Skip to comments.California Psychologist Wants 'Extreme Bias' Against Homosexuals Added To 'DSM'
Posted on 01/06/2006 4:48:13 PM PST by lizol
click here to read article
"As per Soviet psychiatry and as enunciated by Premier Nikita Khrushchev in 1959: "Can there be diseases, nervous diseases among certain people in the communist society? Evidently there can be. If that is so, then there also will be offenses which are characteristic of people with abnormal mindsTo those who might start calling for opposition to communism on this 'basis,' we say that now, too, there are people who fight against communismbut clearly the mental state of such people is not normal."(4)
In other words, it is impossible for people in a socialist society to have an anticommunist morality. Criminality is impossible in a socialist society and those opposed to the socialist order are not really criminals requiring punishment but madmen who require treatment and rehabilitation in psychiatric facilities. And so, José Abrantes, then Minister of the Interior, speaking to Cuban psychologists in March 1987 admitted that his Ministry "has the most diverse, universal, and decisive application of psychology to law enforcement."(5)"
Link: Psychology and the Gulag
Headline: Washi wants DSM to revert back to when it correctly listed Homosexuality as a mental disorder.
I did a quick search and it appears there was indeed a call to have pedophilia removed back in May of 2005, but the APA rejected it...at least for now.
This does not bode well for the future when absolute abominations are justified as "alternate lifestyles."
This is the same APA that worked overtime to get "professionals" in the mental health industry to declare that Barry Goldwater was insane.
Nothing new here. Move along, folks.
Pedophilia has not been removed, though there was a conference held in (of course) San Francisco discussing whether it should be (along with a host of other paraphlias). Expects transvestites to be the next group "freed" from their illness.
Few realize it, but bestiality was removed in 1994. Yes, humans and animals are capable of sharing lasting, intimate bonds, and if you happen to fall in love with a sheep, that's okay, says the APA.
Yes, they're FUBAR. And yes, their arguments are composed of the multicultural, diversity is the pinnacle of existence, goobly gab B.S.
As someone in med school, if I end up matching in psychiatry (unlikely), I'd love to wage war with these morons.
Ah, here's the link on the meeting that was held. It doesn't appear as if pedophilia will be removed soon, but I could be wholly wrong on that. It's amazing to me how quickly the media took to the homosexual agenda.
They're sodomites, but if we think that's wrong...we have a mental disease? What an upside down world we live in.
And the beat goes on. "One thing is for certain, it ain't never gonna stop"...Bob Seeger
I don't think we realize the full ramifications of this potential decision. It will provide a circumvention of First Amendment rights in a way that has never been seen before. ANY "undesired" behavior can be made "pathological" and THAT is the beginning of the end.
I finally have an inside angle on getting a disability check!
This is certainly sufficient evidence that being a California Psychologist is Pathalogical and should also be added to the DSM !!!
Keep your political leanings close to the vest until you get your degree. Then let 'em have it. ; )
If a psychological abnormality (what used to be called a "mental illness") is defined as a deviation from the norm, then it is statistically more valid to call homosexuality a psychopathology than the hatred of homosexuality. In other words, it is far more statistically likely that people HATE homosexuals than that they ARE homosexuals.
Their new power grab is to promote the idea that those who criticize or characterize them as mentally ill or immoral are the ones in need of 'mental health' services...
America is in the fight of it's life with enemies foreign and domestic..from without and within-as well as political, economic, cultural, and spiritual.
The sodomite agenda is to shut down God's word on the subject...and make the bible 'hate speech' at least on the lesbian and sodomite issues.
How well they mesh with the Islamo-fascists,Marxists,Narco Terrorists,Pedophiles,Pornographers,and Third Way-Fourth Reich enemies of the Republic of our Founding Fathers.
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
Do you see it coming? I saw it coming in the late 80s. CPS knocks at your door - grabs your kids - you aren't fit to have custody. Why? You told them that homosexuality was abnormal, unnatural and immoral. You're guilty of homophobia or sick with homophoba. Mandatory medical treatment. Gotta take your meds or back to the hospital. They'll allow supervised visits with your children as long as you get treatment.
Meanwhile, homosexuals are foster and adoptive parents.
