Posted on 11/21/2003 9:50:23 AM PST by scripter
Assemblyman Mountjoy Opposes Promotion Of Homosexuality In Public Schools
1/16/02
For Immediate Release(SACRAMENTO) Today Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy (R-Arcadia) presented a 9-word measure in the Assembly Education Committee which reads: “The promotion of homosexuality in public education is prohibited.”
Assemblyman Mountjoy testified, “California reading scores for the 8th grade are 32nd out of 36 states nationally. Math scores are tied with Alabama for 35th out of 40 states. Science scores are abysmal. Public schools need to teach reading, writing, math, and science, not spend valuable time and resources promoting homosexuality.”
School teachers, parents, and pro-family organizations testified in support of AB 1326.
The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) approved materials for use in its “diversity” curriculum were discussed. The sexually explicit and inappropriate materials are being presented in elementary school through high school. Listed below are some of these materials obtained under court order in a federal lawsuit:
Young Gay, & Proud – AlyCat Books, Alyson Publications
The Gay Quote Book – Brandon Judell – A Plume Book
After the Ball – Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen
Passages of Pride– Kurt Chandler – Alyson Books – Los Angeles
One Teenager In 10 – Alyson Publications, Inc. – Boston
What Did They Say About Gays – Allan Gould
Know About Gays and Lesbians – by Margaret O. Hyde and Elizabeth H. Forsythe, M.D. – The Millbrook Press – Brookfield, Conn.
Straight Answers About Homosexuality for Straight Readers – David Loovis
Looking At Gay and Lesbian Life– Warren Blumenfeld/Diane Raymond
“I challenge every parent and school board member to review these books and decide if they are appropriate for our children,” commented Assemblyman Mountjoy. “If you have trouble finding them, contact the LAUSD. They can give you the names of the ‘adult’ bookstores they recommended in their ‘Models of Pride II’ reading list,” said Mountjoy. c These materials were presented to the Assembly Education Committee. AB 1326 was defeated on a partisan vote, Republicans voting “yes” and Democrats voting “no.” “After having seen this offensive material, I am appalled the Democrat Education Committee members voted to sanction continued use of this material in public schools,” Assemblyman Mountjoy concluded.
| Should that be | ping thang |
| pang thing | |
| pang thang | |
|
|
ping thing |
| I forgot about | pung thang |
SUNDAY Q & A: A lesbian takes on the 'thought police'
Tammy Bruce: No Sympathy for the Devil
And here's an interview with lots of good information:
Concerned Women for America - Radio: Sandy Rios and Tammy Bruce
Thursday 4/24/2003
New Book "The Death of Right and Wrong" Pt.1
with Tammy BruceShe’s a former leader within the National Organization for Women. She’s a lesbian and she is pro-choice. But she also believes there is a right and wrong. Sounds intriguing? Tune in for our discussion with Tammy Bruce in this edition of Concerned Women Today...
"... Although the focus has changed somewhat. the object is still to normalize homosexuality in the schools, beginning in preschool and kindergarten.
According to one educator who has attended previous GLSEN Boston conferences, "In past years the emphasis was on children and sex. This year's conference appeared to be geared more toward teachers and a 'stealth' agenda that took the focus off sex in favor of more subtle methods, using 'gay allies' to continue the homosexual agenda in schools..."
Including "GLBT issues" in Kindergarten
Most of the workshops took place in nearby Olin Hall. Among them was: "Inclusion of GLBT Issues in the K-5 Classroom" presented by Newton 5th grade teacher Jan Shafer.
Shafer began her session by saying, "There are always going to be people - parents, administrators, students, colleagues, and maybe even your friends - who think that you shouldn't include GLBT issues in the classroom, that they don't belong in a younger grade classroom. But I think that they do, and I am assuming that you are here because you also think so." She then asked participants to write down reasons why they think GLBT issues should be shared in the K-5 classroom. Among those given:
To validate children's personal stories
To destroy "gender binary" (male-female) stereotypes
To help children learn to become comfortable in the classroom by seeing their families respected
To help kids who "ultimately will be gay when they're older" feel "validated and comfortable at a young age."
