Posted on 02/09/2005 9:51:01 AM PST by Clint N. Suhks
Those who discount the effect of systemic bias and political correctness in academia, such as Professor Mary Coombs of the University of Miami Law Schol, are willfully ignorant, if not dishonest. Coombs argues, somewhat like my former colleagues, that only pro-gay articles are published in academic journals because the other side is so bereft of substance. While that notion may suit her own intellectual vanity, it overlooks mounting evidence to the contrary.At a recent meeting of the American Psychological Association (APA), for example, former APA President Robert Perloff denounced the organization as “too politically correct” and beholden to special interests. He noted that the organization had tried to prevent research into “conversion therapy” (therapy to change one’s sexual orientation” and had tried to label it “unethical” a priori, even when the patient wants conversion therapy. The APA blocked presentations from researchers on whether sexual orientation can be changed through counseling and therapy, yet it published controversial research suggesting that sex between children and adults may not be harmful and then styled itself a defender of academic freedom (prompting both houses of Congress to take the unusual step of passing a unanimous resolution of condemnation). Meanwhile, the American Psychiatric Association [not to be confused with APA, which is the American Psychological Association] offered luridly titled presentations on counseling aspiring transsexuals. This creates a rather bizarre contrast.
On the one hand, “mainstream” academic/professional organizations publish research suggesting adult-child sex may not be harmful, and they endorse supportive therapy for individuals who wish to surgically alter themselves (some would say physically mutilate themselves) from one sex to the other. Yet, they denounce as unethical any healthcare professionals who offer therapy to homosexuals who wish to become heterosexuals. In other words, it is ethical to counsel a man to have his penis removed so he can have sex as a heterosexual woman, but it’s unethical to counsel a man to have sex as a heterosexual man even if he wants to have sex as a typical man.
oooops....looks like I reposted some of what you just posted, ed, lol.
I agree.
That's the best quote yet and was preparing to post it. It really makes common sense look optional.
and this crap has been going on since 1973? There needs to be and investigation. This Regent article is justification for one. It's a blatant conspiracy that needs to be exposed.
As I said in reply 44 above, the homosexual activists knew exactly what they were doing in the days leading up to the removal of homosexuality from the DSM.
The infiltration of the 'professional' medical and scientific associations by homosexual activists was ( and continues to be ) part of a well planned and well financed campaign to redefine homosexuality as normal. Forcing the removal of homosexuality from the DSM was the homosexual community's greatest achievement.
http://www.primopdf.com/
Actually, many non-"homosexuals" don't find it to be peverted, but just would not do it themselves. In such a case, if one answers no to your question, then perhpaps it would be more accurate to call him a homosexualist.
Ping
Actually, although that reply was addressed to you, it was intended for the 'audience' at large, if you know what I mean. :o)
Good find Ed...
Thanks, but I found it in Scripter's Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Revision 1.1) thread under 'Comprehensive' for the year 2002.
Thanks, Scrip! :o)
Those Regent PDFs are something I've been meaning to convert to html... one of these days. They've moved the files around so I should probably copy them before they move one more time!
I'm not arguing with you that what "homosexuals" do to each other (it is abuse of the English language to refer to it as sex or a sexual act)is perverted. In other words you are preaching to the choir. What I'm saying is that there are many non-"homosexuals" who support the peversion but don't engage in it themselves. They are homosexualists.
Excellent, two. Much more fitting term.
Calex, perfect reply. You should email that to the school board.
Fantastic links! Thanks EdReform.
Here's the HTML version of that PDF file on Gay Orthodoxy. You could copy & paste it. http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:oSo7ZVbupFQJ:www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/academics/lawreview/articles/14_2clevenger.PDF++%22gay+orthodoxy+and+academic%22&hl=en
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.