B
Bill_7154
Guest
Thanks Ed, pretty much what I figured but the details were an interesting read.
Peace,
Bill
- Status
Peace,
Bill
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
Wow, that’s some pretty grisly stuff. None of the gays I know were abused and all had strong father figures present.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
The APA fed academia … that produces psychologists who, if they wish to make a living in the discipline, would have to deal with APA for licensing and compliance with guidelines.
Your link is from a blog site by Dr. Gregory Herek, an APA fellow who served as a committee chairperson for Lesbian and Gay Concerns and consultant / witness in court cases very much for the pro-gay marriage side. APA as everyone knows has signed onto and aligned itself fully with gay activism to legalize same sex marriage and for gay couples in their claimed rights to adopt children.
It is not surprising that he neither delved nor mentioned the actual and related events that led to the removal of the diagnosis of homosexuality as a disorder in the DSM, according to psychiatrists who were there during the 1972 convention, like Dr. Socarides.
Here is a brief discussion, in addition to the information in the links provided by Coptic and edwest.
History: the declassification of homosexuality as a mental illness
The APA stopped considering homosexuality as a mental disorder after prolonged social agitation and professional conflict.17 Homosexuals disrupted APA meetings and harassed psychiatrists. For instance, psychiatrist Nelson Borelli was at the 1972 APA convention, and noted the following:18
“Contrary to Dr. Mac Donald’s statement, Dr. Judd Marmor did not do the “declassifying of homosexuality”. I was there in San Francisco at the 1972 APA convention when the “Gay and Lesbian” activists forced the APA leadership to promise to drop “Homosexuality” from the diagnostic manual or else there would be no APA Convention. Not only the scandal they were causing, but the activists had gained control of the infrastructure of the convention building. The APA kept the promise.”
The note above was in response to an editorial comment in the British Medical Journal, crediting Dr. Judd Marmor for playing an instrumental role in declassifying homosexuality as a mental illness.19, 20 Schaler noted that Dr. Marmor borrowed the idea that homosexuality was not a mental illness from psychoanalyst Thomas Szasz, without giving credit to Szasz.21 Szasz not only believed that homosexuality was not a mental illness, but also he believed that there was no such thing as a mental illness.22 In a 1965 book on homosexuality edited by Dr. Marmor, which included a chapter by Szasz,23 Dr. Marmor never argued that homosexuals were not mentally ill and continued to refer to homosexuals as “patients.” As of 1965, Dr. Marmor’s view of homosexuality concurred with the psychiatric view of homosexuality as a pathology.
The APA’s Committee on Nomenclature decided to remove homosexuality from the DSM in 1973. It gave opponents 15 minutes to present a rebuttal.24 The APA membership can overrule committee decisions even on scientific matters. Some voices appealed to the APA membership. Homosexual activists quickly purchased the APA mailing list after the National Gay Task Force (NGTF) sent out a fund-raising appeal to its members, and then drafted a letter, got it signed by some psychiatrists, and sent it to over 30,000 APA members urging them to vote to retain the nomenclature change. The letter deliberately avoided mention that the NGTF had written and distributed it. All psychiatrist signatories publicly denied any role in the cunning move by the NGTF. Only a third of the APA membership responded, but most voted to support the nomenclature change, and the decision of the Board of Trustees was allowed to stand. Clearly, the decision did not reflect how most psychiatrists viewed homosexuality then. Besides, some methods used then to prove that homosexuals are as well-adjusted as heterosexuals, such as the Rorschach test, which involves interpretations of ink-blot patterns, are so ludicrous that no self-respecting psychiatrist would use them today.
Homosexuality was declassified in two phases. At first, ego-syntonic homosexuality was removed as a diagnosis; ego syntonic refers to comfortable with orientation. A couple of years later, ego-dystonic homosexuality (not comfortable with homosexual orientation) was also removed as a diagnosis; it was assumed (not proven) that discomfort with own same-sex attraction was a result of internalizing societal homophobia.