One teacher intern at the Devotion School in Brookline gave this rationale: "It's important to help children become agents of change."
Shafer recalled that several years ago, while she was still "in the closet," GLSEN executive director Kevin Jennings paid a visit to her school and: "It was at that point that I was able to begin coming out."
She expressed concern that teachers in the younger-grades in the Commonwealth are being pressured to abandon values-related and social skill-building activities in their classrooms in favor of academic activities, such as learning to write an expository essay. "That's the message I'm getting, and I think a lot of teachers are getting that, and that's kind of scary to me, and I don't think it's an easy time to be a progressive teacher in Massachusetts right now."
One method that Shafer uses to inculcate homosexual acceptance in her 5th grade classroom is by hanging a calendar that depicts gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered families. At the end of the year, she cuts the calendar up and intermixes the photos of the deviant couples with pictures of other people in a display titled "Share the World, Everyone Matters." Passing out an "Images Checklist for Anti-Bias Environments," Shafer also encouraged teachers to take stock of the images, books and pictures on their classroom walls to insure they reflect diversity.
Another method, Shafer said, is to "come out" through lessons by "sharing your life." For example, in teaching a writing lesson where students learn to organize their thoughts according to "Who, what, when, where, how and why" principles, Shafer uses an outline for a summer vacation story where the "Who" is "My partner, Lisa." In teaching grades 4th, 5th and 6th graders how to write a persuasive essay, topics such as "Our laws treat homosexuals unfairly" can be assigned.
Shafer displayed an example in math of a "distance calculation" word problem where "Sarita and her two moms" are walking to raise money for hunger relief, and "Sarita walked eight more miles than her mom Carla."
She advised prospective teachers to "come out" during job interviews by telling principals, "This is who I am, and I'm open about it, and I want to know if that's going to be a problem here, because it wouldn't really work for me to work here if that's going to be a problem."
Shafer displayed examples of white sheets she hangs in her faculty lounge that have questions at the top such as, "How can I behave so our school is safe and welcoming for gay and lesbian people?" and "What can I do if I hear homophobic language?" In the space below, colleagues can write in their own answers.
In answer to the question, "How can teachers include lesbian and gay issues in the classroom?" Shafer offered the following suggestions:
Introduce vocabulary.
Look for the 'teachable moment.'
Use current events.
Change the sexual orientation of some of the characters in books or written assignments.
Among the handouts Shafer distributed to participants was a six-page list of "Books for Pre-K and Elementary Students" that recommended such titles for preschoolers as A Family Counting Book that "celebrates alternative families as it teaches kids to count from one to twenty," and One Dad Two Dads, Brown Dad Blue Dads by Alyson Publications. It is one of the leading producers of homosexual books, including Gay Sex: A Manual for Men Who Love Men that contains detailed instructions for homosexual men on how to avoid discovery and arrest when having sex with boys.
Other publishers on the list included Harcourt and Houghton Mifflin, as well as Tackling Gay Issues in Schools, a 230-page educators' resource binder published by GLSEN Connecticut and Planned Parenthood of Connecticut.
Shafer concluded her session by showing a 10-minute video, Both of My Moms' Names are Judy, which presents elementary school children talking about their families and their experiences with homophobia..."
"In 1973, the APA removed Homosexuality from its diagnostic category of mental illnesses. This action came not as a result of new research and findings, but was ultimately brought about by militant protest staged by activists at the APA annual convention. In other words, intimidation was a key motivation. In fact, only 16% of the entire APA membership actually voted in favor of the radical change."
-- Homosexuality, Dr. James Mallory, Head of Psychiatric unit – Rapha Center, Atlanta, Ga.; Ronald Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis (N.Y.: Basic Books, 1981), 101-54; Wm. Dannemeyer, Shadow in the Land (San Fran.: Ignatius Press, 1989), 24-39.
