• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lt. gov. nominee Jackson says ‘no apologies’ for past comments on gays, abortion

Part III

In 1981, Ronald Bayer wrote a book claiming that the reason that the APA declassified homosexuality was solely because of gay activists. Bayer, not a Psychologist, but a Professor of Political Science, reported on this, but was not an active participant. As a direct refutation on Bayer's work, the book, "American Psychiatry and Homosexuality: An Oral History" was published 2007. In it 17 APA members who participated in the 1973 APA meeting, are interviewed and discuss what really happened and what the attitudes towards homosexuality was like, at the time. These are people who were actually there, not someone like Bayer, who just reported on this. Here is a description:

Product Description
Interviews and first-hand accounts of an historic decision that affected the mental health profession—and American society and culture Through the personal accounts of those who were there, American Psychiatry and Homosexuality: An Oral History examines the 1973 decision by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to remove homosexuality from its diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM). This unique book includes candid, one-on-one interviews with key mental health professionals who played a role in the APA’s decision, those who helped organize gay, lesbian, and bisexual psychiatrists after the decision, and others who have made significant contributions in this area within the mental health field.
American Psychiatry and Homosexuality presents an insider’s view of how homosexuality was removed from the DSM, the gradual organization of gay and lesbian psychiatrists within the APA, and the eventual formation of the APA-allied Association of Gay & Lesbian Psychiatrists (AGLP). The book profiles 17 individuals, both straight and gay, who made important contributions to organized psychiatry and the mental health needs of lesbian and gay patients, and illustrates the role that gay and lesbian psychiatrists would later play in the mental health field when they no longer had to hide their identities.
Individuals profiled in American Psychiatry and Homosexuality include:

Dr. John Fryer, who disguised his identity to speak before the APA’s annual meeting in 1972 on the discrimination gay psychiatrists faced in their own profession
Dr. Charles Silverstein, who saw the diagnosis of homosexuality as a means of social control
Dr. Lawrence Hartmann, who helped reform the APA and later served as its President in 1991-92
Dr. Robert J. Campbell, who helped persuade the APA’s Nomenclature Committee to hear scientific data presented by gay activists
Dr. Judd Marmor, an early psychoanalytic critic of theories that pathologized homosexuality
Dr. Robert Spitzer, who chaired the APA’s Nomenclature Committee
Dr. Frank Rundle, who helped organize the first meeting of what would become the APA Caucus of Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Psychiatrists
Dr. David Kessler, AGLP President from 1980-82
Dr. Nanette Gartrell, a pioneer of feminist issues within the APA
Dr. Stuart Nichols, President of the AGLP in 1983-84 and a founding member of the Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists of New York (GLPNY)
Dr. Emery Hetrick, a founding member of both AGLP and GLPNY
Dr. Bertram Schaffner, who was instrumental in providing group psychotherapy for physicians with AIDS
Dr. Martha Kirkpatrick, a long-time leader in psychiatry and psychoanalysis, both as a woman and an “out” lesbian
Dr. Richard Isay, the first openly gay psychoanalyst in the American Psychoanalytic Association
Dr. Richard Pillard, best known for studying the incidence of homosexuality in families of twins
Dr. Edward Hanin, former Speaker of the APA Assembly
Dr. Ralph Roughton, the first openly gay Training and Supervising Psychoanalyst to be recognized within the American and International Psychoanalytic Associations
American Psychiatry and Homosexuality presents the personal, behind-the-scenes accounts of a major historical event in psychiatry and medicine and of a decision that has affected society and culture ever since. This is an essential resource for mental health educators, supervisors, and professionals; historians; and LGBT readers in general.
Amazon.com: American Psychiatry and Homosexuality: An Oral History: Jack Drescher, Joseph P. Merlino: Books
Click to expand...
Some quotes and anectodes from the book:

