Posted on 02/07/2006 8:28:20 AM PST by Mr. Silverback
It was bound to happen. In the span of a single generation, we have seen the practice of sodomy evolve from a bizarre sexual behavior to a normative alternative lifestyle; from illegality to a constitutional right; from the closet to the boardroom; from tolerance to promotion; and lastly, from the bathhouse to the marriage altar. The next step, which is already in process, is reminiscent of a Soviet-style “reeducation” program.
According to a December 10, 2005, Washington Post article, “Psychiatry Ponders Whether Extreme Bias Can Be an Illness,” it seems there is a serious move afoot to formally designate those who are repulsed by homosexual practice as suffering from a pathological neurosis—“homophobia.” In other words, a person who views the legitimization of homosexuality as sinful, immoral, or destructive to society may have a mental disorder!
That analysis was offered by a number of mental health professionals, including UCLA psychology professor Edward Dunbar, who equates so-called homophobia with racial bias and suggests the “disorder” should be included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).
According to Professor Dunbar, “When I see someone who won’t see a physician because they’re Jewish, or who can’t sit in a restaurant because there are Asians, or feels threatened by homosexuals in the workplace, the party line in mental health says, ‘This is not our problem.’ If it’s not our problem, whose problem is it?”
Gary Belkin, deputy chief of psychiatry at New York’s Bellevue Hospital, said “Psychiatrists who are uneasy with including something like this in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual need to get used to the fact that the whole manual reflects social context. That is true of depression on down. Pathological bias is no more or less scientific than major depression.” Dr. Belkin plans to conduct a study on pathological bias among patients at his hospital.
Other psychiatrists have gone a step further and suggested that persons who exhibit “homophobia” may need to be treated with anti-psychotic medications, with a program already implemented within the California Department of Corrections.
Shama Chaiken, divisional chief psychologist for the department, said, “We treat racism and homophobia as delusional disorders. Treatment with anti-psychotics does work to reduce these prejudices.”
Alvin F. Poussaint, a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, says that persons with such pathological biases are “delusional” and believes their problems should be treated with psychiatry. “They imagine people are going to do all kinds of bad things and hurt them, and feel they have to do something to protect themselves. When they reach that stage, they are very impaired. . . . They can’t work and function; they can’t hold a job. They would benefit from treatment of some type, particularly medication.” (Emphasis added)
A voice of “dissent” was heard from psychiatrist and author Sally Satel, who opined that hate-crime perpetrators could evade responsibility by claiming they suffered from a mental illness: “I think it’s absurd. You could use it as a defense [in court].”
Brokeback Mountain, the homosexual “love story” between two cowboys has served as a catalyst to bring the issue of “homophobia” as a neurosis before the public. Irrespective of the fact that Hollywood and liberal elites are thrilled by the film and have honored it with a number of awards, moviegoers have generally been turned off by the portrayal of the noble American cowboy as gay. Many theaters are refusing to show the film, prompting co-star Heath Ledger to claim the cancellations are “akin to racism.” He added:
"I heard a while ago that West Virginia was going to ban it. But that’s a state that was lynching people only 25 years ago, so that’s to be expected. . . . Personally, I don’t think the movie is [controversial] but I think maybe the Mormons in Utah do. I think it’s hilarious and very immature of a society—if two people are loving. I think we should be more concerned if two people express anger in love, than love."
The premise that deep opposition to homosexual practice is a mental disorder appears prominently in columnist Dru Sefton’s examination of the negative reaction to the film in her January 6 column. The article features the “expert” opinions of several researchers who see aversion to the film as “homophobia” and offers a good example of the homosexual propaganda machine at work.
Dr. Dean Hamer, a National Institutes of Health (NIH) researcher said to be investigating homophobia, was described as “a scientist who discovered genetic links to sexuality.” He commented, “It does seem to be almost culturally universal that heterosexual men can have a deep repulsion to overt homosexuality, but there is no study I know of to ascertain whether this is a biologically based trait.”
Actually, Dr. Hamer is a homosexual activist who has been searching unsuccessfully for a genetic link to homosexuality for many years. In 1993 he published some study results on gene position Xq28 that he alleged showed a genetic link to homosexuality. The study was widely reported in the press and touted as discovery of a “gay gene.”
However, his discovery did not hold up to scientific scrutiny. A much larger study by researchers George Rice and others concluded, “Our data do not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation at position Xq28.” Reportedly, Dr. Hamer was later investigated by the NIH on charges of scientific fraud.
Dr. Simon LeVay, also said to be investigating homophobia, agreed with Dr. Hamer. “From a neurobiological basis, I just don’t think this response has been researched at that level, although it’s something that should be.”
Dr. LeVay is the author of the 1991 study, “A Difference in the Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men.” The study, which was reported to have identified a physiological difference between gay and straight men, was later proved to be bogus. Dr. LeVay himself admitted, “I did not prove that homosexuality was genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work.”
Dr. George Weinberg, a New York City psychologist and researcher, commented that the aversion to Brokeback Mountain is “definitely homophobia.” He said the film is “the idea of one man’s adoration for another. A love affair more deep and lasting and romantic than with their wives.” He advised that those who are uneasy about the film “first understand you have this problem. At least by acknowledging it, that’s a start. It’s like saying, ‘I have a fear of heights.’”
In reality it is not unusual, nor is it immoral, for a man to have a deep and affectionate bond with another man, but not the erotic relationship described by Dr. Weinberg. As a case in point, men often experience a sacrificial, moral love among comrades in arms, which is called agape love. The greatest example of such love was the sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross: “For God so agapao the world, He gave His only begotten Son . . .”
Plainly, it is part of the gay rights strategy to portray homosexuality as “normal” and to marginalize—and even criminalize—the views of those who might expressly disagree. Brokeback Mountain has provided an opportunity for activists to take the debate over homosexuality to a new level and suggest that aversion to the practice may be a neurosis.
Thus, in one generation homosexuality has been removed from the DSM as a sexual disorder, and persons who find it abnormal and repulsive have been offered up in its place.
Notwithstanding, it is well established that the practice is repulsive, self-destructive, and corrosive to society, as both sacred and secular sources have emphatically stated for the last several thousand years. The fact that it is repulsive is both a bane and advantage to the homosexual rights movement. Because the topic is so unseemly, there is scant open discussion of homosexuality, and the public is understandably reluctant to seek out information on the subject. (For a peek through the window of reality of the homosexual lifestyle, visit gayhealth.com.)
It is an arrogant ploy on the part of gay activists to insinuate that people who find homosexual acts to be repulsive may be mentally disturbed. However, the good news is that such persons would not have to worry about being arrested under “hate crimes” statutes for voicing negative opinions about the lifestyle—they’re simply crazy.
Allan Dobras is a freelance writer on religious and cultural issues and an electronics engineer. He lives in Springfield, Virginia.
Exactly, yes, yes ! Can't be said enough ! Psychiatry is based on diagnosing deviance to cultural mores. We all know those mores shift over time - what is prohibited today may not be in another few decades.
While we think the muslims rioting over cartoons shows serious mental instability, they don't.
Only a few short decades ago, being homosexual was a mental disorder. Now the heteros are a mental disorder.
Before the Civil War, anyone who tried to educate their slaves was considered demented.
The Kennedy's (Joe and Rose) gane their daughter Rose a lobotomy because she was "different" from the rest of them.
As the joke goes, "Everyone's crazy but thee and me, and sometimes I worry about thee."
Anyone who goes to these charlatins is seriously risking their life and freedoms. Their agenda is to find everyone suffering from a mental disorder so they can reap vast fees from treating us.
Psychology is not a science.
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
There is a sizable group who have a demonstrated bias against what they call breeders, and not all among this group are homosexual; there are scattered pockets (often in prisons, jails and inner-city neighborhoods) of those who have a professed distrust of white people generally and show this by disorderly behavior in the form of riots, looting and mayhem; there are honored and recognized groups who maintain that all men are pigs, regardless of race or ethnic identification; and then there are those whose very livelihood depends on the continued friction among the sexes, the races, the ethnics and the classes.
Who is immune?
Exactly. If homophobia is a disorder, then it's also a disability under the law. Homophobes' jobs should be protected, and they might also be eligible for disability benefits. An interesting turn of events.
DISCUSSION ABOUT:
"Prescription for Tolerance: Is 'Moral Judgement' a 'Mental Disorder'?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be included in or removed from the MORAL ABSOLUTES PINGLIST, please FreepMail either MillerCreek or wagglebee.
Good! This may FINALLY wake people up to the scam which is modern psychology.
I like to ask sodomite-"marriage" advocates how these "marriages" are consumated.
("...psychology professor Edward Dunbar, who equates so-called homophobia with racial bias and suggests the “disorder” should be included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).
"According to Professor Dunbar, “When I see someone who won’t see a physician because they’re Jewish, or who can’t sit in a restaurant because there are Asians, or feels threatened by homosexuals in the workplace, the party line in mental health says, ‘This is not our problem.’ If it’s not our problem, whose problem is it?
NOTE that the "instructor of psychology" makes an irrational and unreasonable (question as to why here becauase that's the query as to this person's mental disturbance) leap from discussing "race" related aversions to STATING THAT PEOPLE "FEAR" or experience "fear" ("in the workplace") "of homosexuals."
What he's doing is "leading" by disturbed reasoning the listener/reader (and hapless students, unfortunately) into concluding that if and when someone chooses to sit elsewhere or even work/purchase/shop/consume/loiter/entertain/whatever in whatever chosen location for whatever reason that they're displaying "fear" if and when someone else in a rejected proximinity is or may be "homosexual."
By this mentally ill perspective by this "professor of psychology," personal choice and personal evaluations when and if they can be equated by him to be in reference to "homosexuals" (according to this disturbed "instructor") is motivated by "fear."
Any sound psychiatrist should readily recognize this man's projections upon the vast generalities of "all" human beings otherwise. Without discussing and at length, with any one individual as to their thought and emotional process and mental capacity and functional abilities, THERE IS NO REASONABLE, SANE WAY that anyone else, be it "professor" or "psychologist," can EVER allege what anyone else's emotions in these specifics may be and are.
This fellow is mentally ill. As are his postulations and presumptions.
And, any sound psychiatrist will readily recognize the privilege and reasonableness of individual religious beliefs within a context of mental wellness.
To reject homosexuality based upon personal beliefs, or even preferences, does not inherently define "fear" nor even suggest "fear of homosexuality."
It's a baseless and DISTURBED irrational suggestion and affirms to me that this entire line of suggestion by the "instructor" and similar represents A CULTURAL IMPOSITION by DISTURBED INDIVIDUALS.
If and when anyone chooses to work, sit, position at what table in what restaurant or workplace, to seek appropriate accommodations is not unreasonable. To reject homosexuality on a behavioral, moral and spiritual basis is certainly an individual option and no one should for even a minute be coerced nor intimidated into concluding that by exercising personal preferences is "wrong."
That very process -- introducing a negative characteristic, such as "fear" to the self awareness of anyone else -- is the FUNCTIONAL PROCESS BY WHICH HOMOSEXUALS PREDATE UPON OTHERS.
Ask any child or even vulnerable adult who has been predated upon by homosexual (or even heterosexual, to an extent) molestation and they'll say that they were told that their hesitation and initial rejections of the suggested behaviors represented something "bad" and that to accept and comply was "not wrong."
It's such abusive theorizing and strategy by this "instructor". He's laying the groundwork to define as "good" and "acceptable" homosexuality "in the workplace" when, in fact, homosexuality "in the workplace" is entirely inappropriate unless one's workplace is the porn industry or some homosexual-commerce of some sort.
People SHOULD, in fact, "fear" homosexuality "in the workplace" just as they should "fear" any "workplace" that requires or consists of sexuality of any sort.
This "instructor" is incompetent both as an educator and as a "psychologist" and should be in the care of a psychiatrist before he does any further harms to humankind.
Oy, I wish you hadn't put it that way...
BTW, given the subject matter, shouldn't Heath Ledger have gotten nominated for Best Actress?
Great point. Imagine the first ADA lawsuit..."So what if I think gays shouldn't get married! You have to hire me!"
Bingo!
(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.")
No offense, but how in the world did you get the idea that the author was connecting homosexuality and agape love? He is saying virtually the opposite.
She's right you know. The DSM is a political document not a scientific one. Just another reason why these modern day witch-doctors and the poison potions they prescribe should be completely avoided.
Exactly right, and I, for one, am quite glad that one of these snakeoilers has actually confessed to the whole scam.
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.