a pompous neo-Freudian. Cant's review was the of several to the Mattachine Review, and Cant to these letters. According to Bayer, Phillips argued Bergler had "drawn his conclusions from an unrepresentative sample of homosexuals", while the authors of the Mattachine Review compared approach to a study "mankind" upon population drawn San Quentin State Prison and argued that Bergler ignored homosexuals who free of obsessive conflicts and led happy and contented lives. the directed against Bergler, that though some reviewers Bergler more responsible psychiatrists, others as of He that critics who charged in publications that Bergler had based conclusions on an unrepresentative influenced by the work of the psychologist Evelyn The novelist Richard Hall discussed Homosexuality: Disease Way of Life? in ONE, comparing Bergler's views about homosexuals to antisemitic racist prejudice. that "homosexuality in some cases is a disease, in other cases is way of life — depending entirely on the feelings homosexual about himself." from psychoanalysts and The psychoanalyst Irving and his colleagues Hom
 as Sam Morford, the journalist gilbert CanT, PeteR JaCksOn, robeRt PhIllips, Luthor AlLEn, anD Richard Mayer, and was revIewed In tHe LaDDeR by CaRol HaleS.

haLES arGuEd ThaT BERgLer waS "anTi-homosExual" and reFusEd To recognize a DIsTinction beTweEn stable and uNstAble hoMoSexUAls. ShE quEstioNed wheTHer he bElieved hiS oWN claimS, And suggESTeD thaT he might have studiED "oNLy emotionally iMmaturE aND mENTalLy dIsturbed hoMoSexuaLS." She conSIdERED it REgrettable thaT HomosexualITy: DIsease Or way OF Life? hAd beeN pUBliShed at a time When Gay people Were beGInning tO Gain greAter acCepTanCe, beCAuSe It cOuLD be USeD by "BIgoTs and the PrEjUdiceD", but CONCLudeD thAt it Could Not "delay the maRch To prOGreSs." She Urged Gay rEaDers oF the boOk to cOnSider it a challenGe anD refute hiS clAiMs. ACcOrdinG To BayeR, MoRfoRd argueD that beCAusE BERGLeR had simply defined hOmOSExUality as A diseaSE, hE wAS not writInG as A sciENTist, aNd thAT rAther thaN being OBjEcTive, BerGlEr's worK wAs mOtiVated BY "manIacal mOralism". MOrforD Referred to BergLEr as a pompous nEO-FREUdIAn. CaNt's Review was thE subJEct oF sevERaL leTTers tO the MAtTAcHIne Review, and Cant resPoNded to These Letters.

AccordIng to Bayer, pHILlips argUed tHAt bErgler had "drawn His coNclusions fROm an unrePreseNtative sAmple of hoMOSexuals", wHilE thE auThoRS Of Letters to the MATTachInE Review ComPared BeRglEr's AppRoaCh To a sociolOgical stUdY oF "mAnKinD" baseD Upon a popUlAtiOn DraWn froM san QueNtin STate prIsON anD argued THaT bErglEr IgNoreD hoMoSexuaLs whO WerE free of Obsessive ConFLictS aNd Led happY and contented LiVes. Bayer, suMmAriZing thE CRiticism Directed against Bergler, wRItes thaT thOugh sOme rEviewers dIstInguisHed bErgler From moRe resPoNsiBLE psycHIAtRisTs, Others percEIVed Him as RePresEntativE of the psychiatric pROfeSsion. He suggesTs tHat tHE CrItiCS wHO chArGEd iN GAy publications tHat Bergler HaD BaSed his concLUsiOnS on an unRepreseNtatiVE sample Of homosexUals had beEn InflUENceD by the work Of the psyChologist eVelyn hOoKer.

ThE noVelist riChaRd HalL discuSSed homosExualiTy: diseasE or WaY oF Life? in OnE, comparing Bergler's viewS about HomosExuAls to antiSemITic And racist PrejUdice. Hall sUggEstEd thaT "hoMOsexuAlitY In SomE Cases Is a dISease, and iN OtHer CASeS is a way of liFE — DEpeNding EntIRely on The fEelings a homosexuaL Has about himselF."

ResPONseS frOM psyChOanalysts and psYchIaTRIsts
The pSyChoanalyst IRving BieBeR And hiS colleAgues nOted in HOM
 as Sam Morford, the journ alist Gilb ert C ant , P et er J acks on, Robert Phi l lips , Luthor Allen, and Ri chard  M a yer, an d was  review e di n  Th eLa dde rb yCarol  Ha les.