By contrast, these first-person accounts provide corrective insider views of the process. Several speak of the depressing psychiatric attitudes prior to 1973. Lawrence Hartmann recalls, "The few analysts who wrote about gay people tended to describe them as nasty psychopaths, close to psychosis. I am not making this up!"
Click to expand...
Judd Marmor recalls the view that "homosexuals were inherently seriously mentally disturbed, irresponsible, and completely driven by needs over which they had no control." They were supposedly "emotionally immature, deceptive, impulsive, unreliable, and incapable of truly loving."
Click to expand...
...gay activist Ron Gold arranged for gays to meet with the APA's Committee on Nomenclature where they laid out evidence from studies supporting gay mental health. Robert Jean Campbell recalls, "They had a lot of data that I had never seen. I don't know where they got it, but I was really overwhelmed by the data."
Click to expand...
Campbell argued that the committee should take its own look at the scientific evidence about homosexuality.
Click to expand...
Spitzer recalls thinking, "Is there something that they (other mental disorders) all share that I can argue does not apply to homosexuality?" His conclusion was that people with other conditions "were usually not very happy about it. They had distress or...in some way the condition interfered with their overall functioning."
Spitzer continues, "If you accepted what the activists said, clearly here were homosexuals who were not distressed by being homosexual. Instead, they might be distressed by how people reacted to their being gay."
Click to expand...
Cure-therapists, mostly psychoanalysts such as Irving Bieber and the zealously homophobic Charles Socarides (whose son is openly gay), were furious and began gathering signatures demanding a referendum to overturn the board's decision. Edward Hanin recalls, "The controversy was led by people who essentially said this was politics intruding into science. It wasn't. The APA Board of Trustees had reviewed very carefully the evidence related to homosexuality."
Click to expand...
Judd Marmor agrees: "The fact is that the decision to remove homosexuality...was not based on gay political pressure but on scientific correctness and only after a full year of exploratory hearings and study of the issue. The so-called 'politics' surrounding the decision was subsequently instilled into the process by opponents."
Click to expand...
Robert Jean Campbell comments, "I thought the only reason they were worried was that they wouldn't have any patients if this went through. People would no longer go to them for something that was no longer a disease."
Click to expand...
Dr. John Fryer, M.D., a psychiatrist who in 1972 spoke at a psychiatry panel on homosexuality, appearing as “Dr. H. Anonymous,” disguising his true physical identity—and even his voice. In those days, to come out as a gay psychiatrist meant a ruined career.
Click to expand...
I would take the word of those who were there, rather than that of a reseracher-reporter, any day.

I hope this has been helpful and cleared up a lot of misconceptions. I do not believe that those on the opposite side of this issue will change their mind because of this information. Prejudice and bigotry can rarely altered, even in the light of irrefutable evidence. Thing is, regardless of whether they believe it or not, they are wrong. And that is factual.

Now, since this was originally posted by me 2 and a half years ago, may of the links that I originally used are no longer working. However, I will provide links upon request.

So, in conclusion, the activism to declassify homosexuality as a disorder was to get research examined. Bronson's explanation has no basis in reality... except for extreme conservatives who have no desire to learn anything new.
 
That's the problem with Liberals... they always expect people who disagree with them to apologize for disagreeing with them, to concede from the outset of the conversation that they are wrong, and that they are continuing to advocate for their position despite knowing that they are wrong. They can't fathom that people disagree with them because they honestly disagree with them.
 
Somerville said:
and some of the people in Virginia will vote for this demented fool



A few of his 'nice, Christian' words included such phrases as:
“Homosexuality is a horrible sin, it poisons culture, it destroys families, it destroys societies; it brings the judgment of God unlike very few things that we can think of,”

“Their minds are perverted, they’re frankly very sick people psychologically, mentally and emotionally and they see everything through the lens of homosexuality. When they talk about love they’re not talking about love, they’re talking about homosexual sex.”

He has also called Democrats “slave masters” and compared Planned Parenthood to the Ku Klux Klan. He also has said the Democratic Party has “An agenda worthy of the Antichrist.”

“Liberalism and their ideas have done more to kill black folks whom they claim so much to love than the Ku Klux Klan, lynching and slavery and Jim Crow ever did, now that’s a fact,”
Click to expand...

Everything that you have here quoted him as saying, while not politically correct, is the plain truth. Why should he or anyone else apologize for speaking it?
 
Zyphlin said:
However...claiming homosexuals are mentally "sick people" and suggesting they have a psychological disorder when psychologists categorically disagree IS rather reprehensible in my mind.

Suggesting that anytime a homosexual talks about "love" they're actually simply talking about gay sex...essentially suggesting that homosexuals are physically incapable of experience the feeling of "love" and are purely lust driven...is a pretty reprehensible statement in my mind.

Suggesting a major political party in this serving up an agenda "worthy of the antichrist" is a pretty reprehensible comment.
Click to expand...

Why is it “reprehensible” to speak the plain truth?
 
Last edited:
Bob Blaylock said:
Why is it “reprehensible” to speak the plain truth?
Click to expand...