The assertion that homosexuals are a true minority group is false. Minority status has been determined by the U.S. Supreme Court Based on three criteria:
1. Economic Deprivation -- NO! Those engaged in the homosexual lifestyle are among the most advantaged people in the U.S. On average, they have a higher per capita income than heterosexuals, and higher household incomes.
(W.S. Journal, 2/10/89; N.Y. Times, 8/22/90).2. Political Powerlessness -- NO! Homosexuals demonstrate great influential political power far beyond their actual numbers. The Human Rights Campaign Fund has annually donated millions of dollars to candidates, more than most other non-corporate PACs (The Economist, 4/24/93). Media news and entertainment coverage is overwhelmingly favorable. (Turn your TV on!)
3. Immutable Characteristics -- NO! Minority groups share unchangeable, benign, non-behavioral traits such as race, ethnicity, disability or national origin. Homosexuals are the only group to claim minority status based on behavior!
The 1998 Federal Budget includes $4.746 billion for AIDS funding. That is a $465 million increase over the 1997 Budget. That is more funding than all forms of cancer combined!
Federal Money (your money) Spent per Death: AIDS/HIV: $39,172 Diabetes: $5,449 Heart Disease: $1,056 Stroke: $765
An excerpt from "You're Imposing Your Morality On Everyone Else"
"... Opponents of the "gay rights" agenda have every right, through our system of government, to "push back." And while gay activists accuse opponents of special gay advantage of "mixing questions of church and state," they themselves never hesitate to appeal, with the active assistance of "liberal" clergy, to falsely-construed notions of "biblical" compassion to support their cause. Kirk and Pill suggest in this regard:
"... [publicizing] support for gays by more moderate churches, raising theological objections of our own about conservative interpretations of biblical teachings... Second, we can undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology. Against the mighty pull of institutional religion one must set the mightier draw of Science and Public Opinion... Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before, on such topics as divorce and abortion. With enough open talk about the prevalence and acceptance of homosexuality, that alliance can work again here." ("The Overhauling of Straight America," op. cit.)In Judeo-Christian tradition, true compassion never condones wrongdoing -- especially persistently selfish behavior that harms others. Forgiveness is offered to wrongdoers -- on condition that they forsake behavior destructive to themselves and others. Judeo-Christian tradition says, "Go, and sin no more" not "Go and sin much more." Gay militant leaders themselves admit the moral deficiencies of gay life. Kirk and Madsen say: "In short, the gay lifestyle -- if such a chaos can, after all, legitimately be called a lifestyle -- just doesn't work: it doesn't serve the two functions for which all social frameworks evolve: to constrain people's natural impulses to behave badly and to meet their natural needs" (After the Ball, op. cit., pg. 363)..."
What Homosexuals Say About Homosexuals - Is This Gay Behavior Sick?
"The short answer to the question, "Is homosexuality a psychopathology?" is no, if a person were to mean that the answer can be found by a quick look through the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) of the American Psychiatric Association. Homosexuality is not listed as a formal mental disorder in the DSM-IV, and hence it is not a "mental illness." But, as we will see in this chapter, answering the question, "Is homosexuality a psychopathology?" is much more complicated than simply checking a manual...
A Review of the Scientific Literature It is widely known that in 1974 the full membership of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) followed the 1973 recommendation of its board by voting to remove homosexuality as a pathological psychiatric condition as such (or "in itself") from the DSM, which is the official reference book for diagnosing mental disorders in America (and through much of the world).
The removal of homosexuality from the DSM was in response to a majority vote of the APA. The original APA vote was called at a time of significant social change and was taken with unconventional speed that circumvented normal channels for consideration of the issues because of explicit threats from gay rights groups to disrupt APA conventions and research.
