Pushing the "gay" agenda in schools..

How the APA Removed Homosexuality as a Disorder (Part 1 of 4:Introduction)
When it comes to the mainstream entertainment and news media, our best bet is to apply the 90/10 rule. After so much reading and research, nobody in their right mind can deny that what we see on TV and what they tell us are 90% lies and 10% truth. And even the remaining 10% can be questionable based on the fact that we never get the whole story or only get one side of the story. When it comes to the issue of homosexuality, notice how we only get one side of the story and the other side even if given any media exposure at all is demonized or ridiculed. FOX news will only go so far and avoid asking the real questions when they cover any topic having to do with homosexuality. The side of the story that we get are predominately lies about homosexuality promoted as positive and good. Is this intentional? Well, coming from the top it is, but most messengers or people experiencing same sex attraction are unaware or are forced to self-censor what they really know or believe in order to keep their jobs.

Most of us have been conditioned (brainwashed) to think that only homosexuals and lesbians can understand, and hence be experts on homosexual and lesbian issues. In addition, we have all been conditioned to be afraid to oppose anything that a homosexual or lesbian spokesperson asserts, out of a fear of being rebuked as homophobic. This is why homosexuals and lesbians have a stranglehold on our society, even though they consist of a very small percentage of the population. Also, most people don't realize that for many many years, there has been a history of lots of blackmailing going on between people who engage in homosexual behavior, and still goes on today...especially in Hollywood. In Hollywood, you will get blacklisted (from parties, events, projects, etc.) if you are for morality. Many who have engaged in such sexual behavior run Hollywood, and there is definitely a sinister reason behind why they always stick up for homosexuality so vehemently. For example, only GOD knows how many people are walking around in a constant fear of blackmail by billionaires like David Geffen.

Most homosexuals discriminate against or even attack themselves in one way or another just to make themselves appear to be "the victim," for it is the only way that they can push their agenda, and they play this game very well. Much of the claims of victimization by society on them is an insecure projection that mostly comes from how they always blackmail each other. As a matter of fact, crimes on homosexuals are committing by other homosexuals at a much higher rate and a far greater frequency than crimes committed on homosexuals by heterosexuals.

But anyway, when dealing with my 90/10 rule, lets use Wikipedia as an example. Wiki can be good for getting the general idea about a topic, but that is as far as it goes. Referring to Wikipedia for a more elaborate definition of a word or topic that has nothing to do with any sociopolitical issue should be as far as it goes in terms of how it's used. Wikipedia was founded and run by a liberal professor. They have received many complaints of their editors putting out misinformation about certain organizations and people. People also need to be aware that in order for Wikipedia to cover themselves legally, they have publicly admitted that they are not a credible source...

Wikipedia:Academic use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki will post certain claims and then cite sources that are considered credible by the mainstream, But if and when you dig deeper, they aren't as credible as perceived. For example, many people think the American Psychiatric Association is the expert and final say when it comes to issues of psychology and more specifically, homosexuality. Dig deeper and you'll find that the APA's decisions are almost always based on political agendas and profits for Big Pharma, and has been like that since the very early 1970s. when organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics, National Mental Health Association (NMHS), The Royal College of Psychiatrists who are also heavily affiliated with homosexual activism (Professor Michael King is founder of the Gay and Lesbian special interest group at the Royal College of Psychiatrists), and even many government and mainstream media organizations when asked to give policy statements on issues of psychiatry and more specifically homosexuality, will base all of their policy statements and decisions off of the claims that the American Psychiatric Association puts forth.

In 1973, Homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual after immense POLITICAL pressure by the homosexual activists on the timid scientists and doctors, who were unprepared for fighting their political machinery of the 1970's.

Many scientists and psychologists complained, including Ronald Bayer, PhD, who taught for over 14 years as Professor at the Center for the History and Ethics of Public Health in the Department of Sociomedical Sciences at the Columbia University, and wrote about this removal in his book "Homosexuality and American Psychiatry:"

"Instead of being engaged in a sober consideration of data, psychiatrists were swept up in a political controversy. The American Psychiatric Association had fallen victim to the disorder of a tumultuous era, when disruptive conflicts threatened to politicize every aspect of American social life. A furious egalitarianism that challenged every instance of authority had compelled psychiatric experts to negotiate the pathological status of homosexuality with homosexuals themselves. The result was not a conclusion based on an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times."

Nicolas Cummings PHD who had a high position within the APA up until 2005 issued the following statement after he left the organization:

"The American Psychological Association has permitted political correctness to triumph over science, clinical knowledge and professional integrity. The public can no longer trust organized psychology to speak from evidence rather than from what it regards to be politically correct."
-Nicholas Cummings, PhD.
Source: Destructive Trends in Mental Health (2005).

The psychological/psychiatric professional associations such as the APA have become little more than the research arms of the homosexual rights movement.

"Homosexual advocates have created fraudulent studies and misused, misquoted, and mischaracterized other research studies for political gain. These reports are frequently used in court cases to bring about victories for homosexual activism." -Dr. Joseph Berger

- Dr. Joseph Berger is a past President of the Ontario Branch of the American Psych Assoc and an Assembly Representative to the APA

Another past president of the APA, Dr. Robert Perloff at an 2001 APA Annual Convention, condemned what he sees as the APA's one-sided political activism....

"The APA is too goddamn politically correct...and too goddamn obeisant to special interests!"

In 2004, Dr. Perloff in support of NARTH's mission statement concluded, "the individual's right for self-determination of sexuality -- or sexual autonomy -- is, I am happy to see, inherent in NARTH's position statement: NARTH respects each client's dignity, autonomy, and free agency...every individual has the right to seek therapy to change one's sexual adaptation is considered self-evident and inalienable. I subscribe fully to the aforementioned NARTH position statement."

The California Association of Marriage & Family Therapists has (thankfully) rejected a proposed ban on reorientation therapies by activists. This is also significant, because so many already don't understand the details of same sex attraction, so those who are aware they have a choice should have a right to exercise it. It shows that homosexual activists want to suppress former homosexuals and hide the truth from others afflicted...

Link: http://narth.com/2011/02/the-c..*al...s-proposal-to-b..*an-reorientation-therapies/

Here's an article written by a psychology student who develops a deeper passion for pursuing Christian counseling after discovering the huge bias for homosexual indoctrination in psychology classes and schools...

Indoctrinated against Human Nature: A Student Reveals the Homosexual Bias in Psychology Graduate Schools

How the APA Removed Homosexuality as a Disorder (Part 1 of 4: Introduction Continued)

The sources used consist mostly of pro-homosexual journals, articles, etc, so it will be a detailed documentation of what the homosexual community and homosexual activists that were there have admitted themselves in their own pro-homosexual articles and journals.

Here are the sources used for the upcoming article I'm about to post in the next 3 parts:

Gay American History, by Jonathan Ned Katz, 1992, p.427. This interview was taped July 19, 1974

American Psychologist, April 1993 Vol. 48, No. 4, 450-453

Bruce Shenitz, "The Grande Dame of Gay Liberation," Los Angeles Times Magazine, June 10, 1990, pp.20-34

Francis Mark Mondimore, "A Natural History of Homosexuality," Johns Hopkins University Press Baltimore and London, 1996, p. 90

Francis Mark Mondimore, "A Natural History of Homosexuality," Johns Hopkins University Press Baltimore and London, 1996, p. 90

Francis Mark Mondimore, "A Natural History of Homosexuality," Johns Hopkins University Press Baltimore and London, 1996, p. 90

Redirect Page

In a 1992 interview with Task Force member Paul Gebhard, who would also become the co-founder of the Sexual Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), he was questioned about data obtained by the Kinsey Institute related to the sexuality of children as young as six years old. The Kinsey Institute had worked with pedophiles in order to gather information and had instructed the criminals to keep careful records of their "activities" for scientific purposes. The transcript of this interview reveals the ethical standards of Paul Gebhard...

Interviewer: "So, do pedophiles normally go around with stopwatches?"
Gebhard: "Ah, they do if we tell them we are interested in it!"
Interviewer: "And clearly, [the orgasms of] at least 188 children were timed with a stopwatch, according to..."
Gebhard: "So, second hand or stopwatch. O.k., well, that's, ah, you refreshed my memory. I had no idea that there were that many."
Interviewer: "These experiments by pedophiles were presumably illegal?"
Gebhard: "Oh yes."

John Money, who served on the board of NIMH along with Hooker and Gebhard, was a psychologist from Johns Hopkins and an early (but later discredited and fired) proponent of transsexual surgery. John Money would ultimately come to be known for fully destroying a male infant's penis after a botched circumcision. After which, Money put the boy, David Reimer, on female hormones, told his parents to raise him as a female, and purported to have "reassigned" his gender. Money did this in a grotesque and hideous attempt to prove his "theory" that gender is socially constructed at an early age, and usually fixed in later life. John Money was wrong. While being "treated" in his early years David Reimer told his parents that Money had been abusing him and refused to see Money after the age of fourteen. David then immediately re-transitioned into a male gender role and later underwent reconstructive surgery. David did his best to live a normal adult male life. David Reimer married a woman with two of her own children, but eventually the psychological scars, left by John Money and his abuse would prove to be more than Reimer could bear. On May 4, 2004 David Reimer committed suicide at the age of only 38. Despite Money's horrific acts, he received the Magnus Hirschfield Medal in 2002 from the German Society for Social Scientific Sexuality Research, for whom he worked. Money used his "authoritative" title as a "psychologist" to get away with his hideous crimes, and the public, it seems, placed blind trust in him for his title.

R. Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses. (New York: Basic Books, 1981), p.102.

R. Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1987), p.104.

The Gay Militants, by Donn Teal, p.272-273
Ibid., p.274

R. Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1987), p.104.

R. Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1987), p.104.

R. Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1987), p.104.

The Gay Crusaders, by Kay Tobin and Randy Wicker, p. 98

Newsweek, 8-23-71, p.47
Newsweek, 8-23-71, p.47

R. Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1987), p.106.

R. Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1987), p.104.

R. Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1987), p.107.

The Gay Crusaders, p. 130-131

Making History: The Struggle for Gay and Lesbian Equal Rights, 1945-1990: an Oral History by Eric Marcus p.216-217 (--Author Marcus has worked as an associate producer for "CBS This Morning" and "Good Morning America.")

Making History: The Struggle for Gay and Lesbian Equal Rights, 1945-1990: an Oral History by Eric Marcus p.221

ibid, p.8
R. Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1987), p.107.

R. Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1987), p.108.

The Advocate ------------------------------From book Straight News:
Edward Alwood, Straight News: Gays, Lesbians, and the News Media
Columbia University Press, (1998), p. 127
Edward Alwood, Straight News: Gays, Lesbians, and the News Media
Columbia University Press, (1998), p. 127
This is Alwoods footnote from Straight News page 127 number 22

Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay's in the 90s, p.8

R. Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1987), p.113.

R. Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1987), p.113.

Edward Alwood, Straight News: Gays, Lesbians, and the News Media
Columbia University Press, (1998), p. 127

Edward Alwood, Straight News: Gays, Lesbians, and the News Media
Columbia University Press, (1998), p. 127

Edward Alwood, Straight News: Gays, Lesbians, and the News Media
Columbia University Press, (1998), p. 127

Newsweek, 21 May 1973
ibid

Wardell. B. Pomeroy, Dr. Kinsey and the Institute for Sex Research., New York: Harper and Row (1972)

Robins, E. and Saghir, M.T. Male and female homosexuality: natural history. Comprehensive psychiatry [0010-440x] 6,12:503 (1971)

E.g., Personal E-mail to Kathleen Melonakos, M.A., R.N., dated February 5, 2002.

The Advocate, 12-28-93, p.40
ibid.:88

Alfred M. Freedman M.D. Psychiatric News, September 2001, Recalling APA's Historic Step, Page Not Found

Love Undetectable, Andrew Sullivan, 1998, p. 107

The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan 1994, p.97
The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan 1994, p.104
The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan1994, p. 105-106

Adam:88

Rueda:106

R. Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1987), pp 3-4
Rueda:106

Making History, p.224

Gay American History, by Jonathan Ned Katz, 1992, p.427. This interview was taped July 19, 1974
R. Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1987), pp 3-4

R. Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1987), pp 3-4

Bayer, op. cit., p.138

And the Band Played On, 1988, p. 182

The Long Road to Freedom, pp.115
The Long Road to Freedom, pp.214

Science, 11-1-91, p.630

And the Band Played On, 1988, p. 182

Alfred M. Freedman M.D. Psychiatric News, September 2001, Recalling APA's Historic Step, Page Not Found

The APA's Removal of Homosexuality as a Disorder (Part 2 of 4)

"It was never a medical decision—and that's why I think the action came so fast...It was a political move." "That's how far we've come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared." -Barbara Gittings, Homosexual Activist

Getting Started:

Prior to December 14, 1973 the American Psychiatric Association considered same-sex attraction a mental disorder. The disorder was listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-II (DSM-II) under the label, "Homosexuality." In 1973, the APA voted to remove homosexuality from the DSM. This vote was driven by politics, not science.