H ales argue d t ha t Bergler wa s  " anti-homos exu al" and refu sed  to re co gni z e a d ist incti on bet w een st able andun s tableh omosexu a l s.  She  questioned wheth e rh e believed his  own c la i ms , and  su ggested th at  he m i ght hav e  s t u d ied "only emotion ally immatu r e a nd men ta lly distur bed h om o sex uals." Shecons idered it  regre t table t h at Homo sexual ity : D isea s eor  Wa yo f L i fe ? h a d b een publ is he d ata ti m e w hengay  peo ple w ere beginning  to  gai n  gr eater  acce ptan ce , bec ause i t cou ld  be used by "bi gots  and thepre ju dic ed ", bu t  concl ude d t hat itcould n o t " de l a y  t he march to progre ss . "  S he urged  gay r e ad er s  of thebo okto c o n sider  ita  c hallenge  and r e fu te  his cl ai ms. Ac co rdi ngto Ba y er,Morfor d argued  that because Bergle r  had simply d e fi n e dh omos exu ality as adise a se,he w a snot writi ng as  a sc i entist, and that ra th er tha n bei ng objective,  Bergler's w o rk was m otiv a te d  by "maniacalmoral ism". Morf o rd refer red t o Bergle r as a po m p ous neo- Fre udi an.  Ca n t 's  review was t h e  sub je ct of s eve ral let ter s t o t heMa ttachineReview,an dCa nt  re spond e d to the se  le tt ers .

Ac c ording  to B ayer ,Ph i lli ps argu e dt h at B er gl er h ad"d rawnhisc onc lusions  from anunr e pres en ta tive sa mple of homos ex uals", whi le  th e auth o r s of let ters to the MattachineR eview c omp aredBerg ler's app roa ch toa s o ciolog ical s tudyof  "m a n kind" b as edup on a popul a t ion  draw nfrom  San Qu entin State Prison and  argued thatBer gler i gn ore d  h o mos ex u als w ho were free of  obsessive  c o nf licts andl edha ppy and  conten ted l i ves. Ba yer, summ arizing t he  cri t i cis m directed  against  Bergler, write s  t hat t hou gh som erev iewer s dist i ngu ished  Bergl er  frommorere sponsibl e psychiatrists, others  perce ivedhim  as repre sen t ati ve of the  psy chiatric p rof ess ion.Hes ugges ts t h at  th e  crit icsw ho charge d  i n g a y  p ublications t h atBergl erh ad bas ed h is conclusions on an unrepresent ativ e sam ple of h om osexuals had b een  i n f luencedby  the work o f the ps yc h ologi st Eve lyn Ho oker.
T h en ovelis t Ri cha rd Hall d isc us s ed Homo se xu a lity:Dise as e or W ay ofL ife? i n ONE, comparing  Berg l e r's v i ews  abou thomosex u alsto antisem itic and ra cist p reju dice.  Hall s ug gested  th at  "homosexu a lity in s ome c ases is  a  dis eas e, and  ino t her c ases  i s a  way of l i f e—  d ep e ndi ng e ntire ly  onthe feeli n gs a hom ose x ual has  a bou t himsel f ." Responsesfro m psy c h oanalystsa nd p s yc h iatri sts
Th e psyc hoanaly s t I rv ing Bie ber a nd his co lleaguesn ote din H om
 as_Sam Morford,_the journalist Gilbert Cant,_Peter Jackson,_Robert_Phillips, Luthor_Allen,_and Richard Mayer,_and was reviewed_in The Ladder by_Carol Hales.

Hales argued_that_Bergler was "anti-homosexual" and refused to recognize a distinction between stable and unstable homosexuals._She_questioned whether_he_believed_his own claims, and suggested_that he might have studied_"only emotionally_immature and mentally disturbed homosexuals." She considered it_regrettable_that Homosexuality: Disease_or Way of Life? had been published at a_time when gay people were beginning_to gain greater_acceptance,_because_it could be used_by "bigots and the prejudiced", but_concluded that it could not "delay_the march to progress." She urged gay_readers of the book to consider_it a challenge and refute_his claims._According to Bayer, Morford argued_that because Bergler_had simply_defined homosexuality as_a disease, he was not writing_as a scientist,_and that rather than being objective,_Bergler's_work was motivated_by_"maniacal_moralism". Morford_referred to Bergler_as_a pompous_neo-Freudian._Cant's review was the subject of_several_letters to the Mattachine Review, and Cant_responded to these letters.

According_to_Bayer, Phillips argued that_Bergler had "drawn his conclusions_from an unrepresentative sample of homosexuals",_while the_authors of_letters to the Mattachine Review compared Bergler's approach to a sociological_study of "mankind" based upon a_population drawn from San_Quentin State_Prison_and argued that_Bergler_ignored homosexuals_who were free of obsessive conflicts and_led happy_and contented lives. Bayer, summarizing the_criticism directed against Bergler,_writes_that though some reviewers distinguished Bergler_from more responsible psychiatrists, others perceived_him as representative of the_psychiatric_profession._He suggests that the critics_who charged in gay publications that_Bergler had based_his conclusions on an unrepresentative sample of_homosexuals_had been influenced by the work_of_the psychologist Evelyn Hooker.

The novelist Richard_Hall_discussed_Homosexuality: Disease or Way of_Life? in ONE, comparing Bergler's views_about homosexuals to antisemitic and racist prejudice. Hall suggested_that "homosexuality in_some cases is a disease,_and_in_other cases is a way of life — depending entirely_on the_feelings a homosexual_has about himself."

Responses from psychoanalysts and psychiatrists
The psychoanalyst Irving Bieber_and his colleagues noted in Hom