In 1994, the Board of Trustees of the APA proposed a change in the code of ethics where it would be a violation of professional conduct for a psychiatrist to help a homosexual client behave exclusively heterosexually, even at the client’s request. This was remarkable since psychiatrists are expected to cater to maximal self-determination on the part of their clients. Therapists who help homosexuals change and a number of “ex-gays” threatened that if the resolution passed, they would file a lawsuit against the APA, forcing it to reopen the original basis on which homosexuality was excluded from the list of diagnoses. The activists retreated. However, it remains unethical for psychiatrists to attempt to change a homosexual based on the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or the assumption that the patient should change to exclusive heterosexual behavior for his own good.25
The references 17 - 25 are at the end for those who wish to investigate the sources of the researcher.
I
interestedman
Guest
I don’t think you can actually change your sexual orientation. I think you can likely diminish your sexual desires but you will never be able to fully void yourself of sexual thoughts.
M
manualman
Guest
Why must all discussions devolve into a “one size fits all” approach? Is it not entirely possible that some people can have a transitory homosexual inclination and others have such a deep seated one that it never changes?
One poster made the clever comment of noting that only such ‘luminary’ societies as Iran, Yemen, etc do not consider homosexuality normal and considers this evidence that it is pure science, not advocacy that has normalized psychology’s opinion of homosexuality. Such an assertion is ignorant of what a small world we live in. Western professionals cross pollinate continually. Psychological opinion and worldview throughout the western world remains profoundly influenced by Kinsey’s work (later proven to be riven with bias and outright fraud, possibly motivated by Kinsey’s own rather strange sexual proclivities). Psychology today is rooted in a rejection of Natural Law and objective morality. This predates Kinsey, of course, but that worldview strongly enabled him to peddle his ideas.
Once you’ve rejected that there are any objective rights and wrongs, it becomes more difficult to discern whether behaviors and attitudes are harmful to the person or the society in the long term. If christianity is right about unbridled homosexual expression, then we should expect people who engage in it to continue to experience long term problems in their lives. Things like higher rates of depression, suicide, domestic violence, sexual abuse, promiscuity, unfaithfulness, drug abuse, etc. Nobody seriously disputes the reality that the active homosexual population has MUCH higher rates of these destrucctive behaviors. Currently the mainstream has convinced itself that these things come from the social disapproval previously heaped on homosexuals. As that social disapproval is increasingly removed, it will be interesting to see if rates of those things among homosexuals drop to that of the population level or if they remain stubbornly high. Early indicators from places like New York City and Amsterdam (where there has been essentially no stigma against homosexuality for a long time) suggest that these rates are NOT coming down very much upon the destigmatization of homosexual conduct. If those rates remain stubbornly high in the ‘gay marriage’ future, I wonder how long it will take before psychologists are willing to seriously ask why?
One poster made the clever comment of noting that only such ‘luminary’ societies as Iran, Yemen, etc do not consider homosexuality normal and considers this evidence that it is pure science, not advocacy that has normalized psychology’s opinion of homosexuality. Such an assertion is ignorant of what a small world we live in. Western professionals cross pollinate continually. Psychological opinion and worldview throughout the western world remains profoundly influenced by Kinsey’s work (later proven to be riven with bias and outright fraud, possibly motivated by Kinsey’s own rather strange sexual proclivities). Psychology today is rooted in a rejection of Natural Law and objective morality. This predates Kinsey, of course, but that worldview strongly enabled him to peddle his ideas.
Once you’ve rejected that there are any objective rights and wrongs, it becomes more difficult to discern whether behaviors and attitudes are harmful to the person or the society in the long term. If christianity is right about unbridled homosexual expression, then we should expect people who engage in it to continue to experience long term problems in their lives. Things like higher rates of depression, suicide, domestic violence, sexual abuse, promiscuity, unfaithfulness, drug abuse, etc. Nobody seriously disputes the reality that the active homosexual population has MUCH higher rates of these destrucctive behaviors. Currently the mainstream has convinced itself that these things come from the social disapproval previously heaped on homosexuals. As that social disapproval is increasingly removed, it will be interesting to see if rates of those things among homosexuals drop to that of the population level or if they remain stubbornly high. Early indicators from places like New York City and Amsterdam (where there has been essentially no stigma against homosexuality for a long time) suggest that these rates are NOT coming down very much upon the destigmatization of homosexual conduct. If those rates remain stubbornly high in the ‘gay marriage’ future, I wonder how long it will take before psychologists are willing to seriously ask why?
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
I don’t know. I personally know quite a few homosexuals, and none of them seem to suffer from depression or any psychological issues. Of course, if you want to force them into therapy or prevent them from engaging in the relationships they want, then fine. I don’t agree, though.
E
edwest2
Guest
Here’s the issue. The gay (LGBT) community appears to be campaigning against those who no longer wish to act out their sexual orientation. See here:
pfox.org/about_us.html
Scroll down to the blue heading that reads, in part: “Do gay activists oppose…” It appears only links two and three are working.
I hope the following article further clarifies the gay to ex-gay process:
narth.com/docs/opp.html
Peace,
Ed
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
Narth do sometimes seem a little dodgy. Some of their studies look a little propagandistic.
However, I agree that people should be allowed to “cure” their homosexuality if they so wish.
E
edwest2
Guest
No one wants to force any gay (LGBT) people into therapy. This group exemplifies the fact that there are people who find their sexual orientation to be unwanted, and expect the psychiatric community to treat them. A careful reading of the material about this subject shows that an unwanted or troubling psychological state should be treated if the patient desires treatment.
pfox.org/about_us.html
Peace,
Ed
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
I’d agree.
If it bothers them, they can give it a go. But it’s wrong to suggest that all homosexuals are troubled by their homosexuality.
M
manualman
Guest
Goodness, who’s proposing “forced therapy” or “preventing relationships?” Maybe them Westboro folks, but nobody on this thread. What people here object to is the attempts to de-accredit therapists who offer to help patients explore the roots of their same sex attractions. Who’s “forcing” who?
And preventing relationships? c’mon! The closest anybody here comes to that is opposing efforts to extend legal recognition to gay relationships as ‘marriage.’ The only reason government is involved in that in the first place is that government wanted to incentivize and protect an institution that is by its very nature ordered towards creating and raising healthy, happy, productive new citizens. If that is no longer the reason government wishes to recognize marriage, then there IS no reason for government to be involved. If marriage is just feelings, then it is STUPID for the government to issue licenses for it! But if it is the building block of civilization upon which we depend for our long term survival, we should remember that and stick to that definition.
Maybe you’re right that gay people don’t suffer any ill effects of acting on their inclinations. If so, then nobody has anything to fear from objectively collecting data and studying it, right?
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
Untrue. They caved under pressure.
B
Bradski
Guest
And again I ask: what about all the other organisations in the US who do not class it as a disorder. What about all the organisations in all civilised countries that do not class it as a disorder?
Did they all ‘cave in’? The idea is preposterous.
N
Nate13
Guest
Lol are you that naive of how academics works? 97% of people are followers. One guy comes up with a discovery and everyone jumps clambers to jump on board. You can actually see this in the polling of homosexuals and members of the APA as time has progressed. Homosexuals in 1980 and before overwhelming believed that being homosexual was either a choice or the cause of some life experience as opposed to “born this way”. After the APA and a few years of militant LGB propagandist’s going around it starts to swing to where an overwhelming number of people that are homosexual may say they are born that way.
Point being people flock to whatever the idea of the day is. Add some militant propagandist’s with an agenda and you can really make some headway.
R
ringil
Guest
Well they can’t “give it a go” with any licensed mental health professionals I know of thank God.I’d agree.
I, as a licensed clinical social worker, would report any clinician I knew of who stated they were using reparative therapy with a client.
B
Bradski
Guest
So to confirm what you are suggesting: APA said homosexuality is not a disorder and every single other organisation in the US thought they’d ‘clamber aboard’. And then every organisation in every civilised country also thought they’d ‘clamber on board’ (incidentally, I’m assuming you’ve checked the time lines for this).