A life long hard-left political activist, the psychologist and UCLA professor Evelyn Hooker is more than anyone else credited with having provided the pseudo-scientific rationale for the view which asserts that homosexuality is not a psychological disorder. In the book A Natural History of Homosexuality, author Francis Mark Mondimore records that, "after receiving her PhD in psychology, Hooker joined the faculty at the University of California at Los Angeles and taught some courses. Among her students was a [man who had developed same-sex attraction], whom she befriended, and in time was introduced to his circle of friends, mostly other [men who had developed same-sex attraction]." Hooker's students "were acutely aware of what was being written about them in the psychology books, and as the relationship between Dr. Hooker and these men grew closer, some of them suggested that she study them as research subjects" not objectively, but with the sole purpose of challenging the APA's categorization of homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder. "After some hesitation, Hooker agreed; in fact, she applied for and received a grant from the National Institutes of Mental Health to do so." Hooker's study, "The Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual," published in Projective Testing in 1957 was one of only two, along with Kinsey's Sexual Behavior of the Human Male upon which in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association decided to remove "Homosexuality" from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel of Mental Disorders (DSM).

Despite being discredited in April of 1993 by the official journal of the American Psychological Association, American Psychologist, Hooker's is the only study discussed in the APA's 2003 amicus brief, in Lawrence v. Texas, the United State Supreme court case which suspended the rights of the states to enforce anti-sodomy laws. Even today, more than fifty years after its publication, and fifteen years after its being exposed as contrived, her study is the only paper referenced in detail on the main website of the American Psychological Association in its discussion of "Gay" and "Lesbian" issues, as it attempts to make the case that there is no evidence for an association between same-sex attraction, sodomy, and psychopathology. The controversial claims of Hooker garnered her almost instant recognition within pro-sodomy circles, and in the wake of the Stonewall riots in 1969, when politics began to trump (objective) science, militant activists increasingly relied on Hooker's study to support their demands that the APA remove homosexuality from the DSM.

Eight years after Hooker's now-repudiated study, in 1965, Judd Marmor, an influential USC /UCLA psychiatrist (and "new left" political activist, who had been previously involved with both anti-war and pro-abortion issues) hand-picked Evelyn Hooker to chair the American Psychiatric Association 's newly established National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Task Force on Homosexuality. The only other "mental health" representatives listed as serving on the Board of the NIMH Task Force during this time were Alfred Kinsey's close colleagues Paul Gebhard, then Director of the Institute for Sex Research at Indiana University and John Money from Johns Hopkins, both of whom openly advocated the social legitimization of sex between adults, children, and even infants, and engaged in despicable, vile, and criminal activities in order to gain the pseudo-scientific evidence they needed to support and promulgate their ideas about sodomy and pedophilia.

The successful creation of the NIMH Task Force on Homosexuality marked the beginning of a power shift within the American Psychiatric Association. Between 1965 and 1969 as NIMH deliberations were carried out, several clinicians whom had worked for years with persons struggling with same-sex attraction and wanted to be involved in deliberations were intentionally left out of discussions for ideological reasons. In addition, one objective committeeman, a judge from Washington D.C., the Honorable David M. Bazelon, resigned during the Task Force deliberations after becoming aware of the distinctly unscientific direction that Judd Marmors' hand-picked board members were set on taking the NIMH.

In October of 1969, the blatantly biased NIMH issued its report on "Homosexuality." Unsurprisingly, the report claimed, parroting Alfred Kinsey almost word-for-word, that sexuality is a continuum from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality, and that some degree of bisexuality is the human norm. (It avoided mentioning however that in Kinsey's view human sexual taste is almost infinitely malleable and that it logically follows from this view that no sexual behavior can be considered abnormal.) Without any evidence, the report stated that any suffering by men who engage in sodomy is caused by societal prejudice. Thus, according to the Task Force, there is nothing problematic with "homosexuality" per se. This report, along with the Kinsey Report and Hooker study, gave outside activists the pseudo-scientific rationale that they needed to begin to challenge the APA's official position on homosexuality.

1970

Within a few years new left UCLA psychologist Judd Marmor, the man who had handpicked Hooker to chair the NIMH Task Force became Vice President of the American Psychiatric Association. With Hooker and Marmor in such prominent roles, agitators outside the profession could count on their collaboration in organizing protests aimed at the removal of "Homosexuality" from the DSM and radicalizing the APA. Author Ronald Bayer, who served as a Fellow at the Hastings Institute in New York during the time also takes note of this fact in his book, Homosexuality and the American Psychiatric Association when he writes that in 1970 the leadership of a faction of pro-sodomy psychiatrists within the APA planned a "systematic effort to disrupt annual meetings of the American Psychiatric Association." Although politically motivated protests directed at psychiatrists had taken place prior, one can see the beginnings of a coordinated effort to politicize the APA at its 1970 annual meeting in San Francisco. Here psychiatrists discussing various issues surrounding the subject of the pathology of "homosexuality" were surprised by activists who had been secretly brought into the meeting to shout them down.

The Gay Militants, a book about this time, tells the story: "On May 14, 1970 psychiatrists became the hunted. An invasion by the coalition of homosexual and women's liberationists interrupted the national convention of the American Psychiatric Association in San Francisco to protest the reading of a paper by an Australian psychiatrist on the subject of 'aversion therapy,' a system of treatment which attempts to change homosexual orientation by keying unpleasant sensations (such as electric shocks) to homosexual stimuli. By the time the meeting was over, the feminists and their homosexual cohorts were in charge...and the doctors were heckling from the audience.'"

Pro-homosexual activists took over the podium and microphones. Then, Konstantin Berlandt, of the Berkeley chapter of the Gay Liberation Front, "paraded through the hall in a bright red dress. Paper airplanes sailed down from the balcony. With two papers still unread, the chairman announced adjournment." As the meeting adjourned several arguments broke out between the psychiatrists who were angry about the surprise disruption and the activists. One activist shouted to a psychiatrist, "Don't shake your fu**ing finger at me," to which the psychiatrist replied, "I'll shake whatever I please." Another argument arose. Psychiatrist Dr. Irving Bieber stated that he believed persons experiencing same-sex attraction were the subjects of "misplaced sexual adjustment," to which a pro-sodomy activist shrieked and called him a "mother fu**er."

Emboldened by a lack punishment for having trampled over the medical community's monies and freedoms of assembly and speech, activists disrupted another meeting of the American Psychiatric Association on June 23, 1970. This time in Chicago, they repeatedly shouted down the main speaker's discourse. Then, in October, during a meeting at the University of Southern California, pro-sodomy activists struck again, by shouting down yet another speaker and taking over the stage and microphone. In November of 1970, The Advocate, a pro-gay magazine, reported on these and other disruptions under the headline: "PSYCHOLOGISTS GET GAY LIB THERAPY."

As the autumn air chilled the nation in 1970, pro-homosexual activists became increasingly bitter. Dr. Jeffrey Satinover notes in his book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth that activists even began threatening physical attacks and making terrorist threats, over the telephone and through anonymous letters, to those psychiatrists who were courageous enough to continue to speak of their scientific findings.

APA's Removal of homosexuality (Part 3 of 4)


1971

Early in 1971, the APA's national convention program chairman Dr. John Ewing was warned by Dr. Kent Robinson, who acted as a kind of ad hoc intermediary between pro-homosexual activists and the APA at the time, that if a panel—not simply about homosexuality, but one consisting of pro-homosexual activists—was not approved, activists would ruin the entire convention. Acceding to intense pressure, Ewing agreed to sponsor a special panel for activists at the May 1971 annual convention in Washington D.C. under only one condition, that a psychiatrist Chair the panel, as required by APA rules. Since Dr. Kent Robinson knew of no one else willing, he somewhat reluctantly agreed to do so himself.

Thus, rather than respond appropriately to threats by outside activists, through a visibly increased security force, convention planner John Ewing caved to the demands of the radicals. Not only did Ewing yield to bullies, he went a step further. He ordered his security team to wear plain clothes, which, according to pro-sodomy historian, Ronald Bayer, in his 1981 book Homosexuality and American Psychiatry, "entailed a willingness to ride out rather than to prevent demonstrations." To those activists who had "challenged the professional authority of psychiatry it was clear that only the threat of disorder and even violence had been able to create the conditions..." out of which change would occur. "That lesson would not be forgotten."

After this quick capitulation, activists decided to make more demands. In lieu of the May convention in Washington D.C., in an effort to plan not only more but worse disruptions, a secret group of pro-sodomy psychiatrists and outside agitators sought the services of left wing radical Franklyn Kameny, who had led the Washington D.C. chapter of the Mattachine Society during the 1960's. In the words of pro-sodomy historian Ronald Bayer, "Aware of the organizational weakness of his own Mattachine Society as well as of its relative conservatism, Frank Kameny turned to a Gay Liberation Front collective in Washington to plan the May 1971 demonstrations. Together with the collective, Kameny developed a detailed strategy of disruption, paying attention to the most intricate logistical details, including the floor plan of the hotel in which the convention was to be housed." Kameny states his objective clearly, "I feel that the entire homophile movement...is going to stand or fall upon the question of whether or not homosexuality is a disorder, and upon our taking a firm stand on it..."

Despite agreeing not to protest in return for a special panel, all hell broke loose at the APA's 1971 national convention at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington D.C. Kameny's cadre of anti-Vietnam War protestors, who just finished a massive demonstration of their own, along with members of the Gay Liberation Front, who had forged credentials, provided by allies on the inside (some at the very top), broke into a widely attended special lifetime service award meeting entitled the, "Convocation of Fellows." They grabbed the microphone and Kameny declared psychiatry the "enemy incarnate."

An August 1971 edition of Newsweek explains, "But even more than the government, it is the psychiatrists who have experienced the full rage of the homosexual activists. Over the past two years, [1970-71] gay-lib organizations have repeatedly disrupted medical meetings, and three months ago—in the movement's most aggressive demonstration so far—a group of 30 homosexual militant activists broke into a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in Washington, where they turned the staid proceedings into near chaos for twenty minutes.

"We are here to denounce your authority to call us sick or mentally disordered," shouted the group's leader, Dr. Franklin Kameny, while the 2,000 shocked psychiatrists looked on in disbelief. 'For us, as homosexuals, your profession is the enemy incarnate. We demand that psychiatrists treat us as human beings, not as patients to be cured! Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us...We're rejecting you all as our owners. You may take this as our declaration of war!"

Regardless of the disruption, a few hours later, the promised panel discussion—presented by the same group of protestors—proceeded without objection by the APA. "In addition to Kameny the panel included Larry Littlejohn, of the Society for Individual Rights in San Francisco, Del Martin, a founder of the female pro-homosexual activist group Daughters of Bilitis, Lilli Vicenz, a lesbian activist, and Jack Baker" the student body president-elect at the University of Minnesota." Ironically, at the very moment, in 1971, while the aforementioned activists were making the case that sodomy is healthy, safe, and natural, a deadly virus was silently passing through communities of men all over the nation. Only a decade later, thousands of men would be dead or dying of AIDS.

According to Ronald Bayer, "toward the end of the convention Kameny and Littlejohn informed Kent Robinson that they wanted to present their demands for the deletion of homosexuality from the APA's official nosology, DSM II, to members of the Associations Committee on Nomenclature." Again, under intense pressure, a meeting was arranged and although nothing came of it, the process, "of transforming general outrage into a specific political demand had been set in motion."

Shortly after the May convention, on June 7, 1971, Franklin Kameny wrote a letter to Psychiatric News threatening the APA with not only more, but worse disruptions. In this letter he states, "Our presence there was only the beginning of an increasingly intensive campaign by homosexuals to change the approach of psychiatry toward homosexuality or, failing that, to discredit psychiatry." Protests continued over the course of the next several years. Kay Tobin Lahausen, co-author of The Gay Crusaders describes a variety of activism. "We did all sorts of protests...When the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations came out of some meeting and got in his big black limousine, I remember going crazy, rocking and beating on the limousine...He had never been besieged by a bunch of homosexuals before. But he had said something that got us going."