However, it appears that in contrast to the results of the vote, the majority of the APA membership continued to view homosexuality as a pathology. A survey four years after the vote found that 69% of psychiatrists regarded homosexuality as a "pathological adaptation." A much more recent survey suggests that the majority of psychiatrists around the world continue to view same-sex behavior as signaling mental illness.
The removal of homosexuality from the DSM does not answer the thorny question of the morality of homosexual behavior, as we will discuss later. It also does not answer the question of whether or not homosexual orientation is "healthy." Removal of the diagnostic category from the DSM is not the same thing as an endorsement of homosexual orientation or lifestyle as healthy or wholesome, as the two surveys conducted since the APA vote would indicate. By analogy, a person can certainly be in a condition where he or she fails to manifest an identifiable physical disease, yet also fails to be an exemplar of health and fitness...
Summary
- Homosexuality is not formally recognized as a mental disorder in the DSM. However, some mental health professionals disagree: a few years following the removal of homosexuality from the DSM, the majority of psychiatrists in America viewed homosexuality as a pathology, and the majority of psychiatrists around the world continue to see same-sex attraction as signaling a mental illness.
- Research has shown that it is not the case that all homosexuals are inherently pathological. Sometimes these findings are misrepresented to suggest that homosexuals do not experience any greater distress than heterosexuals.
- Research supports a relationship between homosexuality and personal distress (e.g., rates of depression, substance abuse and suicidality), though not all homosexuals are distressed. Some view the distress as indicating something inherently wrong with homosexuality; others view homosexuals who are distressed as a reflection of societal prejudice.
- Research on maladaptiveness is inconclusive primarily because of the lack of agreement as to what constitutes maladaptiveness. The clear evidence of relational instability and promiscuity among male homosexuals must figure as problematic for Christians.
- Homosexuality violates societal norms; however, mental health organizations have taken the formal position that societal norms have to be changed toward accepting homosexuality as a normal sexual variant.
- Research on whether homosexuality is a pathological condition is not formally relevant to the moral debate in the church. Psychological abnormality and immorality are two different things, although sometimes they overlap."
The Day of Silence was first observed in 1996 and according to www.dayofsilence.org, the day is a project of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) in collaboration with the United States Student Association.
It’s described as “a student-led day of action where those who support making anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual) bias unacceptable in schools take a day-long vow of silence to recognize and protest the discrimination and harassment — in effect, the silencing— experienced by LGBT students and their allies.”
The claim that these events are "student-led" is a ruse. It starts with adult influence and direction:
An excerpt from "From Tolerance to Affirmation: One School's Experience with a Gay-Affirmative Program"
"... Gay agitation began during the 1992-93 school year. A group of teachers, led by a dedicated gay and lesbian promoter, banded together to discuss a problem. The teachers were told that gay students were being discriminated against--harassed, beaten up, and called names within the confines of the school. Although these incidents, whether real or created, would normally be handled by the dean's office, it was resolved that because the target of these incidents was gay students, more intense efforts needed to be made...
Some teachers actively taught "tolerance" from the pulpit of the classroom, and began to incorporate gay and lesbian themes into their lessons...
In summary:
- Once the gay and lesbian agenda establishes itself in a district, that agenda starts to expand. It is typically first introduced under the philosophy of "making schools safe."
- Gay and lesbian activists choose words and phrases which make their agenda sound innocuous. Teachers are taught to respect diversity, but this respect is used by the activists to further a larger agenda. Teachers who oppose the group are labeled intolerant and warned of the fear and bigotry they are spreading among their students.
- There is covert spreading of rainbow symbols throughout the school. The symbols are said to stand for the broader issue of respect for diversity.
- Information about the group is quietly passed to students; soon the whole school is aware that a "pro-gay" group exists among the teachers.
- Since the group is not recognized by the school, it is impossible for parents to influence it, or ask for its closure.
- Although not official, the group gains credibility through each successive mailing, meeting, and forum.
