California Psychologist Wants 'Extreme Bias' Against Homosexuals Added To 'DSM'

January 6, 2006 - In early December 2005, Washington Post writer Shankar Vedantam reported on the efforts of UCLA psychology professor Edward Dunbar to encourage the psychiatric community to add "extreme bias" against homosexuals (or ethnic groups) added to the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Professor Dunbar is considered an expert on hate crimes and serves as a consultant with the Los Angeles City Police Department, the LA Unified School District and the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center.

The Post article quotes Darrel A. Regier, director of research at the APA who supports research into whether pathological bias is a disorder but wonders if adding it to the DSM would be useful. "If you're going to put racism into the next edition of DSM, you would have enormous criticism." Critics would ask, "'Are you pathologizing all of life? You better be prepared to defend that classification."

Sally Satel, author of PC, M.D.: How Political Correctness Is Corrupting Medicine, calls Dunbar's proposal "absurd" and says such a diagnosis could be used by hate crime perpetrators to escape punishment.

However, Alvin F. Poussaint, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School agrees with Dunbar and characterizes individuals with extreme bias as "delusional." He notes: "They imagine people are going to do all kinds of bad things and hurt them, and feel they have to do something to protect themselves. When they reach that stage, they are very impaired."

Shama Chaiken, with the California Department of Corrections also agrees with Dunbar. "We treat racism and homophobia as delusional disorders."

When punster wrote the following:

Besides Cameron's reputation as a notorious fraud

what he's really saying is he bought the lie pushed by homosexual activists Mark Pietrzyk and Andrew Sullivan. We've tried to tell punster that he took their bait hook, line and sinker but he apparently doesn't care.

We've provided links but he's just not interested:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1471551/posts?page=152#152
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1499463/posts?page=123#123

I agree, with the 'politics' problem..

"However, the biological imperative to reproduce is secondary only to that of survival and homosexuality poses a distraction.."

By their very 'nature' on both counts Homosexuals are dead in the water so to speak, unless there are alternatives available to them for reproduction and hence long term 'survival'.. since only immediate survival is an end in itself. And the road to 'alternatives' opens another can of worms.

BTW, is FR slow tonite?

>>>Sounds funny (ridiculous, stupid, etc) until you understand that prisoners who exhibit bias against homosexuals are being given drugs to "solve" that little problem. This is scary.

I wonder if that is where the concept came from in Batman Begins for the Scarecrow.

Sick research psychiatrist who experimented on patients.

Yeah, the means of "reproduction" of and for homosexuality IS to prey upon vulnerable others to influence them by indirect or direct violation, to introduce others to homosexuality by predation, however subtle.

It's a cultural phenomenon, dependent upon cultural means to "reproduce" and that's exactly what's being said by the very theme of this thread's article: to my view, corrupt sociological processes to modify cultural norms and thereby, to "reproduce."

That's the dark side of things, but it's, actually, the reality on a purely biological level. Predation and survival have their dark side if/when the emotional is applied to behaviors, but, as to homosexuality as some proliferating social issue -- it certainly seems to be directly responsible for creating a great deal of destructiveness among humans and human culture and always by way of some surreptitious, manipulative process -- there's only one means available to 'survive' on a reproductory level and that's to replicate by means other than the biological reproductive process.

I also am sure that that's primarily why so many heterosexuals reject however subtley or overtly, homosexuals. Most of us can sense a degree of unreliability there and it does pose a problem to a certain degree upon the species. Thus, the species is right and accurate to suspect and consider sharply certain behaviors by some.

It has little to do with something BAD, as homosexuals are want to try to define it, but that on a biological basis, their behaviors and 'mentality' poses a threat to the species itself. Individuals within the human species are actually 'correct' or right in that sense, to consider homosexuality as a problem to avoid or to disassociate from.

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.