Lahausen's lover, Barbara Gittings was a well known homosexual activist during this time. Although Gittings was not a librarian, she was the first head of the American Library Association's "Gay Task Force." Her objective was to bring books advocating homosexual behavior to the attention of librarians, in hopes of having them included in their libraries. At one American Library Association meeting Gittings set up a same-sex kissing booth to attract attention to her cause. Gittings tells about her activism against the APA: "Besides the ALA, I was also very involved, along with many other people, in efforts to get the American Psychiatric Association... to drop its listing of homosexuality as a mental illness.

Psychiatrists were one of the three major groups that had their hands on us. They had a kind of control over our fate, in the eyes of the public, for a long time. Religion and law were the other two groups that had their hands on us. So, besides our homosexual behavior being a disorder, we were sinful and criminal. But the disorder label infected everything that we said and made it difficult for us to gain any credibility for anything we said ourselves.
The disorder issue was paramount."

APA's Removal of Homosexuality (Part 3 of 4 continued)

1972

Barbara Gittings worked with Franklyn Kameny to put together a panel at the 1972 APA annual convention in Dallas. These activists understood that by continuing to host panel discussions on the subject of the removal of "Homosexuality" from the DSM, they could make it appear as though psychiatrists were at least divided on the issue.

Homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen explain this point in a later book entitled After the Ball when they assert that, "Constant talk builds the impression that public opinion is at least divided on the subject..." Dr. Kent Robinson again "played a central role, this time making arrangements for a fully institutionalized presence" and "a grant from the Falk Foundation covered the travel expenses of several homosexuals activists as well as the cost of a booth in the scientific exhibition era."

The panel again included Franklyn Kameny, Barbara Gittings, and new left UCLA psychiatrist and then vice president of the APA, Judd Marmor, as moderator. The panel also included a six foot four, three hundred pound psychiatrist from a secret pro-homosexual faction within the APA called the "Gay-PA," who wore a disguise, which consisted of a rubber mask, a huge wig, and a baggy tuxedo. This disguised psychiatrist also spoke through a microphone which distorted his voice, and was identified at the meeting only as "Dr. H. Anonymous."

A Sterling World - Dr. H. Anonymous

This psychiatrist would later come to be known as Dr. John Fryer, who at the time was an untenured professor at Temple University in Philadelphia.

During the panel, amidst a crowd of over 200 psychiatrists, "Dr. Anonymous" announced the existence of the "Gay-PA," which met socially, admitted to frequenting bath-houses, and hosted a secret dinner each year during APA annual conventions. He also announced that over 100 "Gay-PA" members were present at the convention. For pro-homosexual activists, this bold panel discussion was a huge success. Its very presence at the convention prompted the pro-sodomy publication the Advocate to report that "Psychiatry and the homosexual community may finally have reached a turning point."

In addition to the panel, author Edward Alwood notes in his book Straight News that Kameny also, "recognized that by participating in the convention, he had a rare opportunity to integrate the event. He even attended the annual psychiatrists' ball. When the band struck up the music, Kameny grabbed Phil Johnson, a local Dallas" pro-homosexual activist and "the two men waltzed out onto the dance floor. The stunned psychiatrists and their spouses watched speechlessly, most of them pretending they were not seeing it."

In a book that has become widely known as a kind of "gay manifesto," After the Ball, authors Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen indicate that they may have had at least one problem with Kameny's approach at the psychiatrists' ball when they write that, "The masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself...the imagery of sex should be strategically downplayed..."

Following the panel at the 1972 convention a manufactured internal debate generated by a few activists within the APA emerged when pro-homosexual activist Richard Green, then Director of the Gender Identity Research and Treatment Program at the UCLA Medical School published an essay entitled "Homosexuality as a Mental Illness" in the International Journal of Psychiatry.

Ronald Bayer notes in his book Homosexuality and American Psychiatry that, "Green's essay was followed by at least six formally invited responses, at least four of which were calculated to sharpen awareness of the profound disagreements that had begun to characterize opinion on homosexuality. Rather than expressions of doubt and uncertainty, they were unmistakably partisan declarations. Judd Marmor and Martin Hoffman expressed clear and unambiguous support for the position that the classification of homosexuality as a mental illness represented nothing more than the cloaking of moral judgments in the language of science. Dr. Charles Socarides and Dr. Lawrence Hatterer defended the traditional psychiatric perspective. Especially for Socarides, there was no reason to reopen the issue of the pathologic status of homosexuality. Indeed, he perceived Greens agnostic stance as a rejection of the findings of science—a rejection cloaked in the guise of scientific posture."


By mid-1972 pro-homosexual activists had created the illusion that many psychiatrists were breaking ranks with traditional views about the inclusion of "homosexuality" within the DSM. As a result, many psychiatrists who may have felt civil rights sentiments related to the movement, yet did not study human sexuality at length and were largely ignorant of many of the most important theories related to the matter, began to break ranks by jumping on the newly manufactured band wagon in support of the removal of homosexuality as a category within the DSM.

After the APA annual convention, on October 8, 1972 "homosexual activists staged what would come to be seen as one of their most important "zap" demonstrations, when they targeted a meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy in New York. During the meeting, more than one hundred members of the Gay Activists' Alliance (GAA)" protested and distributed a flier outside the hotel entitled "Torture Anyone?" Meanwhile, inside, several homosexual activists were able to penetrate security and infiltrate a session on aversion therapy. "This is it!" shouted Ronald Gold, GAA's media director. "We're taking over!" Gold commandeered the microphone and demanded that the disorder label attached to homosexuality be removed from the psychiatrists' official diagnostic manual." The story "was prominently featured in the next morning's New York Times."

APA's removal of homosexuality (part 4 of 4)


The Politicization of the American Psychiatric Association 1973

"Meanwhile a dramatic shift in events was shaping up behind the scenes at the APA. During the zap of the psychiatrists at the May [1972] annual convention, one member of the audience had recognized Gold from having attended college with him and introduced him to Robert Spitzer, a member of the APA's Nomenclature Committee, which set the official classifications for illnesses. As a former reporter for the entertainment trade newspaper Variety, Gold instantly recognized the value of his new contact and began to lobby for a meeting of the Nomenclature Committee and representatives of GAA."


The APA's committee on Nomenclature and Statistics was responsible for publishing the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Loosely coordinated with the international classification of medical diseases, the enormously influential DSM had defined "homosexuality" medically, on par with many other sexual deviations because persons who had developed same-sex attraction did not have an adult person of the opposite sex as their primary object of sexual interest. Robert Spitzer, who would eventually become the pre-eminent expert in the classification of mental disorders on a statistical basis and the overall director of psychiatry's official classification system, was then a consultant to the Nomenclature Committee.

Spitzer, who sympathized with the activists on civil rights grounds:

"...eventually agreed to set up the meeting, provided it was kept hush-hush. After agreeing to the stipulation Gold went behind Spitzer's back and notified the press. On February 9, 1973 Boyce Rosenberger, a science writer at the New York Times wrote a story on the issue. The headline read: PSYCHIATRISTS REVIEW STAND ON HOMOSEXUALS."

Although the article infuriated the APA, it assured the activists that they would be given a hearing. Gold notes that: "The article not only got attention far and wide once it was in the times but it put them on record...Although the Nomenclature Committee stopped short of approving the change, Spitzer, who was the head of the committee invited Gold to make his case before the association's entire membership at its 1973 annual convention in Hawaii the following May.""By the time of the May 1973 APA convention in Honolulu, Spitzer's views had moved quite far." Contact with pro-homosexual activists who insisted that they were fully satisfied with their lives and who used the Kinsey and Hooker studies to ground their claims caused Spitzer to reconsider his views. However, in order to do so, Spitzer was also forced to reconsider his views surrounding the issue of what constitutes a psychiatric disorder.

Eventually, rather than acknowledge that homosexuality did in fact constitute a psychiatric disorder, under the APA's 1973 definition of a disorder, as "that which inhibits the natural functioning of one's physical design," Spitzer opted to change the definition of a what the term "disorder" actually meant. The new definition of a mental disorder thus became, "that which regularly causes subjective distress or is regularly associated with some generalized impairment of social effectiveness or functioning."

During the time Spitzer was shifting his position and formulating his own new definition of a mental disorder, a true case of putting the cart before the horse, he was also planning the panel discussion that he had promised activists would take place at the May 1973 APA annual convention in Honolulu. Further, as Spitzer altered his views, he became increasingly willing to stack the panel discussion in favor of the activists. The end result was the inclusion of only two psychiatrists against the removal of homosexuality, Charles Socarides and Irving Bieber, and four psychiatrists in favor of the removal; Judd Marmor, then vice president of the APA and new left political activist, Robert Stoller, Richard Green, and Ronald Gold.

"On the day of the convention Gold stood at the lectern before a crowd of 5000 psychiatrists and urged them to stop," calling "Homosexuality" a sickness. "Later that afternoon the associated press carried a story about the session, prompting coverage in newspapers across the nation. DOCTORS URGED NOT TO CALL HOMOSEXUALITY A SICKNESS was the headline on the short AP story in the New York Times on May 10." Newsweek's interpretation of the event was more cavalier, "The indications seem to be that the [Nomenclature] Committee will decide to drop homosexuality from its list of mental aberrations."


After the convention Ronald Gold brought Robert Spitzer (who had never met a working psychiatrist who openly admitted to engaging in homosexual behavior) with him to a secret function of the "Gay PA." Although members of the "Gay PA" were initially angry that Gold had exposed them to an outsider, they eventually settled on the circumstance as an opportunity to offer emotional arguments to Spitzer in their own favor. Indeed, in pro-homosexual author Ronald Bayer's book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry he notes that Spitzer's meeting with the "Gay PA" members, "provided an emotional jolt that moved him to prepare, within a month, a proposal for the deletion of homosexuality from the nomenclature."


Spitzer quickly brought the issue to the attention of Dr. Henry Brill, who was the chair of the Task Force on Nomenclature and Statistics for the APA at the time. Brill then assigned Spitzer to prepare a "scientifically sound" and "persuasive" memo and resolution, to be presented to the APA's Council on Research and Development, to the Reference Committee, and to the Board of Trustees.


Dr. Spitzer quickly drafted a three page resolution and solicited Dr. Charles Silverstein and Wardell Pomeroy to help him present the majority of the pro-homosexual case before the APA's Council on Research and Development and Reference Committee. The committee was impressed writes Ronald Bayer, "by the sober and professional manner" in which Charles Silverstein, Ph.D., (who would later author The Joy of Gay Sex and The New Joy of Gay Sex) presented the pro-homosexual case. And, crucially, "Since none of the Committee members was an expert on homosexuality, there was considerable interest in the data that had been presented, much of which was new to those who would have to evaluate the issues raised by the call for a revised nomenclature."

Rarely, has such a crucially important decision, affecting many, been made for the APA, by so few, who knew so little about a subject, and in so poor a position to judge the scientific quality of the representation being offered them.


Silverstein led off with Hooker's illegitimate study, and also introduced some of Kinsey's now repudiated work. He emphasized Kinsey's claims about the frequency of homosexual behavior, but like the NIMH committee before him, he passed over in silence the fact that Kinsey considered sexuality to be mutable. Wardell Pomeroy, co-author of the first Kinsey volume and (like all his male colleagues) one of Kinsey's lovers, also argued before the committee.


Pomeroy argued that the Kinsey data found that "homosexuality" was not associated with psychopathology and that all other studies of "homosexuality" were intrinsically flawed, because they were based on "clinical" samples rather than samples from the regular population—as though this were not what a quantitative comparative pathography would require. Even so, both statements were flat falsehoods, especially outrageous in that the Kinsey data itself—for which Pomeroy was largely responsible—was fraudulently skewed by blatant population sampling biases, and the badgering and even bribing of its imprisoned and otherwise institutionalized subjects, which were not reported as such. Pomeroy later even admitted the shortcomings of the Kinsey Report in his book Dr. Kinsey and the Institute for Sex Research published shortly before this very meeting—which even so, he neglected to mention.

APA's removal of homosexuality (part 4 of 4: Continued)

After presenting to the Reference Committee, Spitzer presented the NIMH's official position on "homosexuality" in front of the APA's Board of Trustees. According to Psychiatric News, it was "essentially upon the rationale of Dr. Spitzer's presentation that the Board made its decision."

In short Spitzer argued that:


1. "Exclusive Homosexuality" was a normal part of the human condition, a claim based on the now debunked Kinsey data.