There's nothing "plain" or "true" about those statements. The second statement in particular is nothing more than pig****ing ignorance wrapped up in several layers of pure viciousness.

The man is disgusting and I don't like what it says about our country that he can be elected while saying these things. I just think it's ridiculous he should be expected to apologize for believing them-- at least, for as long as he still believes them, and as long as his disgusting, reprehensible constituents continue to elect him for believing these things.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Why is it “reprehensible” to speak the plain truth?
Click to expand...

Because it is not the truth:

In 1992, the American Psychiatric Association, recognizing the power of the stigma against homosexuality, issued the following statement, reaffirmed by the Board of Trustees, July 2011: "Whereas homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) calls on all international health organizations, psychiatric organizations, and individual psychiatrists in other countries to urge the repeal in their own countries of legislation that penalizes homosexual acts by consenting adults in private. Further, APA calls on these organizations and individuals to do all that is possible to decrease the stigma related to homosexuality wherever and whenever it may occur."[22]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Why is it “reprehensible” to speak the plain truth?
Click to expand...

Because the reality is OPINION's are in no way clear cut "Truth". Truth suggests an neigh unquestionable, factual, verifable thing.

The notion that Homosexuals are mentally "sick people" and that it's a "psychological disorder" is not just not "Truth" but an abject inaccurate and false statement. In terms of mental health, there is nothing "sick" about homosexuality. That's not "Truth" that's having an opinion opposite of facts.

Stating "I find Homosexuals sickening" is an opinion and "Truth" in the minds of the person stating it. That could be considered "not being politically correct". Stating that homosexuals have a psychological disorder and are mentally sick however is NOT simply "not being politically correct" but is rather spouting categorically FALSE information.
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
There's nothing "plain" or "true" about those statements. The second statement in particular is nothing more than pig****ing ignorance wrapped up in several layers of pure viciousness.

The man is disgusting and I don't like what it says about our country that he can be elected while saying these things. I just think it's ridiculous he should be expected to apologize for believing them-- at least, for as long as he still believes them, and as long as his disgusting, reprehensible constituents continue to elect him for believing these things.
Click to expand...

I actually give a damn about CONSERVATIVE ideology, not just SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE ideology, and I don't vote for individuals who I think could actually have a significant chance of advocating for things that would damage my state and/or country. It's too bad that the Republicans are seemingly going to put up this jackass for the nominee in my state, basically assuring that when it comes to Lt. Governor I won't be casting a vote unless there's a 3rd party individual available.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Everything that you have here quoted him as saying, while not politically correct, is the plain truth. Why should he or anyone else apologize for speaking it?
Click to expand...
'

There's nothing plain, true, or productive in saying that Democrats are the antichrist.
 
rocket88 said:
'

There's nothing plain, true, or productive in saying that Democrats are the antichrist.
Click to expand...

To be fair...he said their AGENDA is "worthy of the antichrist" NOT that Democrats themselves were the antichrist.
 
Zyphlin said:
To be fair...he said their AGENDA is "worthy of the antichrist" NOT that Democrats themselves were the antichrist.
Click to expand...

That's kind of backpedaling..."I didn't call them Nazis, I just said Hitler could get behind that agenda."
 
rocket88 said:
That's kind of backpedaling..."I didn't call them Nazis, I just said Hitler could get behind that agenda."
Click to expand...

Backpeddling is changing one's position to a softer one after the fact.

That's not the case here. The case here is me correcting you misrepresenting what the individual reportedly said.

Now, you could say that what he said was a weak IMPLICATION that the Democrats are the Anti-Christ...but that's FAR different than claiming the man literally said something he did not say.

If you're going to criticize him you should criticize him fo rwhat he ACTUALLY said, otherwise you're no better than those like Bob stating things are true when they're provably not.
 
Zyphlin said:
I actually give a damn about CONSERVATIVE ideology, not just SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE ideology, and I don't vote for individuals who I think could actually have a significant chance of advocating for things that would damage my state and/or country. It's too bad that the Republicans are seemingly going to put up this jackass for the nominee in my state, basically assuring that when it comes to Lt. Governor I won't be casting a vote unless there's a 3rd party individual available.
Click to expand...

I should have spoken more carefully. I don't mean to say that all of his constituents are disgusting, but rather that his supporters-- whom I suspect are his supporters because of these statements, not despite them-- are disgusting for endorsing his statements. There might be a little ways I could go into saying that people holding their nose and voting for him are disgusting, too... but I have a good deal of sympathy for people in that situation; I mean, what else are they going to do, vote for liberals?
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
I should have spoken more carefully.
Click to expand...