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
Ah yes....and in the end, evil will be called good...and good will be called evil.
Lover your laughing little guy!!!!!!!!
Hmmm....well......I guess I'm culturally redneck. That ought to excuse just about any dang thing.
Dunbar is probably also a certifed and mentally unstable pervert.
You nailed it, I see that coming too.. and not too far in the distant future. The world is turning upside down and inside out. God help us.
Underneath it all, Sheldon may be as 'queer as a three dollar bill'.
Sheldon also has some peculiarities of his behavior. Like his campaigning against allowing the reimportation of prescription medicines from Canada. It turns out Sheldon had sold out to the drug manufacturers and duped his followers into acting as unwitting lobbyists for the drug companies. The House Conservative Caucus barred Sheldon from their meetings, because of that little escapade. Sheldon is nothing better than a con man, a common grifter.
How about we just classify everyone as having a delusional disorder (do I really need the /sarc here, folks?)
In all seriousness, it seems this guy sounds like a real Nutt-Case himself. After all, what is it they say about people and glass houses?
That's just about it. Only more Orwellian and hence more incomprehensible to brainy liberals. :)
Besides Cameron's reputation as a notorious fraud, there is this interview (March 18, 1999( of Cameron by Rolling Stone Magazine, where Cameron says:
"If you isolate sexuality as something solely for one's own personal amusement, and all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get - and that is what hosexuality seems to be - then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist. The evidence is that men do a better job on men, and women on women, if all you are looking for is orgasm....It's almost like pure heroin. It's such a rush...."
It does appear that Cameron is totally obsessed with having sex with another man. Does this mean that Cameron is also as 'queer as a three dollar bill'? If so, it means that Cameron is in a deep state of denial about his own sexuality, attacking gays as a means of convincing himself he is not gay.
That sounds like pathological behavior.
Howdy, punster. Trotting out your favorite cherry-picked quotes, eh?
How's the gay agenda these days?
What a novel idea! Accuse those who criticize the "gay" agenda by saying THEY'RE REALLY HOMOSEXUALS THEMSELVES!
Great idea, that'll shut up the homophobes!
What a great mind you have, thinking that one up. I stand in awe.
"That sounds like pathological behavior."
That bit of ill-logic is pathetic and plain stupid. If I am adamantly and openly against murder does that make me a closet murderer and pathological?
LOL you keep repeating this 'reputation' thing -its almost like the proverbial high school girl that get a bad 're' because some jerk keeps spreading lies about her...
Where is the meat punster? The 'reputation' and 'notoriety' you wish to repeatedly broadcast in MSM fashion must have some factual basis.
I would find it hard to belief that an FR member not promoting propaganda supporting the homosexual agenda would be spreading such rumors premised only upon the accusations of "notorious" homosexual activists...
These are the same people who were sure that people had repressed memories that they didn't, in fact, have.
Me thinks that the delusional problem, it is that people with disturbance have convinced some in society that the disturbance is elsewhere. From this article, they're still working on that.
I'm curious how one determines that another person is extremely biased against homosexuals or ethnic groups. If a person lives in an all-black neighborhood and attends a black college is he presumptively biased against whites and Hispanics? How does he prove the presumption false? Or would the presumption only apply to white people who live in predominantly white neighborhoods? If so that is evidence of how biased this exercise really is.
Next question: Is holding politically incorrect viewpoints really proof of bias? I submit it is more likely to be just the opposite: evidence of objectivity. A person who does not kowtow to the party line is not necessarily a biased ideologue. He may just be the most objective person around, someone who rejects PC BS and bases his opinions on real evidence rather than simply parrot what is expected of him.
Yes, but, given that quote ("We treat racism and homophobia as delusional disorders")...the ISSUE of actual mental wellbeing, or lack thereof, is as to those who believe they are empowered to make those evaluations (who is displaying "homophobia" and who is displaying "racism").
And, how either/both of those is represented by what.
It's actually, as in, in reality, delusional that these two tags are so easily applied by emotionally disturbed people about others who make other choices. Among other things...
WOW touche'!!!!! Couldn't have said that better myself!!
Yeah, agreed. The key point about, for example, the Matthew Shephard murder was that it was committed by murderers. Who were also homosexual. But both those significant points were outright refused in any discussion about Shephard's sad demise.
Murderers murder. The only "hate" element in that particular case (Shephard) was that it was murder that killed Matthew Shephard. Although the murderer was also homosexual (at least the one of the two).
Somehow, that's reduced to the problem of generalized "people" "hating" "homosexuals" but the truth of it was that Shephard, a homosexual, was killed by another homosexual. But it was murder that took his life, and a murderer who took it.
It's still, however, talked up to represent the result by social "homophobia" about homosexuality. Which seems to be the ultimate insult to Shephard himself, in my view.
Exactly. I've written about this before, elsewhere on FR...but the goal of "psychiatry" under socialism is to prove "unwell, diseased" anyone or any perspective that does not replicate the social meme. It happened in the Soviet Union, it's happened in Cuba under Castro, it's likely to be happening in South America given Castro's commisserations with Chavez in militarized "health care" (military personnel functioning as "physicians" on "aid" missions among other countries, which Castro prides himself in fostering).
The goal of socialized medicine, unfortunately, eventually seeks to "prescribe socialism" by way of wellness or lack thereof.
Yet another reason to revile Hillary, Howard, Kerry and Kennedy.
Wouldn't it be something if "homophobia" were hardwired into the male brain as some sort of a survival mechanism through evolution and was therefore as blameless and shameless as, oh, say homosexuality as an expression of genetics is assumed to be......
There is great difference in clinical practice and educational foundation between "psychologists" and "psychiatrists." Just to make that point here.
However, I have encountered some truly nutty among both fields, and I reserve those adjectives ("truly nutty") for the most egregiously disturbed.
A psychiatrist in CA (medical degree and license) who had been institutionalized for paranoid schizophrenia but had managed to keep that quiet inorder to maintain his license. It wasn't so much the license that was the disturbance but that the guy WAS, in fact, a paranoid schizophrenic who was making determinations about other vulnerable persons.
As to psychologists, I've heard worse.
I agree that it appears to be a case of the most disturbed among us humans who seeks out the field of, especially, psychology (a social science). Psychiatry, at least, requires a more profound education and clinical expertise.
There's a lot to be said about homosexuals who victimize other homosexuals but few homosexuals are willing to admit that that occurs. When and if they do, however, inevitably it's blamed on heterosexuals' "homophobia" somehow "forcing" homosexuals to go violent upon one another. Or dishonest otherwise, as you describe.
I now regret responding...
Yes, I know the difference between Psychologists and Psychiatrists, the latter does have medical training, never the less they will defer to their major and not their minor when diagnosing and it's still my opinion that their major is a hyped version of Sociology.
I wonder if they can add "Spends too much time on FreeRepublic" to the list while they're at it.
I can file for psychological counselling and maybe disability compensation!
I wasn't directing that comment specifically to you, just including it in the discussion in general. Something you wrote earlier brought that to mind.
I agree that the entire "mental health" studies, including psychiatry, is largely a delivery of Sociology: what is "normal" and "abnormal" is only thus based upon social acceptability and/or responses by a mean. The "mean" study is to be questioned more often than it is, however.
And, the economics of health care have to be considered here because certain "conditions" only become so when there's funding available to provide a clinical response. Or a chemical one.
Some of that is a good outcome of free enterprise but inevitably, once health care becomes publicly funded, it's at the mercy of the politically motivated and that's usually the most emphatically pursued by people with the most offensive (or extreme) behaviors in search of "acceptance."
I also agree with something earlier written here to suggest that the heterosexual rejection of many aspects of homosexuality is almost certainly biologically motivated. Most of who and what we are as humans is.
However, the biological imperative to reproduce is secondary only to that of survival and homosexuality poses a distraction -- if not a destructive use of resources on a survivalist level (you're a tribe with limited resources and the one or few individuals in that tribe who are not reproducing are not contributing, on a very primal level, and, worse, they are using resources that reproduction would otherwise have available, so, there's got to be some sort of motivation to "avoid" if not admonish people who pose those problems, however subtle).
Worth considering. At this point, it seems that homosexuality is more tolerated within some correlation to the population: the larger it becomes, the more "tolerated" are behaviors that would otherwise be completely rejected by most.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")