The Fight Against Gay "Marriage"

[edwest2]

I find it real funny when Christians give link to this book as it perfectly shows they HAVEN’T READ AT ALL. Because this book actually depicts the history of APA and why diagnosis was removed. And it clearly shows that

1. there was scientific evidence behind removing the diagnosis based on quite a few works that unlike the previous ones were done following scientific methodology.

1)opponents of removing homosexuality from DSM failed to present sound evidence that would make their outdated theories valid. They FAILED 3(three) times at scientific debates

1. When they failed with presenting scientific data OPPONENTS OF REMOVING HOMOSEXUALITY FROM DSM CALLED FOR A VOTING PROCEDURE having found a loophole in APA’s legal documents which they miserably failed at as well.

Good job, edwest. I wholeheartedly support the promotion of this book depicting the evils of obscurantists and their miserable failure, their POLITICAL and as it turned out later religious war against SCIENCE.

scribd.com/doc/165076223/APA-Science-vs-Obscurantists

"In Chapter 4, “Diagnostic Politics: Homosexuality and the American Psychiatric Association,” Dr. Bayer says that the first attack by homosexual activists against the APA began in 1970 when this organization held its convention in San Francisco. Homosexual activists decided to disrupt the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, homosexual activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA’s convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, “Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you.”

"Homosexuals forged APA credentials and gained access to exhibit areas in the conference. They threatened anyone who claimed that homosexuals needed to be cured.

"Kameny had found an ally inside of the APA named Kent Robinson who helped the homosexual activist present his demand that homosexuality be removed from the DSM. At the 1972 convention, homosexual activists were permitted to set up a display booth, entitled “Gay, Proud and Healthy.”

“Kameny was then permitted to be part of a panel of psychiatrists who were to discuss homosexuality. The effort to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM was the result of power politics, threats, and intimidation, not scientific discoveries.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I find it real funny when Christians give link to this book as it perfectly shows they HAVEN’T READ AT ALL. Because this book actually depicts the history of APA and why diagnosis was removed. And it clearly shows that

1. there was scientific evidence behind removing the diagnosis based on quite a few works that unlike the previous ones were done following scientific methodology.

1)opponents of removing homosexuality from DSM failed to present sound evidence that would make their outdated theories valid. They FAILED 3(three) times at scientific debates

1. When they failed with presenting scientific data OPPONENTS OF REMOVING HOMOSEXUALITY FROM DSM CALLED FOR A VOTING PROCEDURE having found a loophole in APA’s legal documents which they miserably failed at as well.

Good job, edwest. I wholeheartedly support the promotion of this book depicting the evils of obscurantists and their miserable failure, their POLITICAL and as it turned out later religious war against SCIENCE.

scribd.com/doc/165076223/APA-Science-vs-Obscurantists

What display of hubris that. As if a Catholic faithful or the membership in a Catholic forum will just keel over with a rabid homosexualist view of a new member already evident with her first three postings.

Gay activism may have succeeded in infiltrating the mental health profession, eventually leading to favorable judicial rulings on legalizing the big social experiment of gay “marriage.” But the truth can not be completely hidden. It has a way of surfacing. What scientific data? Read this that provides the links to the report of Alix Spiegel, granddaughter of Dr. John Spiegel, President elect of the APA in 1973.

As the APA prepares for the publication of the DSM-V in 2013, it is worthwhile to keep this story in mind. Some of the proposed changes seem to have more to do with a desire to remove a stigmatizing label than real “scientific” evidence. And like homosexuality, the pathology of which was for a many years assumed but never proven, the scientific understanding of some of the older DSM diagnoses is not particularly strong. Studying the history of psychiatry can’t necessarily prove or disprove the validity of a diagnosis, but it may help us to remain cautious as we go forward.

Further, you can also read this.
,

 

[MarcoPolo]

I didn’t say that – I’m just noting that the same-sex marriage movement is touting itself in this way and asking if any movement that’s done so previously was abandoned after achieving its ends.

Well, like I said, whether or not there is a group “touting itself this way” that gave up is neither her nor there as to whether or not we should speak the truth about marriage.

 

[gracepoole]

Well, like I said, whether or not there is a group “touting itself this way” that gave up is neither her nor there as to whether or not we should speak the truth about marriage.

I was speaking about the odds of a successful fight against same-sex marriage.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

How do we go about winning it? The propaganda from the activists is rather disturbing …

The complacency for this is horrifying, and my future, and indeed the future of the Millenial generation, and those after it is at stake. I’m only 14 years old, and I do believe my future is at serious risk with the legalization of homosexual “Marriage.”
…

Parents are concerned with the future lives of their children and their children’s children. The Supreme Court rulings in late June favoring pro-gay “marriage” advocates have dealt the defenders of marriage and the family a body blow. Will the other states in the 50 states join those that legalized same sex “marriage” and is it really inevitable? The prospect is likely.

Where do we go from here?

Time to shift the battleground in the war on marriage from the realm of politics to the realm of culture. Time for Christians to take to heart once again the words of the Psalmist: “Put not your trust in princes; in the sons of men, in whom there is no salvation.” Because even the best of politicians, wanting to win office or to remain in it once he gets there, is constantly tempted to see which way the wind is blowing. And the wind in the United States—even among many self-identified Catholics, like Justice Anthony Kennedy, the author of the DOMA decision—is in favor of a moral revolution that is striking at the very foundation of civilization: the family.

We can win the war on marriage on the battleground of culture, because a society built on a concept of marriage-that-is-not-marriage cannot long endure. But to shift the battleground, the Church must take the lead—and not the Church generically, but the Catholic Church specifically.

In the United States, only the Catholic Church has both the proper understanding of marriage and the moral authority to stand up against the political powers that have tried to arrogate to themselves the authority to redefine reality, to declare that the sky is green and the grass is blue. Only the Catholic Church has the wherewithal to say that the state has forfeited its right to say what marriage is, and what it is not.

How can the Church do so? Merely lecturing the state on the proper definition of marriage has not worked, and it will not work in the future. Speaking truth to power does not work when power hasn’t even the slightest interest in the truth. In Barack Obama’s America, marriage is merely a word, and words can be redefined at will—as indeed they must be, when they run up against the iron laws of “fairness” and “equality.”

Despite what President Obama thinks, however, any redefinition of marriage that includes sodomitic relationships is not a “fundamental truth.” As Pope Francis said of legislation to redefine marriage in Argentina, its author is the Father of Lies. And any state that wields the sword in defense of lies has forfeited its right to use that sword.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, reacting to the DOMA decision, declared that “The Court got it wrong,” and “The federal government ought to respect the truth that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, even where states fail to do so. The preservation of liberty and justice requires that all laws, federal and state, respect the truth, including the truth about marriage.” But after this promising start, with its oughts and requires and truths, the USCCB goes on to call for further “public debate,” and for the Court’s decisions to be “reviewed and their implications further clarified.”

This isn’t the language that is needed. This isn’t the kind of action that will shift the battleground to one where the Church can win, and win decisively.

So what kind of action would? How about this: The bishops could tell the state to go to hell (which is where it is headed anyway). From now on, Catholics in the United States will be required, as always, to comply with the Church’s conditions for marriage, but the Church in the United States will no longer require, as She does now, that a man and a woman seeking to be married in the Catholic Church receive a marriage license from the state. If a couple wants to do so, for tax purposes or for other legal advantages, they will be free to do so; but the Church will no longer regard such a license as necessary, much less as having any moral weight. Marriage within the Church will be divorced entirely from what the state deems to be marriage.

Such an action would shift the battleground immediately. It would encourage other Christian denominations to take a stand, one way or the other. It would force “cultural Catholics,” like Justice Kennedy, to decide where their loyalty lies: with the Church and the truths that She upholds, or with the state and its degraded and degrading culture. And it would erect an impregnable barrier against the assault that everyone knows is just over the horizon: the attempt of the state to force the Church to perform the impossible, to marry a man to a man and a woman to a woman.

“How religious institutions define and consecrate marriage has always been up to those institutions,” President Obama declared after yesterday’s ruling. “Nothing about this decision—which applies only to civil marriages—changes that.” The bishops of the United States should take him at his word. If President Obama sees “civil marriage” and marriage as “define[d] and consecrate[d]” by the Church as two different things, the Church should treat them as such. The very act of doing so would deny legitimacy to “civil marriage” and preserve and protect true marriage better than any law or Supreme Court decision ever could.

 

[edwest2]

It is up to the laity now. No matter what the Bishops do, and yes, they should do their part, it is up to each of us to speak the truth as often as we can, in season and out of season. It is up to us to believe the truth about marriage and understand what marriage is.

ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-chaput-religious-liberty-depends-on-lay-faithful-not-bishops/

If God is with us, who can be against us? Have faith.

Peace,
Ed

 

[MarcoPolo]

I was speaking about the odds of a successful fight against same-sex marriage.

If the odds are good, then what? If the odds are bad, then what?

 

[gracepoole]

If the odds are good, then what? If the odds are bad, then what?

? I’m not suggesting that people stop fighting for what they believe no matter what the odds are – I’m just pointing out that I don’t think the fight against same-sex marriage is going all that well.

 

[JackieO123]

Bump.

 

[ceaton92]

How do we go about winning it? The propaganda from the activists is rather disturbing to say the least. Sayings such as “It won’t affect you!” or, “The arguments against it are a slippery slope!” I could go on and on about such things, but in all honesty, some days I think that we’ll eventually lose it, and the repercussions of the legalization will affect us. We need to fight back, but not with violence, as the activists do. Truly, what arguments do we have to beat back this plague of immorality? I’m aware of a good sum of them, but trying to talk with someone about this often results in an emotions running high.

I’m all for banning gay marriage; that said, I’m all for homosexuals living chaste lives, seeking God, and the possibility, however slim, of a form of therapy to keep lusts in check, and similar things that don’t cause harm. Truly, we need as much help as we can get. We can’t back down from this. It can only lead to disaster. In fact, places that accept the gay activist ideology have been increasingly intolerant towards Catholicism and religious liberty.

The complacency for this is horrifying, and my future, and indeed the future of the Millenial generation, and those after it is at stake. I’m only 14 years old, and I do believe my future is at serious risk with the legalization of homosexual “Marriage.”

Link: cnsnews.com/news/article/san-francisco-catholic-church-attacked-pro-homosexual-marriage-vandals

I agree with your stance on “Chaste Lives”. But I believe unless you wish to procreate you must remain Chaste. So whether Heterosexual or Homosexual you should remain celibate and devoted to God unless you are married and wish to have a Child.

 

[ceaton92]

How do we go about winning it? The propaganda from the activists is rather disturbing to say the least. Sayings such as “It won’t affect you!” or, “The arguments against it are a slippery slope!” I could go on and on about such things, but in all honesty, some days I think that we’ll eventually lose it, and the repercussions of the legalization will affect us. We need to fight back, but not with violence, as the activists do. Truly, what arguments do we have to beat back this plague of immorality? I’m aware of a good sum of them, but trying to talk with someone about this often results in an emotions running high.

I’m all for banning gay marriage; that said, I’m all for homosexuals living chaste lives, seeking God, and the possibility, however slim, of a form of therapy to keep lusts in check, and similar things that don’t cause harm. Truly, we need as much help as we can get. We can’t back down from this. It can only lead to disaster. In fact, places that accept the gay activist ideology have been increasingly intolerant towards Catholicism and religious liberty.

The complacency for this is horrifying, and my future, and indeed the future of the Millenial generation, and those after it is at stake. I’m only 14 years old, and I do believe my future is at serious risk with the legalization of homosexual “Marriage.”

Link: cnsnews.com/news/article/san-francisco-catholic-church-attacked-pro-homosexual-marriage-vandals

Reading your posts and comments I have noticed that you seem to be a very angry person. Maybe instead of wishing for excommunication and wanting to fight against certain issues you should help bring people back to more traditional and less “picky choosy” ways.