Soon, students confused about their sexual identity begin to come out publicly, becoming activists themselves. Gay pride symbols appear on the student TV station. One boy enters the school talent show dressed in drag as Madonna; two young boys, and two girls, make public the fact that they are going to the prom "as a foursome." The idea soon grows that it is "cool," "different," and "chic" to be gay. Because the students are perceived as the initiators of these actions, there is no administrative censure.
Activist teachers become more public in their attempts to pass on the tenets of gay activism. Students are by now required to read books that have explicit gay and lesbian stories, and they are humiliated in class if they express any reservations about homosexuality.
The administration, sensing that this has become an issue, now decides to include the gay group among the school's official organizations--listing it along with other support groups for issues of divorce, alcoholism and pregnancy. A gay-activist teacher is made the head, aided by a sympathetic social worker from Project 10. Parents are not contacted if their child enters the Project 10 group.
The group's social worker now states that he believes that sexual identity is not an issue that has anything to do with values.
At a meeting of a student's discussion club, the leader of the gay activist group makes several announcements:
- The rainbow signs that had appeared throughout the school were not just "respect diversity" signs; they were actually gay pride signs. (Every counselor, by that time, already had one in his office.)
- "Tolerance" was not the goal, after all, because "tolerance" implies that there is something wrong with being gay, and of course there is not.
- Gay rights are said to be in the same category as civil rights for ethnic minorities; therefore in the future, the school will offer gay-affirmative curricula.
- The name of the support group is now "Project 10," referring to the "fact" that 10% of the population is gay..."
An example from the recent "Day of Silence" campaign:
An excerpt from "'Day of Silence' questioned: Principal plans to discuss teachers' participation in gay rights event" by Patty Maher, Ann Arbor News Staff Reporter, Saturday, April 24, 2004
"The principal at Huron High School questions whether or not two teachers who participated Wednesday in a Day of Silence to advocate for gay rights should be allowed to do it again next year.
However, district officials have no policy against political activism in the classroom.
Principal Arthur Williams said he plans to have a group discussion with teachers and administrators about expectations regarding teachers' political activism in the classroom.
"I think you can talk about the various sides of the issue without advocating for any," said Williams, who added he would not be in favor of teacher participation in a Day of Silence against racism, sexism or any other social or political cause.
English teachers and co-advisors of Huron's Gay Straight Alliance Sarah Andrew-Vaughan and Aimee Grant taught without speaking on Wednesday, handing out written instructions and communicating with students on note pads and chalkboards.
They shared with students a paragraph explaining the reason for their quiet: Protest of the silence faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning people and their allies. Williams said he did not realize that teachers had participated in the day-long event until Thursday and he thought it was going to be a "moment" of silence for students, not a whole day of speechlessness.
Although Williams is concerned about teachers expressing political viewpoints in school, district spokeswoman Liz Margolis said Ann Arbor Public Schools has no policy regulating such activity.
"We are very supportive of the groups in the schools, the gay and lesbian and transgender alliances," Margolis said. "I think as long as there was not a disruption in class and class could continue on, it probably offered kids something ..."
Andrew-Vaughan said she doesn't know whether or not it would be appropriate for a teacher to participate in a Day of Silence to express an opinion on an issue such as abortion rights or gun control, but she had no qualms about supporting gay rights.
"I think that teachers should be allowed to take a stand on Ann Arbor's non-discrimination policy and that's what I did," Andrew-Vaughan said.
Andrew-Vaughan and Williams both said Friday that no parents had called to question the teachers' activism. She said she and Grant planned their lessons carefully, gave clear written instructions and answered all students' questions in writing.
"In fact, I think that we say more with silence sometimes than we do with many words," Andrew-Vaughan said..."
"The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, or GLSEN, today announced student-led local and national plans for what will be the largest-ever youth-led event dedicated to ending discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) students in schools. The 9th annual Day of Silence will be observed on April 21, 2004, and is expected to break last year’s record-setting participation of more than 200,000 students and teachers in nearly 2,000 K – 12 schools from across the nation.