2. Homosexuality did not meet the requirements of a psychiatric disorder since it "does not either regularly cause subjective distress or is regularly associated with some generalized impairment in social effectiveness or functioning [sic]," a claim which changed the definition of the term "disorder" for all psychology.

3. Spitzer argued, based on Marcell T. Saghir and Eli Robin's "Male and Female Homosexuality" that homosexuality was normal. (Their research—which was astoundingly shoddy—was roundly criticized by colleagues as the time, but no critique was addressed by the presenter or the committee.)

Although Spitzer did not say so then, in later correspondence he has said that another important component of the case was the work of Evelyn Hooker. The APA committee, however, failed to reference critical studies, such as Robin's and Saghir's suicide studies, which indicated that "homosexuality" did cause "subjective distress" and that their study had found differences in the behavioral patterns and psychology of homosexuals as compared to all other men. As fraudulent as Hooker's finding were, these differences would have complicated even her perceived findings.

Nonetheless, quickly following the advice of the new advisors (advisors who had themselves developed same-sex attraction and engaged in homosexual sodomy) two-thirds of the APA's Board of Trustees (barely a quorum) voted to remove "homosexuality" as a psychiatric disorder, with only two abstentions. A few voices formally appealed to the membership at large—scarcely a scientific modus operandi, either.

Countering this appeal, every psychiatrist (tens of thousands) received a mailing urging them to support the change, purportedly for legitimate data-based reasons and apparently "from" the APA, but in fact surreptitiously financed entirely by the National Gay Task Force. Two-thirds of those members who did subsequently vote, voted to support the change—but only one-third of the membership responded (and far from all psychiatrists belonged to the APA to begin with).

Pro-homosexual activists continued to pressure the APA through 1973. A pro-sodomy magazine, The Advocate, talks of "...what happened in 1973...referring to the widespread protests by the homosexual community that led to the APA's dropping homosexuality from the DSM."


An article appearing in Psychiatric News about this time recalls that pro-homosexual activists were beginning to speak of unyielding psychiatrists as "war criminals," with obvious implications. In fear for their safety, and certainly wearied by constant harassment, on December 15, 1973, the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association capitulated to the demands of the radicals and adopted Spitzer's resolution by voting to downgrade "homosexuality" as an illness to the milder category of "Sexual Orientation Disturbance."

During the time that outside activists were terrorizing psychiatrists, the APA's Board of Trustees was being stacked with members sympathetic to the pro-homosexual cause.

Pro-homosexuality psychiatrist and former president of the American Psychiatric Association Alfred M. Freedman recounts, "In the APA elections of 1972 and 1973 concern over social issues brought in a number of individuals as members of the Board of Trustees who were committed to change, including removal of homosexuality per se from the official APA nomenclature."

The fact the Board was influenced and intimidated is no secret. In fact, pro-homosexual journalist Andrew Sullivan wrote that in December of 1973 the APA, "...under intense political pressure...removed homosexuality from its official list of psychiatric disorders."

Activist Mark Thompson writes, "Just before the first of the year, the American Psychiatric Association's Board of Trustees declared we were no longer sick."


After the vote by the American Psychiatric Association's Board of Trustees, many members of the APA were outraged at the Board for caving in, and changing psychiatry solely as a result of political pressure. In response to the Board's decision, many psychiatrists, led by Dr. Charles Socarides filed a petition for a referendum to reverse the action of the Board. They called for a full vote by the APA's 17,905 members. On April 9, 1974, the results of the vote were announced. Only 10,555 of the 17,905 APA members voted in the election. The results were as follows,

Total APA members eligible to vote: 17,905
Number of APA members that actually voted: 10,555
Number of members that "Abstained": 367
Number of "No" votes -votes to keep "homosexuality" in the DSM as a mental disorder: 3,810
Number of "Yes" votes-votes to remove "homosexuality" from the DSM as a mental disorder: 5,854


It should be noted that the number of "Yes" votes, 5,854, made up only 32.7 percent of the total membership of the APA. Only slightly less than one-third of the APA's membership approved the change.

It should be further noted that the vote was partially controlled by the "National Gay and Lesbian Task Force" (NGTLF). The "NGTLF" was able to obtain APA member addresses and with-out identifying itself as an organization, sent out letters to all members urging them to vote to remove "homosexuality" from the DSM. Bruce Voeller, the head of the "NGTLF" admits, "Our costly letter has perhaps made the difference."

The pro-homosexuality activists won the vote and the new official definition of "homosexuality" as a disorder was downgraded to include only those who were "unhappy with their sexual orientation." But was this vote a scientific decision, or was it a political one?

APA's Removal of homosexuality (Part 4 of 4: Continued to End)

Four years later, a survey of in the journal Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality showed that 69 percent of psychiatrists disagreed with the vote, and still considered "homosexuality" a disorder.

Pro-homosexual author Ronald Bayer remarks that the APA had fallen victim to the disorder of a tumultuous era, when disruptive conflicts threatened to politicize every aspect of American life. A furious egalitarianism...had compelled psychiatrists to negotiate the pathological status of homosexuality with homosexuals themselves. The result was not a conclusion based upon an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times.

Former pro-homosexual historian Enrique Rueda makes a similar claim, "This vote was not the result of scientific analysis after years of painstaking research. Neither was it a purely objective choice following the accumulation of incontrovertible data. The very fact that the vote was taken reveals the nature of the process involved, since the existence of an orthodoxy in itself, contradicts the essence of science."


Indeed, when activists publicly claim that the vote was a scientific decision, they hide three years of deceit, intimidation, and strategic internal committee lobbying and take-over's. In pro-homosexual publications however, activists are remarkably candid about the reality of the vote. Pro-homosexual activists Kay Lahusen and Barbara Gittings know what really happened. In the book, "Making History," they are quite open about the reality....

Kay: "This was always more of a political decision than a medical decision."

Barbara: "It never was a medical decision—and that's why I think the action came so fast. After all, it was only three years from the time that feminists and homosexuals first zapped the APA at a behavior therapy session to the time that the Board of Trustees voted in 1973 to approve removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. It was a political move."


The APA was thoroughly intimidated. In 1974, after the APA's vote, Gittings was interviewed by pro-homosexual movement historian Jonathan Ned Katz. Gittings brags,"That's how far we've come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared."

Two years later the American Psychological Association—which is three times larger that the American Psychiatric Association—voted to follow suit, and soon the National Association of Social Workers did likewise. The seventh printing of the DSM in 1974, placed a special note that announced that the APA had voted to eliminate "homosexuality" as a metal disorder and to substitute it with a new category entitled, "Sexual Orientation Disturbance."

The new entry read as follows:

"302.0 Sexual Orientation Disturbance [Homosexuality]

This is for individuals whose sexual interests are directed primarily toward people of the same-sex and who are either disturbed by, in conflict with, or wish to change their sexual orientation. This diagnostic category is distinguished from homosexuality, which by itself does not constitute a psychiatric disorder. Homosexuality per se is one form of sexual behavior, and with other forms of sexual behavior, which are not be themselves psychiatric disorders, are not listed in this nomenclature."

Thus, it became "disordered" for one to wish that the way one expresses his or her instincts be in accord with the physical organs that do the expressing, as though a fish who thinks itself a bird should be thought ill for hoping one day to be happy in the water. A pure political compromise, this peculiar category would last but a few years before being dispensed with altogether.

What hung in the balance? By the time this struggle had ended, "what Frank Kameny had been referring to for years as the major prop of society's anti-homosexual bias had been shattered," notes Bayer. Twenty years later all the sodomy statutes in America would be close to being found unconstitutional and five years after that, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts would find marriage itself unconstitutional.

Moreover, in 1997, the APA would make a subtle change in how it diagnosed all the paraphilias (the new term for "deviations" like sadomasochism, pedophilia, and fetishism) in a revised edition of DSM IV. The Nomenclature Committee rewrote its criteria so that such diagnoses would apply only if the impulses or activities in question interfered with other functioning or caused distress to the individual him or herself. Further, by 2002, the "sexology" community was fiercely debating the removal of all the paraphilias, pedophilia included, from the DSM, on the same grounds as "homosexuality" had been removed.


Apparently, the American Psychological Association also received the message of intimidation when they caved in to the demands of pro-homosexual activists in 1973.

In the book, The Long Road to Freedom the author writes,

"January...The American Psychological Association and American Association for the Advancement of Science echoed the American Psychiatric Association in deeming homosexuality not an illness."

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) publishes the scientific journal Science, intimidation by pro-homosexual activists was over for them. Under pressure from homosexual scientific groups, Science magazine only allowed pro-homosexual in its staff hiring and advertisement.


Could the AAAS have been thinking about pressure from pro-homosexual activist groups when they published the poorly done studies by LeVay ("gay" brains) and Hamer ("gay" gene)? Two scientists who protested the LeVay study raise serious questions about AAAS, Science, and pro-homosexual activists.

The scientists state that, "The appearance of LeVay's paper highlights a serious issue in Science public policy. Should such a study, based on a questionable design, with subjects drawn from a small, highly selected and non-representative sample, receive the kind of international attention and credibility that publication in a journal with the stature of Science lends?"


If Dr. LeVay was not able to draw a proper sample and to fulfill other basic requirements for a scientific study, why did he conduct the study at all? If the study was not done for scientific reasons, it must have been done for political reasons. Indeed, LeVay's study was part of a massive public relations campaign designed to convince the public to believe that individuals are "born gay."


Pro-homosexual activists continued to pressure the APA through 1973, and while these radicals were terrorizing psychiatrists, the APA's Board of Trustees was being stacked with members sympathetic to their cause. Former president of the American Psychiatric Association Alfred M. Freedman recounts, "In the APA elections of 1972 and 1973 concern over social issues brought in a number of individuals as members of the Board of Trustees who were committed to change, including removal of homosexuality per se from the official APA nomenclature."


The APA, now being pressured—both from inside and from without—to change its classification, created a special task force on June 1973, comprised all most entirely of the same people from the Kinsey Institute, who had packed the NIMH committee. Judd Marmor was now the Vice-President of the APA, while the President-elect was a homosexual, John Spiegel who would keep that fact a secret during this time.

The masthead of science must have been intimidated to risk the publication's own legitimacy by publishing such an unscientific work. When unethical political movements dominate science, pushing science in unscientific directions, science suffers and leads society astray.


One lesson drawn from the facts outlined in this chapter is unmistakable: every time a scientific group repeats a pro-homosexual talking point, you may, with justifiable skepticism, suspect that these groups are acting out of intimidation.

Another unmistakable lesson is that pro-homosexual activists are so desperate to cover their deeply dysfunctional condition that they will stop at nothing to hide the facts about their condition from the public. Award-winning writer and pro-homosexual activist Randy Shilts describes the denial that exists among most who engage in homosexual behavior, about the reality of their irresponsible and unhealthy lifestyles causing AIDS to be epidemic, when he wrote, "...the desperation of denial: how when something is so horrible you don't want to believe it, you want it out of your mind and insist it isn't true, and how you hate the person who says it is." Randy Shilts discovered he was HIV positive in 1987 and passed on in 1992 at age 42.

Desperate denial; this seems to be what drives the pro-homosexual movement's deceit, psychological manipulation, and intimidation of scientific groups and other members of society.


End

(Back up to the previous page to start at Part 1 of 4: Introduction- Sources Included)

Everything in these past several posts has been thoroughly debunked by me several times over the past few years. I will repost MY information here, also. Nothing that Pat says is accurate... and his sources have been debunked or misquoted, especially the Bayer source. The Hooker study has been reproduced many times with many different testing assessments with the same results.

Pat's comments are nothing more that the lies and misrepresentations that we have seen from the anti-gay crowd for ages. NARTH has no credibility, nor does Focus on the Family. Btw, Pat cites a 1993 article in the American Psychologist that claims that, there, the Hookers study is discredited. Flat out lie. I have access to that article. That's not what it says at all. It is a description of how the study came about, and all of the inaccurate claims from the anti-gay crowd... that have been dispelled as irrelevant. See, folks? This is why people like this will do. They will make claims that have no basis in reality... just like the rest of Pat's posts.

Now, upon further examination, the main source that Pat uses is Bayer's book, "Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses". This book has been misused and misquoted more often than any other source used to discuss the APA's decision. Also, to remember, Bayer was NOT there and has a PhD. in Political Science... not Psychology.

I will reproduce the posts that I often use to show how utterly ridiculous everything posters like Pat says and to demonstrate the truth of what happened in 1973. I already posted these in this thread, but I think, in light of the lies that Pat produced, they deserve reposting:

Part I

Homosexuality has been seen in a negative light for centuries. Early on, it was completely due to the interpretation of Bible passages and because of religious and moral beliefs. Genesis's description of "Sodom" coined the word "sodomy" which by the 18th century, came to describe an act that the Church saw as "unnatural' or "crimes against nature". Homosexuality, bestiality, masturbation, oral and anal sex were all included in this definition. There was zero research or evidence that any homosexual was disordered in any way. This was a moral stance, completely baseless in empirical evidence. No substance, just value judgements.

Karl Westphal, a German physician, was one of the first medical professionals to examine homosexuals, observationally. He concluded from these observations that homosexuality was a "condition "contrary sexual sensation" and claimed it was congenital. As such, he argued, it should come under psychiatric care rather then legal prosecution." He was the first, I believe, to argue that gays should be looked at as having a disorder. Note, this was based, purely on observation and his own theory and beliefs, probably based on the attitudes of the time (19th Century). No research was done. Jean-Martin Charcot, a teacher of Freud's and considered the founder of modern neurology, considered homosexuality to be a hysteric disorder, which, translated to 21st century vernacular, would be a psychiatric ailment. Charcot based this belief on the, at the time, widely accepted theory of "hereditary degeneration". This was a theory, expoused by Benedict Augustin Morel in the 19th Century. It is somewhat technical, but the essence of the theory is that any issue or disease that was deemed incurable, would be degenerative through heredity and damage future generations. Tuberculosis, hysteria, homosexuality, alcoholism, and cretinism were all issues that Morel determined were heredity based, untreatable, and those who had these issues should be placed in assylums and prevented from reproducing. Again, there was no research or evidence into any of these claims. Looking at the list of issue, we know now that this theory is ridiculous, but based on Morel's morals and the lack of knowledge about medicine and heredity at the time. Interestingly enough, the Nazi's used some of Morel's theories to justify placing Jews in concentration camps.

In the 20th Century,Richard von Krafft-Ebing and Havelock Ellis' theories of sexual inversion, the belief that "homosexuality was an inborn reversal of gender traits. Interestingly enough, early on, Krafft-Ebing saw homosexuality as a severe hereditary degeneration (see above), but as he met more homosexuals, he saw it as a normal sexual varient, and not a disorder. Ellis also felt this way.

No discussion of psychology can be conducted without discussing Sigmund Freud. Freud did not view homosexuality as an illness, but rather as the unconflicted expression of an innate instinct based on trauma. He believed that all of us had both hetero- and homosexual traits, but under normal and non-traumatic circumstances, one would act like one's anatomical sex. He also saw homosexuality as an immature, but not pathological expression of sexuality. As with all of Freud's theories, there was not empirical research done; his belief was based on theory and observation, and the tenor of the times.

Late in life, Freud wrote this to a mother, asking him to "cure" her son's homosexuality: "Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation; it cannot be classified as an illness".

Continued in Part II

Part II

In the mid-20th Century. two theorists/researchers theories propelled homosexuality far further into the realm of pathology. And both were based on flawed beliefs/research.

Sandor Rado argued that Freud's theory of homosexuality was based on a flawed 19th Century theory: embryonic hermaphroditism (the belief that all embryos had the potential to be either male or female). He was correct about this. His error in logic was to then assume that heteosexuality was the only non-pathological alternative. He did no reasearch or provided evidence of his theory.

The Bieber study is often used to prove the pathology of homosexuals, by showing that they could be "cured". The two major outcomes of his study was to show that 27% of homosexuals, treated, were "cured" and in identifying the familial traits of the families of homosexuals. Biber's study had major methodological flaws, and has been widely criticized and debunked. Firstly, he only used subjects that were already under psychiatric care. Secondly, no long term follow-up was done to determine if the result remained. Thirdly, Bieber was unable to produce even one of his subjects he claimed to have cured. Lastly, Biebers conclusions about the familial structure of a homosexual's family have been debunked by the 1981 study of a much larger, nonpatient gay population, a study that is methodologically sound. In essence, the Bieber study, often the cornerstone of the anti-gay agenda, has been shown to be completely flawed and invalid when studying this issue.

The Bieber study was a response to the Kinsey study. Alfred Kinsey, the well-known sex researcher, created the Kinsey scale, through extensive research. Kinsey was one of the first to do evidence based research on a nonpatient population. What he found was that people varied on a scale from "exclusive heterosexual" to "exclusive homosexual" and variations in between. His research showed that at any given time throughout history, 3%-7% of the population was gay. His theories showed that homosexuality was both natural and widespread. Though this had an impact on non-pathologizing homosexuality, as Kinsey's reasearch did not, specifically address this issue, it did not confirm it. The Hooker study, however, did.

Evelyn Hooker's study was published in 1956, and throughout the '60s gained more and more recognition, as more and more studies reproduced here findings, accurately. Here is a great brief description of Hooker's studyu and findings:

Psychologist Evelyn Hooker's groundbreaking study compared the projective test results from 30 nonpatient homosexual men with those of 30 nonpatient heterosexual men. The study found that experienced psychologists, unaware of whose test results they were interpreting, could not distinguish between the two groups. This study was a serious challenge to the view that homosexuality was always associated with psychopathology.

Click to expand...

This was the first study that examined, psychologically, nonpatients; the opposite was a serious methological flaw in past studies. Experienced psychologists saw NO difference.

When the first DSM came out in 1952, homosexuality was classified as a mental illness, not only matching with the societal attitudes of the time, and throughout the ages, but matching with the volume of research, all of which, as can be seen, above, was based on poor methodology, research based on observation only, morals, or opinions.

By 1973, the Hooker study, replicated studies showing the same results, and many other studies showing the non-pathology of homosexuality had been published. Yet, in spite of this evidence, the APA held onto it's position that homosexuality would remain a disorder, and many on committees had never seen much of the research proving this inaccurate. It was only when the gay activists, including gay psychiatrists/psychologists pressed the APA to review and examine the research, that they did. When the APA saw the volume of research that showed that homosexuality was not an illness, and examined the methological issues with the research that showed that it was, further discussions were had in order to determine whether homosexuality would be declassified or not.

When the APA voted, 58% voted to declassify homosexuality, which it was. Why only 58% if the research was so conclusive? For the same reason that we see here, at DP, that no matter how much conclusive research is presented that shows that homosexuality is not a disorder, some still hold onto that fallacious belief: bigotry, prejudice, inflexible thinking, morals over logic, and probably some other illogical reasons. Even Bieber, when presented with the evidence, and seeing his own study debunked because of methological reasons, refused to alter his belief. Why? Well, he was described as someone who would not admit he was wrong, even when proven so. Sounds like some folks around here. On this thread, even.

So, was the APA decision to declassify homosexuality as a disorder politically motivated? The politics involved was to force the APA to look at and examine, objectively, research showing that homosexuality was not a disorder, and that the research that showed it was, was flawed. As I said earlier, the concept of politicizing this issue has been misrepresented by the anti-gay side of this issue to appear as if it were something it was not. One can compare this, to some extent, to the black civil rights movement. Was that political? Yes, but not in the way a bigot would make it.

Here are all of the links and research used and cited in these posts:

www.agpl.org/gap - LGBT Mental Health Syllabus
Gays become mentally healthy | Chicago Free Press
story in depth, 1857:* Morel "Discovers" Degeneration
Homosexuality and Mental Health
Evelyn Hooker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Irving Bieber - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Irving Bieber, 80, a Psychoanalyst Who Studied Homosexuality, Dies - New York Times
Judd Marmor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_inversion_(sexology)
A Science Odyssey: People and Discoveries: Jean-Martin Charcot
Being Gay Is Just as Healthy as Being Straight
The Kinsey Institute - Reference - Bibliographies - Homosexuality [Related Resources]
Gay Affirmative Therapy | American Psychiatry and Homosexuality: An Oral History

I also used quite a few other Wikipedia articles as starting points, and some other research papers that, due to copyright violations, I cannot link to.

Also, much of what I just posted was based on posts from a thread that I debated on two and a half years ago. Here is the link. Start at post #119:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/11407-dutch-pedophiles-launch-political-party-4.html

Part III

And one other thing. 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.

As you can see in the last post, these are comments from folks who were actually there. Far more accurate account of anything that Pat offered.

And, one more piece of information. All of Pat's posts were taken from a "book" written by Ryan Sorba... a member of the Young Americans for Freedom and completely moronic anti-gay bigot. Some of Pat's paragraphs are plagiarized, word for word from Sorba's "book". Sorba was booed off the stage of the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) for making bigoted anti-gay comments and denouncing the Conservative Political Action Conference for allowing GOProud, an organization representing conservatives gays, lesbians, and transgendereds. Because of his comments, 22 groups, including the Heritage Foundation and The Family Research Council (James Dobson's group) pulled out of the CPAC. If Dobson's group left because of Sorba's comments, we can easily identify how bigoted and idiotic they were... as are all of what Sorba states... hence the irrelevancy of Pat's posts. Also, one of the chapters of The Young Americans For Freedom is considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Founder David Franke has denounced the group that he helped found as being extremist and having nothing to do with his original group.

Clearly, with all of this information, including the information in my posts, we can see that the post made by Pat, citing Ryan Sorba's work are worthless and irrelevant anti-gay propaganda, having neither credibility or validity.

Information used in this destructive rebuttal:

The American Conservative » Young Americans for Foolishness
Young Americans for Freedom - SourceWatch
Have Gays Found Their Place in the GOP? - CBS News

Pat, was it necessary to copy&paste that much? A couple of your links were broken, so I assume it's from an old post. I think it would have been much more compelling to make a concise, brief summary of your argument--or even boil down why you think the evidence that homosexuality doesn't correlate with mental distress or illness is wrong?

Did it ever occur to you that previously every patient being "treated" for homosexuality was already in mental distress due to issues not relating to heir sexuality? Either they were mental patients, in therapy, in military prison awaiting dishonorable discharge, in jail or already going through emotional trauma. If you lived in a society that forced you to hide a trait, like your religion, you'd be diagnosed as paranoid by a quack doctor too.

CaptainCourtesy said:

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.

Click to expand...

Thanks for absolutely destroying his massive dump. Even if it doesn't change his mind, it was good reading.

joe six-pack said:

Pat, was it necessary to copy&paste that much? A couple of your links were broken, so I assume it's from an old post. I think it would have been much more compelling to make a concise, brief summary of your argument--or even boil down why you think the evidence that homosexuality doesn't correlate with mental distress or illness is wrong?

Did it ever occur to you that previously every patient being "treated" for homosexuality was already in mental distress due to issues not relating to heir sexuality? Either they were mental patients, in therapy, in military prison awaiting dishonorable discharge, in jail or already going through emotional trauma. If you lived in a society that forced you to hide a trait, like your religion, you'd be diagnosed as paranoid by a quack doctor too.

Click to expand...

His post was taken word for word, in parts from Ryan Sorba's book... a "book" that makes many of the logical errors and distorts/misrepresents information on homosexuality just as most virtualent anti-gay bigots do. Your comments are just one of a multitude of errors in Pat's comments.

Thanks for absolutely destroying his massive dump. Even if it doesn't change his mind, it was good reading.

Click to expand...

Facts and logic always trump lying propaganda. Folks who post that crap make my job easy. Thanks for the comment.

CaptianCourtesy claims that all the info I presented was from Bayer's book and further claims that it was taken out of context, which is simply a repeat of what homosexual activists claim....yet doesn't specify anything more. CC may want to read Bayer's book more carefully, especially the first few pages.
To say Bayer wasn't there is and unfounded claim, for the bullying and coercion from homoactivists took place over the course of a few years and at several conventions. Maybe CC's bias is showing? Does any of the words convey Bayer's happiness with the way the decision was made? Not. Bayer, though, could have written his book in a less confusing manner. Sometimes he seems to play both sides. I thought I'd add these other words Bayer wrote just to clarify my point: "America's psychiatrists were called to vote upon the question of whether homosexuality ought to be considered a mental disease. The entire process, from the first confrontations organized by gay demonstrators at psychiatric conventions to the referendum demanded by orthodox psychiatrists, seemed to violate the most basic expectations about how questions of science should be resolved. Instead of being engaged in a sober consideration of data, psychiatrists were swept up in a political controversy. The American Psychiatric Association had fallen victim to the disorder of a tumultuous era, when disruptive conflicts threatened to politicize every aspect of American social life. A furious egalitarianism that challenged every instance of authority had compelled psychiatric experts to negotiate the pathological status of homosexuality with homosexuals themselves."

Sure sounds like Bayer thinks negotiating the pathological status of homosexuality with homosexuals makes about as much sense as negotiating the pathological status of (say) schizophrenia with schizophrenics or sociopathy with sociopaths. (I'm not comparing homosexuality with schizophrenia or sociopathy. Just illustrating a point.) Also, do you believe that Bayer believes psychological illnesses, no matter how seemingly extreme or bizarre they are to everyday people, do NOT exist in reality, that they are ALL merely socio/political constructs? If he does believe that I would find his position untenable, to say the least.

Could you explain to me how a female mind in a male body is a disorder but a homosexual mind in a heterosexual body is NOT a disorder? It's pretty obvious that, just like a male mind in a female body and a female mind in a male body are disorders, so a homosexual mind in a heterosexual body is a disorder (which the APA for decades used to logically consider it before caving). If you do some research you'll find the APA actually ignored one of its own criteria when it "normalized" homosexuality. It's decision is clearly irrational. But what the real issue is, is whether the APA's decision was rational. I maintain that it doesn't make sense (except, perhaps, from a political standpoint). Those people who truly value logic and science know that homosexuality is a disorder and that it shouldn't have been removed from the APA's official list of psychological disorders.

Captain Courtesy tries to frame my information as only based out of Bayer's book at the same time choosing to ignore all the admissions documented by homosexual activists in their very own pro-homosexual articles and journals. CaptainCourtesy simply repeats the homosexual activist talking points and then proceed to copy and paste the previous info he/she already posted.

Evidence of countless studies indicates that homosexual relationships are not only radically different from heterosexual couples, but also associated with much higher pathologies in the following in several key respects:

- duration of relationship
- promiscuity
- relationship commitment
- number of children being raised
- health risks
- rates of intimate partner violence
- psych problems

Here is just a handful of the countless amount of studies:

- National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2001)
- Current Population Reports: U.S. Census Bureau (2002)
- Robert Gebeloff and Mary Jo Patterson, "Married and Gay Couples Are Not All that Different" Times-Picayune (November 22, 2003).
- Matthew D. Bramlett and William D. Mosher, "First Marriage Dissolution, Divorce and Remarriage: United States," Advance Data, National Center for Health Statistics (May 31, 2001):
- Rose M. Kreider and Jason M. Fields, "Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages and Divorces: 1996" Current Population Reports, P70-80, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C. (February 2002): 5.
- "Largest Gay Study Examines 2004 Relationships," GayWire Latest Breaking Releases, glcensus.org - gl census Resources and Information. This website is for sale!.
- Adrian Brune, "City Gays Skip Long-term Relationships: Study Says," Washington Blade (February 27, 04): 12.
- Maria Xiridou, et al, "The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam," AIDS 17 (2003): 1031.
- M. Pollak, "Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, translated by Anthony Forster (New York, NY: B. Blackwell, 1985): 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991): 124, 125.
- M. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1973): 225; L. A. Peplau and H. Amaro, "Understanding Lesbian Relationships," in Homosexuality:Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues, ed. J. Weinrich and W. Paul (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982).
- Michael W. Wiederman, "Extramarital Sex: Prevalence and Correlates in a National Survey," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 170.
- E. O. Laumann et al., The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1994 ): 216.
- "Sexual Habits of Americans Have Changed Dramatically in Ten Years: New National Survey Finds Both Men and Women More Committed and Caring" PR Newswire (August 4, 1994).
- A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 309; See also A. P. Bell, M. S. Weinberg, and S. K. Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981).
- Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354.
- "Sex Survey Results," Genre (October 1996), quoted in "Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners," Lambda Report, January 1998: 20.
- Ryan Lee, "Gay Couples Likely to Try Non-monogamy, Study Shows," Washington Blade (August 22, 2003): 18.
- David H. Demo, et al., editors, Handbook of Family Diversity (New York:Oxford University Press, 2000): 73.
- David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1984): 252, 253.
- Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile," 354.
- Bradley P. Hayton, "To Marry or Not: The Legalization of Marriage and Adoption of Homosexual Couples," (Newport Beach: The Pacific Policy Institute, 1993): 9.
- Dan Black, et al., "Demographics of the Gay and Lesbian Population in the United States: Evidence from Available Systematic Data Sources," Demography 37 (May 2000): 141.
- "DP1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics:Vermont" U.S. Census Bureau: Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data.
- Fred Bayles, "Vermont's Gay Civil Unions Mostly Affairs of the Heart," USA Today (January 7, 2004): 1.
- Tavia Simmons and Martin O'Connell, "Married-Couple and Unmarried-Partner Households:2000," Census 2000 Special Reports (U.S. Census Bureau, February 2003), 4, Table 2. Online at: http:www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-5.pdf.
- "Factsopulation," Directory and Complete Guide to Sweden, 2000: available at: Real Estate | Online Education | Airline Tickets | Jobs | Sweden Dating | Matchmaker at Sweden.com.
- Scott Shane, "Many Swedes Say 'I Don't' to Nuptials; Unions" Baltimore Sun (January 16, 2004): 1A.
- "At a Glance: Netherlands Statistics" UNICEF:available at: UNICEF - At a glance: Netherlands - UNICEF in the Netherlands.
- "OLR Backgrounder: Legal Recognition of Same-sex Partnerships," OLR Research Report (October 9, 2002): 1.
- Stanley Kurtz, "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia," Weekly Standard (February 2, 2004): 26.
- Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" American Sociological Review 66 (April, 2001): 167.
- "Married-Couple and Unmarried Partner Households: 2000" (Census 2000 Special Reports, February 2003): 2.
- Stacey and Biblarz, Fathers and Families 167.
- "Married-Couple and Unmarried Partner Households: 2000," 10.
- David M. Smith and Gary J. Gates, "Gay and Lesbian Families in the United States: Same-Sex Unmarried Partner Households," Human Rights Campaign (August 22, 2001): 2.
- Dan Black et al., "Demographics of the Gay and Lesbian Population," "4.7 percent of men in the combined samples have had at least one same-sex experience since age 18, but only 2.5 percent of men have engaged in exclusively same-sex sex over the year preceding the survey. Similarly, 3.5 percent of women have had at least one same-sex sexual experience, but only 1.4 percent have had exclusively same-sex sex over the year preceding the survey." (141)
- A.P.M. Coxon et al., "Sex Role Separation in Diaries of Homosexual Men," AIDS (July 1993):877-882.
- G. J. Hart et al., "Risk Behaviour, Anti-HIV and Anti-Hepatitis B Core Prevalence in Clinic and Non-clinic Samples of Gay Men in England, 1991-1992," AIDS (July 1993): 863-869, cited in "Homosexual Marriage: The Next Demand," Position Analysis paper by Colorado for Family Values, May 1994.
- Jon Garbo, "More Young Gay Men are Contracting HIV from Steady Partners," GayHealth (July 25, 2001).
- BJM "Sexually Transmitted Infections," 347.
- R. Herrell, et al., "A Co-Twin Study in Adult Men," Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 867-874.
- Lettie L. Lockhart et al., "Letting out the Secret:Violence in Lesbian Relationships," Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9 (1994): 469-492.
- Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 46.
- Major American study of donor-conceived children, “My Daddy’s Name is Donor” (2010)
- http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/regent.pdf
- Manning: Adolescent Well-Being in Cohabiting, Married, and Single-Parent Families study of 19,000 young people, Parental Cohabitation and Adolescent Well Being, richly demonstrates that children with biological parents do best
- Briefs
- http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf
- William C. Nichols, et al, editors, Handbook of Family Development and Intervention (New York:John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2000): 393.
- D. Island and P. Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence (New York: Haworth Press, 1991): 14.
- "Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence," U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs (July, 2000): 30.
- "Intimate Partner Violence," Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report (U.S. Department of Justice, May, 2000): 11
- Paula Ettelbrick, quoted in William B. Rubenstein, "Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?" Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Law, (New York: The New Press, 1993):398, 400.
- Michelangelo Signorile, Life Outside (New York: HarperCollins, 1997): 213.
- Mary Mendola, The Mendola Report (New York: Crown, 1980):53.
- William Aaron, Straight (New York: Bantam Books, 1972): 208.
- http://www.gendermatters.org.au/Home_files/21 Reasons Why Gender Matters(low res).pdf
- Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders Findings From the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study ..Theo G. M. Sandfort, PhD; Ron de Graaf, PhD; Rob V. Bijl, PhD; Paul Schnabel, PhD.. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001;58:85-91


Overcome unwanted same-sex attractions (homosexual, gay)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gnem2sbQBs

The words 'bigot' and 'bigotry' are two of the most overused and misused terms in current sociopolitical discourse. Properly speaking, a bigot is someone so suffused with a sense of their own rightness and righteousness, that they are intolerant of other people's freedom of expression. That, of course, is a perfect description of the attitudes and practices of much of the "progressive" liberal-left and the homosexualists within most of their discourse. Truth cannot be discredited or disproven, therefore the argument is reduced to attempts to discredit the source instead.

Even though they won't admit it, this occurs because they believe themselves to be both morally and intellectually superior, they have appropriated or framed the word by changing its usage to mean expressing, even just holding, different opinions to them. They are not merely invincibly self-righteous, but reflexively self-referential. In their subconscious minds,' bigotry' means thinking differently than them.

It is their tactical device throughout, continuously and repetitiously aimed at dissenters and other critics as "bigots." Their language is purposefully crude to enhance that idea. Most may not even realize it, but it's much like the "big lie" theory developed in the 1920s and 1930s by the Nazis, the constant repetition of this eventually has the desired psychological effect on masses of people.

The sick joke in all this is that they use flowery words like 'diversity, 'love,' 'equality,' and 'tolerance' to justify their own attempts to expunge the only form of diversity and tolerance that is actually worthwhile to them - i.e. diversity of ONLY their thoughts and beliefs - and without which all other forms of diversity are meaningless. It is a house of cards that will fall down some day. What will replace it remains to be seen.

CC chooses to overlook that Sorba's book is merely a documentation of what the homosexual activists admit in their own articles and journals.
Sorba was brave enough to stand up for true conservative principles, and faux conservative GoProud will not be invited back to CPAC.

About Southern Poverty Law Center...

http://www.splcreport.com/

Acceptance of homosexuality by the general public, thanks to a lot of lies and manipulation, is a million times better than it was 10-15 yrs ago, yet the much higher rates of psychological problems and promiscuity prominent with people who identify as homosexuals have NOT decreased. Since the 90s, HIV rates in the homosexual community have greatly increased, while it has decreased in the heterosexual community. "Homophobia" and this "It Gets Better" campaign are the REAL social constructs, and is a BIG LIE. It will get better when people STOP letting themselves become emotionally manipulated by the lies of the homosexual activists, and when they STOP engaging in homosexual behavior and start making efforts to get help/therapy to overcome their same sex attraction. REAL LOVE and COMPASSION is grounded in TRUTH.

:lol: Partisan hackery, false assumptions, a Nazi analogy (Godwins law) and then some more partisan hackery, great post there Pat. :thumbs:

Pat said:

CaptianCourtesy claims that all the info I presented was from Bayer's book and further claims that it was taken out of context, which is simply a repeat of what homosexual activists claim....yet doesn't specify anything more. CC may want to read Bayer's book more carefully, especially the first few pages. To say Bayer wasn't there is and unfounded claim, for the bullying and coercion from homoactivists took place over the course of a few years and at several conventions. Maybe CC's bias is showing? Does any of the words convey Bayer's happiness with the way the decision was made? Not. Bayer, though, could have written his book in a less confusing manner. Sometimes he seems to play both sides. I thought I'd add these other words Bayer wrote just to clarify my point: "America's psychiatrists were called to vote upon the question of whether homosexuality ought to be considered a mental disease. The entire process, from the first confrontations organized by gay demonstrators at psychiatric conventions to the referendum demanded by orthodox psychiatrists, seemed to violate the most basic expectations about how questions of science should be resolved. Instead of being engaged in a sober consideration of data, psychiatrists were swept up in a political controversy. The American Psychiatric Association had fallen victim to the disorder of a tumultuous era, when disruptive conflicts threatened to politicize every aspect of American social life. A furious egalitarianism that challenged every instance of authority had compelled psychiatric experts to negotiate the pathological status of homosexuality with homosexuals themselves."

Sure sounds like Bayer thinks negotiating the pathological status of homosexuality with homosexuals makes about as much sense as negotiating the pathological status of (say) schizophrenia with schizophrenics or sociopathy with sociopaths. (I'm not comparing homosexuality with schizophrenia or sociopathy. Just illustrating a point.) Also, do you believe that Bayer believes psychological illnesses, no matter how seemingly extreme or bizarre they are to everyday people, do NOT exist in reality, that they are ALL merely socio/political constructs? If he does believe that I would find his position untenable, to say the least.

Click to expand...

Amazing how you use so many words and say so little. There is nothing here that I have not already refuted completely. Just more anti-gay propaganda that has no basis in reality.

Could you explain to me how a female mind in a male body is a disorder but a homosexual mind in a heterosexual body is NOT a disorder? It's pretty obvious that, just like a male mind in a female body and a female mind in a male body are disorders, so a homosexual mind in a heterosexual body is a disorder (which the APA for decades used to logically consider it before caving).

Click to expand...

This line of thinking demonstrates that you do not even have the basic understanding of sexual orientation. One who is homosexual does NOT have a "female" mind. Further, you have no understanding of what constitutes a disorder. But let's start your education on this issue with this.

Tell us how you would describe a disorder.

If you do some research you'll find the APA actually ignored one of its own criteria when it "normalized" homosexuality. It's decision is clearly irrational. But what the real issue is, is whether the APA's decision was rational. I maintain that it doesn't make sense (except, perhaps, from a political standpoint). Those people who truly value logic and science know that homosexuality is a disorder and that it shouldn't have been removed from the APA's official list of psychological disorders.

Click to expand...

And yet science and research has proven you wrong. What you "maintain" is nothing but your erroneous opinion... which is valueless. But again, in order for me to teach you anything about this topic, we need to start at the beginning. Define a disorder.

Captain Courtesy tries to frame my information as only based out of Bayer's book at the same time choosing to ignore all the admissions documented by homosexual activists in their very own pro-homosexual articles and journals. CaptainCourtesy simply repeats the homosexual activist talking points and then proceed to copy and paste the previous info he/she already posted.

Click to expand...

All you have done is repeat the standard anti-gay talking points that get refuted here every day. You also ignore the comments from the people who were actually at the 1973 conference. Further, Bayer was NOT there and is a PhD. in Political Science, not Psychology. This is another fact that you have ignored... because it is inconvenient.

Evidence of countless studies indicates that homosexual relationships are not only radically different from heterosexual couples, but also associated with much higher pathologies in the following in several key respects:

- duration of relationship
- promiscuity
- relationship commitment
- number of children being raised
- health risks
- rates of intimate partner violence
- psych problems

Click to expand...

See, here you make the classic mistake of correlation without causation... one of the most common logical fallacies by the anti-gay crowd. Further, each of these issue potientially has another cause, or is irrelevant to homosexuality being a disorder. Let us examine each:

duration of relationship:
Show me studies that compare straight marriages to gay marriages. Until you do, this point cannot be compared. Point negated.

promiscuity:
Until gay marriage is legal, this point, also, cannot be compared because there is no similar frame of reference. Point negated.

relationship commitment:
Poor Pat. Running out of things to say, so you just repeat #1. Same as above.

number of children being raised:
Irrelevant to homosexuality being a disorder. Further, studies show that children of gays do just as well as children of straights. Point negated.

health risks:
Irrelevant to homosexuality being a disorder. What you are talking about is dangerous sexual behaviors. I bet you are another one who doesn't know the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. Point negated.

rates of intimate partner violence:
Irrelevant to homosexuality being a disorder... unless you can prove causation. Go to it. :lol:

psych problems:
Prove causation. :lol: You can't. There are many factors that go towards an individual having psych. problems.

Here is just a handful of the countless amount of studies:

Click to expand...

And yet not ONE of your "studies" proves or even barely supports your position. You must try harder if you are going to attempt to debate this issue here. All you are posting is standard anti-gay rhetoric with no substantiation. You are making this really easy. I also suspect that you are plagiarizing again.

Homosexuals and casual sex. 88% reported having casual sex in the last 6 months.
Atypon Link - Error

GRINDR - Turning on the ‘gaydar’
Technology - smh.com.au

Homosexual COUPLES Study — N.I.H. N.Y. Times - Over 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=1

Homosexual ACTIVIST LEADER Dan Savage who started the “It gets better campaign” lecturing on a college campus about how not being sexually monogamous helps make a couple stronger. In addition to admitting that “monogamy” for the homosexual community more often means sharing with others, he like many falsely compares human sexuality to the animal kingdom. Yes, we are mammals, but there is absolutely NO animal model that accurately reflects HUMAN sexuality…Apes don’t date, ducks don’t go to church, and mice don’t fall in love. Also, notice how, under the guise of humor, he talks about heterosexual relationships as if they were an outdated concept…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm9Bwpxy4V0

Homosexual ACTIVIST LEADER Andrew Sullivan contrasts male-female marriages with same sex relationships and explains, “there is more likely to be a greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman” (p202).
Amazon.com: Virtually Normal (9780679746140): Andrew Sullivan: Books

LESBIAN ACTIVIST BLOGGER Yasmin Nair - How Homosexual Marriage Put an End to Homosexual Sex
How Gay Marriage Put an End to Gay Sex | The Bilerico Project

Homosexual SUPPORTIVE THERAPISTS: Michael Shernoff, MSW: “Non-monogamy is ubiquitous in the gay world, and my homosexual clients often see it as a possible solution to their couple problems, particularly diminished sexual interest.” Jack Morin, PhD: “Non-monogamous options are thoroughly woven into the tapestry of queer love and are lived out on a richly diverse continuum.”
Monogamy and Gay Men

Homosexual SUPPORTIVE THERAPISTS: Are homosexual Male Couples Monogamous Ever After? Is it cheating if both partners agree to be non-monogamous? Homosexual ACTIVIST LEADER David Nimmons, President of New York’s Lesbian & Gay Community Services Center for six years: “David Nimmons cites numerous studies which show that 75% of homosexual male couples are in successful open relationships.”

…”Homosexual couples often report that what works best for them is to engage in sexual encounters based on sexual attraction only and not emotions or affection.”
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/gays-anatomy/200809/are-gay-male-couples-…

So what are some more of the underlining reasons why homosexual males and females are more promiscuous, and why it is not only more prevelant than but also not comparable to heterosexual promiscuity?…

Promiscuity displayed by the average heterosecually orientated person is due to solely to external influences, such as exposure to porn. It is not the nature of heterosexuality to be promiscuous; the balance of maleness with femaleness minimizes/prevents that.

Men are driven by their physical attractions, so 2 men together, they are going to be much more promiscuous. Women are more about emotions. Two women are more prone for emotional enmeshment, and that is why lesbian couples have the highest rates of domestic abuse/violence, high drama, and bad break-ups. Men are form and women are matter, they are designed not only biologically for each other, but emotionally as well to balance each other out. This goes back to the whole yin/yang complimentary opposites.

Lesbians identified women are not as promiscuous as homosexual men, but as the above studies show, they are far more promiscuous than heterosexual women. And even though they identify themselves as “lesbian,” they have many more male partners than hetero women have on average, and more likely these males are bisexual too. When a “lesbian” girl asks her partner if she was with any men and whether or not any of these men are bisexual? How many of these girls would simply lie out of fear of conflict. How many “lesbian” girls even bother to ask in the first place? How many “lesbian” women still falsely believe that “lesbian” sex is still safer than hetero sex? Perception is NOT reality here, and these are many of the reasons that places them in an even higher health risk category for HIV, STDs, and cancers as explained in the WSW video above.

So it isn’t just about the fact that heterosexuality makes sense in the biological sense, but also when it comes to the overall safety of our health. The word “natural” is also defined by what is safest for one’s health.

Also, people with heterosexual orientation do not overtly wave a flag signifying their heterosexuality. We tend not to identify themselves mostly on what we’re attracted to. Male machoness and girls acting like princesses is an immaturity problem that most grow out of. For those who embrace the “gay” or “lesbian” identity, they are essentially defining themselves more according to what they are attracted to rather than the whole of their personality and character. This is another reason why “lesbian” women are more promiscuous than hetero women, and homosexual men are much more promiscuos that heterosexual men. The homosexual condition itself has shown to have outcomes of much higher levels of promiscuity and the higher health risks and outcomes are the consequences that only continue to rise in that sub-culture.

Here’s even more documentation of homosexual males and females inadvertenly admitting the truth of how the homosexual condition is pathologically linked to higher levels of promiscuity. It’s ashame that they cannot make the connection between safety of health and what is biologically self-evident. Of course every individual is different when it comes to learning how to overcome their issues, addictions, etc, but this just goes to show how powerful this addiction can be…

Sexual Suicide

Keep in mind, that more money each year is spent on treatment for AIDs each year. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) the heterosexual population AIDs rates have declined, while the homosexual community rates of AIDs has increased. Money is allocated to everybody who has the virus regardless of their sexual preference, and out and open self-identified homosexuals only account for (at the most) 4% of the entire population.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqfUmLZq5as

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ijjq8dcRqmI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSTCO-5soVE

Even more testimonials…

Dr. Benzion Sorotzkin, Psy.D. - Shedding Light on the Gay Issue

PFOX - Personal Stories

Why Would Anyone Want to Change?

One by One

Overcoming same sex attraction, and rediscovering your heterosexual potential…

How to Prevent Homosexuality

Overcome unwanted same-sex attractions (homosexual, gay)

http://executableoutlines.com/hom/hom_05.ht

When two women claim they are capable of having the same relationship as a man and woman do, the implication is that every man’s contribution to relationships, marriage, and family is replaceable and unnecessary. And two men claiming their relationship is just as much a relationship or marriage as a heterosexual committed relationship implicitly dismisses any contribution of every woman, thus also claiming women are inconsequential to relationships, marriage, and family. This is REAL (gender) discrimination.

Nobody is born homosexual, and nobody who has those feelings or desires chooses it either. There’s much confusion on this issue, and the American Psychiatric Association (APA) is NOT a legitimate organization on this issue, as people mistakenly assume, for they have been dominated and bullied by homosexual activists since the early 70s and still continue to do so. In fact, their decision to remove homosexuality from the list of disorders in 1973 was NOT based on any scientific objectivity, but a result of homosexual activist bullying, threats, and coercion.

Homosexuality is a maladaptive feeling and behavior as a result of psychological trauma having to do with gender. Another words, it is a developmental issue, so saying that those feelings or desires is a choice is irresponsible. Acting on it, however, is a choice.

The homosexual “coming out” story isn’t about finding who you are; it’s a sexualized emotional place people come to when they have given up and have let their issues take control of who they are, rather than learning to overcome them.

Studies (see above) have shown that even in the completely pro-homosexual friendly societies such as the Netherlands, New Zealand, UK, Brazil, Canada, the state of Massachusetts, the Castro District in San Fran, etc. that homosexuals still experience psychological problems 4Xs greater than the average heterosexual.

Lets say a “homosexual” gene did exist. Well, due to the much higher levels and risks of medical consequences as a result of homosexual sex in both homosexual males and females, the discovery of a “homosexual” gene, would only be MUCH more of a reason to not engage in that behavior. Just like if an alcoholic gene was found, that would be more of a reason not to take the first drink.

Orientation is NOT an identity. Nobody is born with a sexual orientation. People are NOT sexual at birth. Only the fraudulent and criminal “science” of Alfred Kinsey claims such a dangerous thing.

Even heterosexual behavior is ultimately chosen, but the biology and physiology of a man and a woman tells us what the true feelings and nature of our orientation is or at least should be…heterosexual.

Male bodies have male sex organs. Female bodies have female sex organs. DNA self-evidently ordered the production of these complimentary sexual parts …and, the only reason human bodies have sexual feelings at all, is because of the chemical and hormonal process, rooted in its procreative, heterosexual design. all studies which have claimed to find an immutable cause for same-sex attraction and sodomy have crumbled under the scrutiny of peer review.

Sexuality is based on our gender. It is NOT a ghost in a machine like what people with same sex attraction would like to believe. Gender differences exist; they are a fundamental reality of our biology and impact our psychology. Our maleness and femaleness is a key aspect to our personhood. Acknowledging, rather than ignoring (or worse denying), gender differences is the only intellectually honest response to this reality

Gender differences are complementary; individuals, our collective humanity, and society as a whole, all benefit from masculine and feminine characteristics. Our design orientates us towards the opposite sex. We are better for having men with a clear understanding of their masculinity and women with a clear understanding of their femininity.

People experiencing SSA conceptualize themselves as an abstract consciousness inhabiting an impersonal body…they think they’re a ghost in a machine. But in fact, the procreative physiological design of the body is self-evident, so any encouragement into gender bending in any way is neither ethical or healthy, and is therefore the reason why people with same sex attraction and gender identity confusion are more prone to psychological problems such as suicide ideation, and not because of the social construct of “homophobia.”