And you’re also suggesting that some organisations is some countries had the moral fortitude to resist the propaganda and did not ‘clamber on board’. That would be organisations in countries like Uganda, Iraq, Sierra Leonne etc.
Are you suggesting that these countries are the only ones coming out of this looking good?
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
I don’t believe it’s effective, namely because most of the “ex-gay therapy” I’ve read about seems to be very religious and seems to include lots of praying. I don’t know about you, but I don’t believe prayer is an effective method of, well, anything.
U
Used2beSherryG
Guest
are we speaking of changing or of making better choices? Anyone can choose to DO any type of behavior - or not. What is key is acknowledging that we all choose our behavior.
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
I know this is a late reply, but I stated above that I’m fine with people going for their therapy if they want it. But I don’t believe it works that well.
I didn’t say that. I said not all gays do. I know some that are happy and healthy. It’s just a simple truth that not all of them are suffering from terrible depression or having suicidal thoughts. Some are fine with their homosexuality. Some aren’t, and they’re welcome to do something about that if they so wish.
Yeah, but celibacy can be a burden, so I guess some people feel that they want to get rid of homosexual desires to live whatever life they want to live. Generally I don’t have a problem with it if the person involved is fine with it themselves. Not that I think it works that well.
B
Bill_7154
Guest
This is what I’m wondering, and it’s different than the APA and classification or removal of such as a psychiatric disorder:
Why do all gay advocate groups insist that people are ALWAYS BORN homosexual?
What I mean is, that if being homosexual is good and normal, etc… why would groups that speak for them be so adamant in insisting that they are all ‘born’ that way?
If it’s good and normal, wouldn’t it be more natural to say: hey, maybe some are born that way, maybe some are conditioned to be that way based on their enviornmental circumstances growing up, maybe some choose to be that way, maybe some have a combo of one or more of the aforementioned as leading them to be homosexual?
Why such a strong insistance they are all born that way? If it’s nothing to be ashamed of. If there is nothing wrong with it? If there may be advantages to being homosexual…wouldn’t it make more sense for people to say “It doesn’t make a difference why homosexuals are homosexuals!” They are simply homosexual and that’s the end of the story, live with it!
It seems to me that it’s an agenda to say they are born that way, although it makes no sense to me why such an agenda exists. It especially seems to me to be an agenda because there seems to be NO disention in the ranks. In lots of other area’s of life there is disagreement why poeple are such and such way, etc… but not with homosuality…they all MUST HAVE been born that way. ALL OF THEM! And that is the only agenda that I hear.
Am I incorrect? Are there gay advocacy groups that state they are not sure if all are born that way, or state it doesn’t matter, or that it may be a combo of things? Any?
Why do all gay advocate groups insist that people are ALWAYS BORN homosexual?
What I mean is, that if being homosexual is good and normal, etc… why would groups that speak for them be so adamant in insisting that they are all ‘born’ that way?
If it’s good and normal, wouldn’t it be more natural to say: hey, maybe some are born that way, maybe some are conditioned to be that way based on their enviornmental circumstances growing up, maybe some choose to be that way, maybe some have a combo of one or more of the aforementioned as leading them to be homosexual?
Why such a strong insistance they are all born that way? If it’s nothing to be ashamed of. If there is nothing wrong with it? If there may be advantages to being homosexual…wouldn’t it make more sense for people to say “It doesn’t make a difference why homosexuals are homosexuals!” They are simply homosexual and that’s the end of the story, live with it!
It seems to me that it’s an agenda to say they are born that way, although it makes no sense to me why such an agenda exists. It especially seems to me to be an agenda because there seems to be NO disention in the ranks. In lots of other area’s of life there is disagreement why poeple are such and such way, etc… but not with homosuality…they all MUST HAVE been born that way. ALL OF THEM! And that is the only agenda that I hear.
Am I incorrect? Are there gay advocacy groups that state they are not sure if all are born that way, or state it doesn’t matter, or that it may be a combo of things? Any?
- Status