“It is with great pride and excitement that GLSEN once again prepares to coordinate the Day of Silence,” said GLSEN Executive Director Kevin Jennings. “We here at GLSEN are incredibly inspired by the great number of students who will be silently, yet powerfully, standing up for themselves, their peers and the ideals of safety and respect for all.”
For the third straight year GLSEN is leading the coordination of the Day of Silence, which was founded in 1996 by students at the University of Virginia, and by 2002 had become a landmark national event. During the Day, participating students, teachers and faculty, take a vow of silence to protest discrimination leveled at LGBT people in their schools..."
Kevin, Kevin, Kevin -- it's not a student-led event, and you know it!
In fact, only 16% of the entire APA membership actually voted in favor of the radical change."
An excerpt from "Executive Summary For Sexual Politics And Scientific Logic: The Issue Of Homosexuality"
"Dr. Charles Socarides published an historical essay, "Sexual Politics And Scientific Logic: The Issue Of Homosexuality," in The Journal Of Psychohistory, Vol. 10, No. 3, Winter, 1992. It should be of interest to all students of our socio-cultural history.
... The doctor notes that the efforts to remove homosexuality as a disorder from the DSM was accomplished by pressure from psychiatrists within the APA as well as activist homosexual groups that began disrupting psychiatric meetings and publicly attacking any psychiatrists who dared consider homosexuality to be a deviant sexual behavior.
As outside homosexual pressure groups challenged psychiatrists with hate-filled letters and threatening phone calls, pro-homosexual psychiatrists within the APA were aggressively lobbying for the normalization of homosexuality.
Pro-homosexual psychiatrists successfully seized control of various committees within the APA and began issuing reports that recommended the removal of homosexuality from the DSM. Among these was Dr. Judd Marmor, who used the networking sources provided by SIECUS (Scientific Information and Education Council of the U.S.) to promote the normalization of homosexuality.
In 1973, Marmor and other psychiatrists met with members of the Gay Activist Alliance, the Mattachine Society, the Daughters of Bilitis, and the Nomenclature Committee of the American Psychiatric Association at Columbia University to discuss deletion of homosexuality from the DSM.
Eventually, the issue was put to a vote to APA members. Only 25% of those eligible to vote sent in their ballots out of 25,000 psychiatrists. However, the vote was in favor of removing homosexuality from the DSM.
As Dr. Socarides noted: "By declaring a condition a 'non-condition,' a group of practitioners had removed it from our list of serious psychosexual disorders. The action was all the more remarkable when one considers that it involved the out-of-hand and peremptory disregard and dismissal not only of hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports, but also of a number of other serious studies by groups of psychiatrists, psychologists, and educators over the past seventy years..."
So then, of the 25% (6250) of the APA members who actually voted, 16% (4000) voted in favor of removing homosexuality from the DSM. Look at what 4000 activist psychiatrists within the APA, along with the threats from activist homosexual groups, have accomplished.
Related replies posted in this thread: 46, 121, 139, 213, and 237.
An excerpt from "American Psychology: The Political Science" by Ray W. Johnson, Ph.D.
Ray W. Johnson, Ph.D. is a licensed psychologist and founding member of the University of North Texas Psychology Department, as well as Training Director of the school's APA-accredited Counseling Psychology program. He is the co-author of a book on individual assessment and has published papers on personality, marital and family issues. In 1991 he founded Psychologists for a Free A.P.A. for the purpose of ending A.P.A. advocacy on social-moral issues.
"It will be recognized immediately that this title is an exaggeration. There are large numbers of psychologists, uncontaminated by doctrinaire politics, who continue to search for the basic processes which constitute our psychological lives. They also seek to determine the most effective interventions to change the activity of those processes to better the lives of others.