Gender identity confusion and SSA does exist in a small minority of individuals. It is a painful pathology and warrants a compassionate response. However it is not the ‘normative’ experience, and is not therefore a paradigm upon which to drive social policy and institutions.

Gender as complimentary opposites is a basic physiological reality, which unfortunately has been politicized. This is what is not helpful, and what is truly dehumanizing.

For more info…

http://www.gendermatters.org.au/Home_files/21 Reasons Why Gender Matters(low res).pdf

Are People with Same Sex Attraction (Homosexuals) Oppressed?…

While champions of “gay rights” claim it is, the findings of a demographic study in the Journal of Economic Perspectives suggest that men and women who engage in same-sex intimacy—and particularly those who live together as pairs—appear to be doing fairly well and often better than Americans who do not.

Parsing data from the Public Use Micro Sample of 2000 U.S. Census, the study found not only that same-sex couples are better granted more educational opportunities than their opposite-sex counterparts, but also enjoy higher household incomes. Whereas 43 percent of partners of same-sex coupled households have earned a college degree, only 28 percent of married men and 26 percent of married women reported the same. Also in the micro sample (where same-sex households represented 10 percent of their opposite-sex counterparts), the mean household income of “gay male partners” was $91,676; “lesbian partners,” $73,760; and male-female couples, $73,235. Even the mean investment income of each type of same-sex household was higher than traditional households.

Furthermore, the study found that same-sex couples, rather than being relegated to the other side of the tracks, are more likely to live in affluent, fashionable, and upscale places like San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and Austin, Texas. Whereas 90 percent of “gay male partners” and 85 percent of “lesbian partners” were living in major metropolitan centers, only 75 percent of married couples did so.

The only variable in which same-sex couples do not compare favorably is household size. As might be expected, same-sex couples are raising dramatically fewer children relative to their opposite-sex counterparts. While 62 percent of opposite-sex couples have children in the home, less than 10 percent of “gay male partners” and 22 percent of “lesbian partners” do so, often the result of marriages that have failed. The researchers lament that “costs of children are higher” for such couples, including what they call “discriminatory obstacles,” they face in adoption. Unfortunately, they fail to acknowledge the natural advantage opposite-sex couples enjoy when it comes to bearing and raising children; in most cases a married man and woman can (and do) have children naturally without depending upon others to procreate for them, or the state to arrange adoptions for them.

If these findings do not paint a picture of an oppressed minority, then the anxiety that homosexuals often experience may be due less to any animus they claim is directed at them and more to what they impose upon themselves by discriminating against natural ways of living that would give them something far more important than a nice paycheck and a fancy neighborhood.

(Source: Dan A. Black, Seth G. Saunders, and Lowell J. Taylor, “The Economics of Lesbian and Gay Families,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 21 [Spring 2007]: 53-70.)

Homosexual Domestic Violence Far More Likely Than “Hate Crimes:”

Most of us know that violence towards anyone is unacceptable, and should be punishable by the law. However, according to the fbi.gov website FBI — Crime Statistics , and even the self-proclaimed anti-right wing pro-homosexual organization Political Research Associate’s website PublicEye.org - The Website of Political Research Associates , not only is there NO epidemic of “hate” crimes against homosexuals, as homosexual activists and apologists have led the public to believe, but it is almost statistically irrelevant.

The FBI gathers their statistics from 11,691 law enforcement agencies encompassing a total of 237 million Americans-or 84.2% of the entire population.

Between 1995 and 2010, the FBI reported an average of a little over 1.4 million violent crimes each year in the U.S. Of those violent crimes, the FBI reported that anti-homosexual “hate” crimes were an average of 1,241 per year. That’s far less than 1% of total violent crimes. It’s .00085586 to be exact.

In 2009, for example, out of that .00085586 of total yearly violent crimes, 57% of those “hate” crimes on homosexuals are Simple Assault and Intimidation charges. (Simple Assault is limited to the use of physical force and results in little to no injury. Intimidation is the use of profanity, slurs, and verbal abuse- which is essentially just name calling). 21% of “hate” crimes against homosexuals is Destruction of Property. 15% is Aggravated Assault. 1% is labeled “Other.” And far less than 1% (.003) were Murder, Non-negligent Manslaughter, and Forcible Rape.

Table 4 - Hate Crime Statistics 2009

According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence Fact reports http://www.uncfsp.org/projects/userfiles/File/DCE-STOP_NOW/NCADV_LGBT_Fact_Sheet.pdf , “lesbian” couples have the highest rates of domestic violence, and homosexual male couples have the 2nd highest rates of any other type of couple. The NCADV reports also describes that of the nature of their domestic violence and disputes are the same types of discriminatory verbal and physical assaults that homosexuals typically blame on heterosexual society as being the main culprits. So how do we know that most of the anti-homosexual “hate” crime charges as reported by the FBI aren’t also crimes committed by homosexuals on one another??? The following should shed a light of truth on that question…

Homosexual Domestic Violence Far More Likely Than “Hate Crimes:”

With regards to the idea that “hate crime” status for homosexuals will reduce crime against homosexuals, it is ironic that homosexual activists are so concerned with their safety and well-being. They evidently fail to realize that the lifestyle they so proudly lead results in the very bodily harm and early mortality that they supposedly fear. The difference is that it is self-inflicted.

In fact, the danger posed to homosexuals by other homosexuals is far greater than the danger posed by anyone else.

This reality is evidenced in statistics gathered from liberal pro-homosexual advocacy groups like the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP) About AVP: The Anti-Violence Project .

The NCAVP is a self-described pro-homosexual organization that gathers statistics on same-sex domestic abuse and “hate crimes” against homosexuals.

According to data compiled from the NCAVP, during the 1999-2003 period homosexuals were 244% more likely to be the perpetrators of violence against other homosexuals than were heterosexuals.

Same-Sex Domestic Violence vs. “Hate Crimes” Against Homosexuals

1999-2003*

Each year during the 5-year period between 1999 and 2003, the number of same-sex domestic violence crimes was estimated by the NCAVP:

YEAR INCIDENTS
1999 3,120
2000 4,048
2001 5,046
2002 5,718
2003 6,523

According to the NCAVP, there were a total of 24,455 homosexual-on-homosexual domestic violence incidents during the 1999-2003 period.

Each year during the 5-year period between 1999 and 2003, the number of “hate crimes” motivated by a ‘bias’ against “sexual orientation” was also estimated by the NCAVP:

YEAR INCIDENTS
1999 1,965
2000 2,151
2001 1,887
2002 1,968
2003 2,051

An average of 2,004 per year, which is a little higher than what the FBI reports due to the fact that the NCAVP also counts as a “hate crime” someone being arrested by police for having sex in a public restroom, for example. So a large percentage of such “violence” contains no violence at all (“intimidation”), and some other percentage is law enforcement action by police.

According to the NCAVP, there were a total of 10,022 “hate crimes” committed against homosexuals during the 1999-2003 period.

Comparing the ..
For the year 2003 alone, homosexuals were 318% more likely to be victims of violence initiated by other homosexuals.

The difference in the number of crimes against homosexuals (hetero-initiated vs. homo-initiated) for the 1999-2003 period is 14,433 more homosexual-on-homosexual incidents.

Over the 1999-2003 period, homosexuals were 244% more likely to be a victim of another homosexual than a heterosexual. These statistics are significant, because they reveal that homosexual activists are more concerned about vilifying Biblical teachings and the existence of therapy than they are about protecting people from acts of violence. In their efforts to silence opposition to their much riskier lifestyle, they ignore the true threat to a homosexual’s safety: other homosexuals.

To be consistent in their demands for harsher sentencing of those who commit crimes against homosexuals, homosexual activists need to understand that the proposed “hate crimes” legislation should result in the prosecutions of more homosexuals than heterosexuals.
Again, violence against anybody is unacceptable.

* 2008 is the most recent year for which same-sex domestic violence data was compiled/published from NCAVP. And there are even more studies that were conducted that back this up; among lesbians, a 1985 study by Gwat-Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier reported that slightly more than half of 1,109 respondents had been abused by a woman partner in their lifetime.

Several smaller studies seem to support these findings as well; Coleman’s 1990 study of 90 lesbians, for example, reported that 46.6% had experienced repeated acts of violence, and Ristock’s 1994 survey of 113 lesbians reported that 41% been abused in at least one relationship with another woman.
Studies of other populations in the LGBT community have documented even higher rates of abuse over respondents’ lifetimes. The Portland, OR based Survivor Project’s 1998 Gender, Violence, and Resource Access Survey of transgender and intersex individuals found that 50% of respondents had been raped or assaulted by a romantic partner, even though only 62% of these individuals identified themselves as “survivors” of domestic violence when asked.

Pat said:

The words 'bigot' and 'bigotry' are two of the most overused and misused terms in current sociopolitical discourse. Properly speaking, a bigot is someone so suffused with a sense of their own rightness and righteousness, that they are intolerant of other people's freedom of expression. That, of course, is a perfect description of the attitudes and practices of much of the "progressive" liberal-left and the homosexualists within most of their discourse. Truth cannot be discredited or disproven, therefore the argument is reduced to attempts to discredit the source instead.

Click to expand...

You don't even know the definition of the word "bigot". It is NOT what you posted. Here is the definition from an online dictionary:

a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Click to expand...

Considering that you are using sources that untruthful or misrepresentative to further a position that is inaccurate, I would say this word describes you perfectly. Standard operation procedure for an extreme right wing partisan hack anti-gay like yourself.

Even though they won't admit it, this occurs because they believe themselves to be both morally and intellectually superior, they have appropriated or framed the word by changing its usage to mean expressing, even just holding, different opinions to them. They are not merely invincibly self-righteous, but reflexively self-referential. In their subconscious minds,' bigotry' means thinking differently than them.

Click to expand...

This is an excellent example of the pot calling the kettle black. You dishonestly "created" a definition of bigotry, and then stated that others believe themselves morally and intellectually superior. Your comedy is unintentional, I'm sure.[q

It is their tactical device throughout, continuously and repetitiously aimed at dissenters and other critics as "bigots." Their language is purposefully crude to enhance that idea. Most may not even realize it, but it's much like the "big lie" theory developed in the 1920s and 1930s by the Nazis, the constant repetition of this eventually has the desired psychological effect on masses of people.

Click to expand...

Ah, so you "Godwined". You don't know how to debate, either. Your rhetoric is so tired and so common. Let us know when you have something original.

The sick joke in all this is that they use flowery words like 'diversity, 'love,' 'equality,' and 'tolerance' to justify their own attempts to expunge the only form of diversity and tolerance that is actually worthwhile to them - i.e. diversity of ONLY their thoughts and beliefs - and without which all other forms of diversity are meaningless. It is a house of cards that will fall down some day. What will replace it remains to be seen.

Click to expand...

Ah... now you are soapboxing... saying absolutely nothing but trying to make it sound good. Someone said this about Warren G. Harding's speechs: "A mass of pompous statements vainly searching for an idea. That would describe your above paragraph.

CC chooses to overlook that Sorba's book is merely a documentation of what the homosexual activists admit in their own articles and journals.
Sorba was brave enough to stand up for true conservative principles, and faux conservative GoProud will not be invited back to CPAC.

Click to expand...

Sorba is a bigot and a tool and his book... which you plagiarized, misrepresents and flat out lies about information. Sorba himself is a coward, having been charged with domestic violence in the past, and whenever pressed on his beliefs, resorts to challenging his opponent to a physical fight. Sorba doesn't stand for "true" conservative principles, but for the idiotic and extreme conservatives that seem to be infiltrating conservative groups everywhere. Fortunately, there are enough "real" conservatives who laugh at idiots like Sorba... folks that booed him off the stage and conservatives like David Franke who want nothing to do with an idiot like him.

About Southern Poverty Law Center...

SPLCREPORT.com - Learn the Truth About the SPLC's Methods and False Hate Group Nativist Extremist Accusations

Click to expand...

And here is something about FAIR:

The FAIR Files: Attacks On Multiculturalism Will Help | Hatewatch | Southern Poverty Law Center

More wall of text... and more information that has no application to what we are discussing. You claim that homosexuality is a disorder. OK.. first, you need to identify and define a disorder. Then, you need to learn the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. Lastly, you need to understand that correlation, not causation is a logical fallacy and does not prove your position.

So, far there has been nothing that you have posted that has any credibility. So, you need to address the comments that are made and STOP SPAMMING.