[dzzrtrock]

The politics of intimidation have been paying off. it is time for them to stop. Here's the truth on "gay rights" and how we got to where we are.

[longtermmemmory]

The debate about homosexual marriage and civil unions ultimatly boils down to the "born debate".

That is what all this become a referendum on.

In the final analysis, "born homosexual" is about as valid as "born to paaaaaarty".

[Paloma_55]

This can be said on an anonymous bulletin board.

Try saying it at work or in a letter to the editor of your local paper and you will be unemployed pronto.

[DTwistedSisterS]

is it possible thaat when the psychological folks that said you were "born" with being gay, the group was needing good press and needed to be revived?

[Prophet in the wilderness]

Homosexuality is a spirit, a demonic satanic spirit, as with the feminist spirit, both demonic and satanic.

[conservativeharleyguy]

Well, well, well...

This is most interesting. I've been catching hell from family members for years for merely suggesting that homosexuality could be a mental disorder, and not just an "alternative lifestyle".

I believe that it's rooted in one's response to abuse and/or neglect, and is the ultimate manifesation of self-loathing.

Kinda funny, but I have been posting that opinon to this forum for a long time.

It makes sense, and one doesn't need to be psychiatrist to understand that.

Good find.

Unfortunately, in today's homo-centric media, this message will get little traction.

[DirtyHarryY2K]

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

If you want on/off the ping list see my profile page.

[jocon307]

Excellent post. Very important, I think.

[gidget7]

By the early '70s, Judd Marmor was on his way to the vice presidency of the American Psychiatric Association. He and a number of allies in the APA arranged to have outside gay activists disrupt APA meetings to protest the persistence of homosexuality as a diagnostic category within the APA's list of disorders. Eventually, these protests led to a series of meetings with the APA's "nomenclature committee" at which "research" was presented purportedly demonstrating no connection between homosexuality and psychopathology. These presentations were tendentious, the "research" consisting largely of Hooker's bogus work and Kinsey's data. With that, along with political pressure and the "civil-rights" argument, homosexuality was removed from the diagnostic manual.

Perhaps we need to get Thousands of people to walk on Washington, and have every article these good Freepers have gathered, including this very informative article, and hand deliver copies to the President, andf for good measure, the Secretary of Education, and Secretary of Health and Human Services.

[guitarist]

Olasky is a Jewish believer in Jesus and Satinover is Jewish. Who'd'a thunk...

[Gal.5:1]

From mental disorder to civil-rights cause
--
20 years ago, this was considered a shameful, unspeakable abnormality, and the DSM categorized it as mental disorder- I remember this from psych class texts. The movement/agenda has progressed quite far. But they are not done yet. They intend much more.

[bubman]

bump

[elfman2]

No one knows the combination of factors creating homosexuality. All studies to date seem to suffer from sampling problems. I struggle even to follow the reasoning of the examinations of the data that exists.

I've gone through one analysis of studies from Colombia & Yale and another from Cambridge.

The former leans toward environment and says that the data is inconstant with a simple genetic influence model", that "there's substantial support for the role of social influences ", and that "its consistent with a general model that allows for genetic expression of same-sex attraction under specific, highly circumscribed, social conditions." "

The latter takes a step toward genetics and concludes that, "…it seems reasonable to conclude that male homosexuality, or, at least, some 'types' of male homosexuality, are under some degree of genetic control, although various problems with this data prevent more precise conclusions from being drawn.

I’ve seen papers and books that look at some of this data and lean much more one way or the other, but these two seem to be the most academic and without obvious bias.

[warsaw44]

ping

[RileyD, nwJ]

Okay, so when can we expect Michael Crichton's novel based upon the science here?

RileyD, nwJ

[EdReform]

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. They started by infiltrating the American Psychiatric Association, with the goal removing homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

Make no mistake, the homosexual activists knew exactly what they were doing in the days leading up to the removal of homosexuality from the DSM. Once they had control of the American Psychiatric Association, all the other 'professional' organizations ( such as the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Mental Health Association, the AMA , the American Counseling Association, etc.) fell in line and now accept, and march to, the APA's pro-homosexual party line. Click here (then scroll down the page to "The American Academy of Pediatrics") for a list of other pro-homosexual 'professional' associations that toe each others' homosexual agenda lines.

Forcing the removal of homosexuality from the DSM was the homosexual community's greatest achievement. It permitted them to claim that "homosexuality is normal" and set the stage to present this "normalcy" to the general public via a well planned media campaign ( outlined in 'The Overhauling of Straight America' ), and to kids in the public schools via Kevin Jennings' GLSEN. Kids as young as kindergarten age are now being indoctrinated with "homosexuality is normal" propaganda.