No worries. I understood what you meant. What you said just made me think how annoyed I am that this is my "option" for a Republican candidate in this election.
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
That's the problem with Liberals... they always expect people who disagree with them to apologize for disagreeing with them, to concede from the outset of the conversation that they are wrong, and that they are continuing to advocate for their position despite knowing that they are wrong. They can't fathom that people disagree with them because they honestly disagree with them.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is true in the slightest. The demand for an apology is a show of power. There is very little chance he might honestly reconsider his views, but he might pretend to to avoid the backlash of social persecution. The question is whether the social pressure is strong enough in Virginia to sufficiently punish him electorally for spewing hatred towards homosexuals.
 
Bronson said:
The Founder of Planned Parenthood was a racist. She believed Blacks were unfit. She didn't think they should be allowed to breed.
Click to expand...

What a huge lie. It is astonishing how much some of the pro-life men on the forum do that in their messages.

The founder of PP did not even support abortions. She supported legalizing contraceptives - which Bronson obviously opposes.
 
joko104 said:
What a huge lie. It is astonishing how much some of the pro-life men on the forum do that in their messages.

The founder of PP did not even support abortions. She supported legalizing contraceptives - which Bronson obviously opposes.
Click to expand...

Are you denying that Sanger was a eugenicist?

Read her book Pivot of Civilization. In it she refers to blacks and other minorities as "human weeds, reckless breeders, spawning ... human beings who never should have been born."

She even talks about when she spoke to the KKK in her autobiography

Margaret Sanger's Account Of Her Lecture To The Ku Klux Klan / Educational Video Film - YouTube

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members - Margaret Sanger
Click to expand...

Planned Parenthood is a scam. They put them all in minority neighborhoods and have murdered more blacks than the KKK could have ever dreamed of doing. Planned Parenthood are butchers of black children.
 
Somerville said:
Twenty craziest tweets from E W Jackson
Click to expand...

I went to the link, where the article was promptly obliterated with a "ThinkProgress sign up sheet" that could NOT be removed. Irritating. :(

As for the OP, I think Jackson's beliefs and the way he expresses them are indeed reprehensible. I wouldn't vote for him or anyone like him if his was the only name on the ballot.
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
I should have spoken more carefully. I don't mean to say that all of his constituents are disgusting, but rather that his supporters-- whom I suspect are his supporters because of these statements, not despite them-- are disgusting for endorsing his statements. There might be a little ways I could go into saying that people holding their nose and voting for him are disgusting, too... but I have a good deal of sympathy for people in that situation; I mean, what else are they going to do, vote for liberals?
Click to expand...

I make no distinction between them. They could not vote, or do a write in, instead of enable a homophobe.
 
I am tired of seeing republicans complaining about all the minorities on welfare, when there is in fact more white people on it.

Maybe racial stereotyping comments like this is why minorities don't vote for you.

Fisher said:
Seriously, how dare a black man be a christian and seek political office when he should keep his mouth shut and take the welfare check the democrats want him to live on. Somebody needs to give him his comeuppance. Uncle Tom been reading too many books and we can't have that :roll:
Click to expand...
 
I think he makes religious people look bad. Somebody needs to remind him that he doesn't, in fact, speak for all Christians and he definitely doesn't speak for God. He is actually responsible for what he says.

MaggieD said:
I agree with this. I just wish politicians against abortion in any way, shape or form and those who oppose gay marriage would temper what they say. They are entitled to believe anything they want to believe. If religion guides their views? Who are we are challenge them?

But. They need to find a way to communicate their opinions so that they don't look like idiots.

Only a guy without a brain cell working would say this:
Click to expand...
 
SheWolf said:
I am tired of seeing republicans complaining about all the minorities on welfare, when there is in fact more white people on it.

Maybe racial stereotyping comments like this is why minorities don't vote for you.
Click to expand...

I am not a republican. Sorry to burst your bubble. The enemy of my enemy appears to be my friend to too many people here :2wave:
 
Are you sure he deserved to get into those colleges, or maybe he just got in because of his race. Better ask for transcripts. You can never trust a black person's intellect with AA these days.

Fisher said:
Yeah because being a descendant of slaves he should not have an opinion on such things and because he is a graduate of Harvard Law School and Harvard Divinity School he is clearly dumb as a bag of rocks. By the way, I still have yet to see someone refute his comment about the 3/5ths compromise--reality sucks that way sometimes.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom