[jammer]

You say it is false, but I didn't see in the article where the APA had changed position. I think it says that it is strongly considering changing.

[friendly]

There is a "gay mafia" (Lambda Legal and other well-financed litigation/advocacy organizations) to pressure all public agencies, governmental bodies, schools, and private organizations to change their positions to match the "Queer Agenda."

There are a minority pro-pedophile/homophile groups in the psychological and psychiatric organizations. These do not enjoy the support of the membership or the leadership of these organizations.

[Kahonek]

This article is pretty far out there. It only approximates the truth in the vaguest of ways. Ever played the "telephone" game? Here's an example of what you get when you don't go to the primary sources (like our author friend, Paul Walfield).

"There was an objection to the APA simply deciding that pedophiles are "normal" at the convention held for that purpose on May 19 in San Francisco."

First, the convention was not held for any purpose related to pedophilia. It was the regular, annual convention of the APA, held every year, and covering an incredible number of topics.

Second, the APA decided NO SUCH THING. Check out their website (www.psych.org) for a story that attempts to clarify the situation without adding to the hype.

What happened was that two relatively undistinguished individuals from relatively undistinguished institutions, a psychiatrist and a psychologist, presented a paper during a session at the conference. The paper was one of thousands that are presented simultaneously at these conferences, reflecting the opinion of the authors themselves, and NOT the opinion of the APA.

These two yahoos asserted that it might not be helpful to characterize pedophilia as a mental disorder, though they did not suggest lifting criminal penalties for child molestation. This assertion would have garnered all the attention that other paper presentations typically do (namely, none) had it not been such a far-fetched proposal.

However, some journalist got ahold of it and made it into something it wasn't. CNSNews then got it from the mainstream press and wrote their own version. Then Paul W. got it from CNSNews (without bothering to check any other sources, apparently) and wrote this blurb. Now it's a virtual feeding frenzy that's making FR look like a ship of fools.