The title refers to organized psychology: the American Psychological Association. APA, like many groups involved in human service delivery, has been seized by political activists who have little regard for science or the democratic process. Since the seventies, the American Psychological Association has lobbied the government, filed court briefs, and engaged in and promoted boycotts on behalf of a host of social-moral causes. These causes have included ERA, unrestricted abortion (including abortion for children without parental notification and consent), sex and racial-ethnic discrimination, and homosexual politics.
Recently, homosexual politics have taken the forefront. APA council voted to threaten with boycotts states whose citizens passed APA disapproved laws regarding homosexuality. It has supported efforts to introduce programs into the public schools to reduce prejudice aimed at so-called "gay, lesbian and bisexual youth" or "prehomosexual" children. APA has refused military advertising in the APA Monitor because of the military's position regarding gays in the military. It has entered court to support Political Science homosexual parenting. Most recently, NARTH tasted the censors boot when the APA Monitor refused to print a notice of its meetings. The reason? "NARTH"s position on homosexuality is in direct conflict with APA's position on the issue, and is also in conflict with current research findings on sexual orientation" (Farberman, 1995). In short, APA has employed coercion to enforce its politics and restricted the flow of information so necessary for science to function objectively. Sadly, APA does all this with no scientific basis for predicting the effect on society of adopting APA's approved programs. It was because APA engaged in these grossly unscientific and partisan activities that Psychologists for a Free APA was organized. Free APA takes no position on any social-moral-political issue. Its major purpose is to stop the American Psychological Association from taking advocacy positions on those issues.
It is hoped that all sides of these issues are represented in the organization. We support:
- The publication and dissemination of scientific research for the purpose of the advancement of science and the understanding of social-psychological processes. The most appropriate vehicles for the professional dissemination of scientific research are the scientific-professional journals of the social sciences.
- The right of psychologists as individuals and as groups of individuals to advocate and promote any social-moral-political issues in which they believe. Such individuals and Political Science groups, however, should not speak for The American Psychological Association.
The fundamental concern is that psychologists present themselves as professionals who are scientists or at least who base their practice on their science. Science is an enterprise which requires openness and questioning. When a scientific organization takes up politics and advocates for one side of a scientific issue, it declares the theoretical and scientific dialogue closed. It smothers science. It assumes that it not only knows what is, but also how things should be.
The reality is that APA doesn't have the answers. In science there is always another question. Advocacy politics, on the other hand, require an assumption that truth has been found and therefore, it is time to spread it through the law, public policy, intimidation and propaganda.
In order to maintain the pretense of science, the American Psychological Association presents the results of research projects which support its politics. However, the limitations of the research are not emphasized which results in (a) overgeneralizing of data; (b) ignoring or misrepresenting research results contrary to its politics; and (c) using poorly conceived research to support its positions. To courts, legislatures, lay people, and professionals unschooled in research, this looks like science. This "appearance of science" approach to advocacy is evidenced in all the major areas for which APA has taken an advocacy stance. It tends to turn meanings upside down. For example, the statement "There is no evidence that...no longer means that we don't know, it now means that we should move ahead with what we are promoting.
A paper recently published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology ( Haldeman, 1994) was entitled "The Practice and Ethics of Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy." In the abstract, the author states, "The literature in psychotherapeutic and religious conversion therapies is reviewed, showing no evidence indicating that such treatments are effective in their intended purpose." He also called for research on the potential harmful effects of such treatments. Note the scientific attitude. He did not call for research to determine if there was a potentially harmful effect. Or if therapy for this purpose is more harmful than therapy for other purposes. Essentially, the article serves to discredit efforts of therapists to help unhappy homosexuals to change their sexual orientation.
Assuming that Haldeman represents the current thinking of APA and homosexual advocates, it can be shown by using quotations from the writings of advocates, that APA, in it's advocacy for homosexual causes, has no scientific basis for doing so and is operating in the dark. This opinion is based on the following interrelated notions (1) there is no generally accepted scientific definition of homosexuality; (2) APA's efforts to gain protected minority status for homosexuals are not based on any scientific evidence that homosexuality is of the same order as, for example, sex and race; (3) there is no solid body of research based homosexuals; (4) there is evidence that conversion therapy works for some people called homosexual; and (5) there is no convincing evidence that efforts to provide conversion therapy should be considered unethical. I will address each of these points. In the quotations which follow the emphases are mine...
... So, APA without a definition to guide its activity is blindly trying to impose its will on society by attacking citizens who oppose its view. There is no scientific procedure which would enable APA to predict the future for such a fluid condition in a changing context...
APA and Homosexuality as a Protected Minority
The above quotations point to the second reason APA advocacy is political. On what basis does APA seek to have what it calls homosexuals declared a protected minority? There is no satisfactory scientific definition for the construct. The condition is variable and subject to change through a number of influences. Has any other group been granted this status under the same conditions? These laws have been previously applied to conditions (e.g., sex or race) which were clearly outside the control of the persons involved and were not changeable. Our quotations indicate that these conditions do not apply to homosexuals. With no science, and questionable legal grounds, APA's advocacy for homosexuals to attain the status of a protected minority is merely twisted, political activity.
Lack of Research
The problem of definition points to the third reason APA advocacy is politically motivated. APA asserts that its advocacy is driven by research (Tomes, H.,1993). Haldeman (1994) claims that "It is, ..., well within psychology's purview to disseminate accurate information from our considerable database about homosexuality" (p. 226). However, since there has been no adequate delineation of the construct and since the condition is variable, how could APA develop such a pool of scientific research? According to Gonsiorek (1991) "Research on homosexuality has been characterized by poor and biased sampling procedures and vague, erroneous, or simplistic assumptions about the definition of homosexuality" (p. 123). Is there a considerable database? The answer is embedded in criticisms of conversion research.
Conversion Therapy
APA is opposed to conversion therapy...
The Ethics of Conversion
... Much of the argument for the abandonment of conversion therapy is based on the 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM, thus, according to Haldeman's (1994) quote from APA (1975), "...removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with homosexual orientations." The major ethical arguments are contained in the following...
... It is debatable whether the 1973 decision should be considered evidence that homosexuality is "not an illness" or that it is normal. In the absence of lesions, chemical influences, parasites, bacteria, viruses, unequivocal genetic or brain anomalies, the decision as to what constitutes an illness is subject to the interpretation of existing research and personal opinion i.e., a political decision. It is decided by vote. This is the case with homosexuality. Gonsiorek (1991) concludes that "...the issue of whether homosexuality per se is a sign of psychopathology, psychological maladjustment, or disturbance has been answered, and the answer is that it not" (p. 135). However, the work he cites to support this position simply shows that homosexuals do not exhibit symptoms associated with other socially defined pathological conditions. Whatever may be the facts with regard to whether homosexuality is intrinsically pathological, large numbers of American citizens believe it to be undesirable and believe that its normalization would have deleterious effects...
It is clear that both APA's have ignored the absence of research on the potential social impact of the normalization of homosexuality. The American Psychological Association, which claims to be a scientific organization, is especially guilty because it has approved launching attacks on states in which its homosexual agenda has been thwarted...
In conclusion, using the words of homosexual advocates, it has been shown that there is no sound scientific basis for APA adopting its advocacy stance for homosexual politics. Furthermore, it has been shown that there is no scientific justification for attacks on therapists who attempt to help unhappy homosexuals try to change their sexual orientation. Without science, APA advocacy simply represents another prejudice.
APA is a very large, rich organization. In collaboration with other groups seeking radical social change, APA wields its power to impose its prejudice upon American citizens. The history of such collaborations are ominous. Whether the zealots joined wear brown shirts, pink triangles, or raise the clenched fist of radical feminism, when professional and scientific organizations embrace their cause, the scientific enterprise dies and is replaced by propaganda and coercion."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.