It wasn't science, but rather pro-homosexual activism that was, and continues to be, the primary force behind policy changes and the politically correct statments made by the APA and the majority of the other "professional" medical and scientific organizations.

For documentation of homosexual activism in both the APA's and the AAP, see the following replies in scripter's "Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Revision 1.1)" thread:

American Psychological Association: 121, 240, 242, 300, 329, 331, 336, 357, and 449.

American Psychiatric Association: 46, 139, 213, 232, 237, 239, 241, 243, 246, 300, 363, 364, and 443.

American Academy of Pediatrics: 284

See also:

An excerpt from "GAY ORTHODOXY AND ACADEMIC HERESY"

An excerpt from "When Activism Masquerades as Science: Potential Consequences of Recent APA Resolutions"

[MeekMom]

http://members.tripod.com/~lillyforu1/ishomosexuality.html

[John Lenin]

That said, we should remember that homosexuality has risen to the top of the social-policy agenda because of the utter wreck we all have made of family life over the past 50 years. This horror cannot be blamed on anyone but us.

[ConservativeStLouisGuy]

Jim Robinson's Master List Of Articles To Be Excerpted

From mental disorder to civil-rights cause

INTERVIEW: Psychiatrist and Princeton law professor traces the advances of the gay-rights agenda in science and the law to a common source: political intimidation | by Marvin Olasky

 

A big contributor to the gay movement's political success is the portrayal of homosexuality as an orientation over which individuals have no control. Jeffrey Satinover, author of Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Baker Books, 1996) and other books, has practiced psychiatry since 1986 and come to a different understanding, which he explained at a recent conference of the Witherspoon Institute here.

 

Dr. Satinover is a graduate of M.I.T. (Humanities and Science), Harvard (Clinical Psychology), and Yale (Physics), and received an M.D. from the University of Texas Medical School. He presently conducts research into complex systems at the National Center for Scientific Research at the University of Nice in France and teaches civil liberties and constitutional law part-time at Princeton.

 

WORLD: You've argued, against today's conventional wisdom, that the idea of "sexual orientation" is a fiction. What's the scientific evidence?

 

JS: A nationwide University of Chicago study of sexuality in America in 1994 concluded, "...it is patently false that homosexuality is a uniform attribute across individuals, that it is stable over time, and that it can be easily measured." Studies across the globe that have now sampled over 100,000 individuals have found the same.

 

We now know that in the majority of both men and women, "homosexuality," as defined by any scientifically rigorous criteria, spontaneously tends to "mutate" into heterosexuality over the course of a lifetime. The proportion of people who adopt a homosexual identity and the length of time they persist in holding on to it are affected primarily by environmental factors clearly identifiable in these epidemiologic studies. These factors - deemed "cultural" or "demographic" - include effects such as social networks, education, early sexual experiences, childhood sexual abuse, and cultural beliefs.

 

WORLD: How and why did the American Psychiatric Association misrepresent the evidence concerning homosexuality?

 

JS: In 1957, with quiet political support largely from the prominent UCLA psychiatrist Judd Marmor, Evelyn Hooker, an experimental psychologist (her expertise was with mice, not people) at UCLA, published a scientifically bogus paper that supposedly showed no differences in the psychopathology of homosexual and heterosexual males. In the late '60s she chaired a task force that excluded anyone who believed that there was anything in the least problematic with homosexuality - meaning she excluded the entire body of clinicians who until then had devoted their careers to the subject. She similarly ensured that all its mental-health members were collaborators of Alfred Kinsey.

 

Under the guise of its being a "mental-health" panel, and using the false cover of the Kinsey Report (which claimed to be scientific, but which even then had been long condemned by the American Statistical Association as invalid), Hooker's Task Force issued a set of "policy" recommendations based on the claim that homosexuality had been shown to be normal, a degree of bisexuality was the universal norm, and whatever unusual distress homosexuals might display was due to social prejudice. The elimination of all forms of social prejudice against homosexuality was a "mental-health" prerogative for the nation.

 

By the early '70s, Judd Marmor was on his way to the vice presidency of the American Psychiatric Association. He and a number of allies in the APA arranged to have outside gay activists disrupt APA meetings to protest the persistence of homosexuality as a diagnostic category within the APA's list of disorders. Eventually, these protests led to a series of meetings with the APA's "nomenclature committee" at which "research" was presented purportedly demonstrating no connection between homosexuality and psychopathology. These presentations were tendentious, the "research" consisting largely of Hooker's bogus work and Kinsey's data. With that, along with political pressure and the "civil-rights" argument, homosexuality was removed from the diagnostic manual.

