narth.com/docs/masquerades.html
“When Activism Masquerades as Science: Potential Consequences of Recent APA Resolutions”
By A. Dean Byrd, Ph. D., MBA, MPH
“
There is a gay activist group that’s very strong and very vocal and recognized by the American Psychiatric Association…there’s nobody to give the other viewpoint…There may be a few people…but they don’t talk” (Spitzer, 2004).
Recent actions by the American Psychological Association (APA) have raised questions about its credibility as a scientific organization –
particularly, the resolutions on Sexual Orientation and Marriage, and on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children.
Activists’ Interpretation of the Research
Completely absent from the September issue of the Monitor on Psychology and with only the briefest of notes in the October Monitor, the resolutions on gay marriage and on parenting by gay partners were announced at the APA annual meeting this summer.
Rhea Farberman notes in the October Monitor, there is no research that suggests that “same-sex couples should be denied marriage rights” and that a “review of the literature calls for joint and second-parent adoption rights for gay parents” (2004, p. 24)
**APA insists that the resolutions are based on the recommendations of “researchers who study same-sex families and relationships” (Farberman, 2004, p. 24). **
**Consider those who were appointed to the committee: **
**Armand Cerbone **who was **inducted into the Chicago Gay and Lesbian Hall of Fame in 2003 **and was recognized for the distinguished service to the gay movement by the Society of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Issues;
Beverly Green, editor of Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian and Gay Issues, Kristen Hancock
who developed “Guidelines for Psychotherapy with Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Clients”;
**Lawrence A. Kurdek **Editorial Board of Contemporary Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Psychology and Candace A. McCullough--
whose partner, Sharon Duchesneau, was artificially inseminated from a deaf sperm donor to make it highly likely that their children would be born deaf because of their belief that deafness is not a medical condition but a cultural identity! (McElroy, 2002).
The committee members were hardly an unbiased group! "