 

Anyone who actually reads the studies examining the association between homosexuality and psychological disturbance will find a very strong association. What has never been clear until, perhaps, recently, is why. Perhaps the same problems that cause increased psychological distress also cause homosexuality. Perhaps homosexuality is an intrinsic psychopathology. Perhaps the social stigma experienced by being homosexual causes the psychological distress. Perhaps some unknown proportion of each. Perhaps some unknown proportion of each and a complex, nonlinear interaction among them over time. None of the early studies addressed these very obvious questions. They merely presumed the ideologically correct responses.

 

WORLD: How have Supreme Court decisions fit in with such misrepresentation?

 

JS: The mental-health organizations have submitted briefs to courts at every level, and have profoundly corrupted our understanding of human sexuality tacitly via their general influence. They influence judges' understanding before they become judges so that when a man or woman becomes a judge he is, for all purposes, an ignoramus with respect to homosexuality, full to the brim with sentimental platitudes.

 

These platitudinous outlooks "feel" deep, but are astoundingly shallow (the concept "sexual orientation" is an example - it is a "stopthought" that won't bear five minutes of serious scrutiny before dissolving into a welter of contradiction). But when a judge is handed an amicus brief that bears at its end a list of say five or 10 well-respected national or state mental-health professional organizations - he's impressed. Then he starts reading, and it's "The Emperor's New Robes." In learned-sounding terms, he's fed back all the nice-sounding pieties with which he's become familiar and comfortable. He doesn't have to stop and think for a second. He just has to be "nice."

 

So, over the years, the concept of "sexual orientation" has worked its way into the culture and up the court system to the level of the U.S. Supreme Court and in certain key state Supreme Court cases, especially in the Goodrich case in Massachusetts. The key U.S. Supreme Court cases are Romer and Lawrence. Leaving specific variations aside, all three approach homosexuality from the point of view of civil liberties - a misframing that goes all the way back to Hooker and the history I've mentioned.

 

It has been critical for the mental-health guilds to stand before the courts and say, "You see, your honors, we in particular, who are the very experts of what constitutes a mental disorder, proclaim that sexual orientation should not be discussed as a condition that is problematic and changeable, it is a normal and immutable state of the human being and therefore should be discussed in civil-rights terms, like race."

 

WORLD: How should the understanding that homosexuality is not a stable trait affect public policy?

 

JS: The entire legal argument (same-sex marriage, homosexual rights) rests upon the civil-rights argument, and this is based on the concept of "suspect class status." That's a technical term referring to the idea that you can define a group of people in some reasonable, meaningful way, and this definitional "boundary" results in their being subject to invidious discrimination.

 

The obvious example is being black. The way "suspect class status" is determined isn't totally mathematical, but it isn't totally fuzzy either. There's a good deal of common sense to it. We want to avoid having people cry "discrimination!" just when it suits them, in order to game the system. For example, I couldn't apply to the University of Michigan Law School as "black" under the recently decided affirmative-action decision because, having just returned from two weeks in the Caribbean, I've got such a terrific tan.

 

Since, to quote the University of Chicago study, "it is patently false that homosexuality is a uniform attribute across individuals, that it is stable over time, and that it can be easily measured," you have absolutely no basis whatsoever for building a "suspect class" out of it.

 

WORLD: How should that understanding affect the way individuals react to those who identify themselves as homosexual?

 

JS: What you're left with are human beings, no different than you or me, who are, of course, sexual beings. Like you and me, their sexuality is broken in a broken world. The notion that "homosexuals" are in effect a "different species" (different genes) is ludicrous beyond belief. There is not the slightest evidence for that as anyone who actually reads the studies (not reports on the studies) knows.

 

Of course as one grows and changes, one "grooves" a pathway that becomes embedded and increasingly difficult to alter. Of course a different innate disposition places one at a different "risk profile" for all sorts of different paths in life. So what else is new? It is also true that people do sometimes want to change, and some do and some don't. This is true of everything. It's also true that few good things in life are easy, and no achievement is ever perfect.

 

That said, we should remember that homosexuality has risen to the top of the social-policy agenda because of the utter wreck we all have made of family life over the past 50 years. This horror cannot be blamed on anyone but us.

[Jimbaugh]

WOW!

[Mockingbird For Short]

We now know that in the majority of both men and women, "homosexuality," as defined by any scientifically rigorous criteria, spontaneously tends to "mutate" into heterosexuality over the course of a lifetime.

Can one of y'all explain what this statement means? Thanks.