Where children have no voice: the "right" of adoption by homosexual partners
"SCIENTIFIC ACTIVISM" AT PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
Such confusion in the minds of children raised by homosexual partners should cause grave public concern. However, several professional health and counseling associations have published statements favoring the homosexual lifestyle and their adoption of children in an expression of what some have called "scientific activism."
The infiltration of the 'professional' medical and scientific associations by homosexual activists was ( and continues to be ) part of a well planned and well financed campaign to redefine homosexuality as normal. They started by infiltrating the American Psychiatric Association, with the goal removing homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).
Make no mistake, the homosexual activists knew exactly what they were doing in the days leading up to the removal of homosexuality from the DSM. Once they had control of the American Psychiatric Association, all the other 'professional' organizations ( such as the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Mental Health Association, etc.) fell in line and now accept, and march to, the APA's pro-homosexual party line. Click here (then scroll down the page to "The American Academy of Pediatrics") for a list of other pro-homosexual 'professional' associations that toe each others' homosexual agenda lines.
Forcing the removal of homosexuality from the DSM was the homosexual community's greatest achievement. It permitted them to claim that "homosexuality is normal" and set the stage to present this "normalcy" to the general public via a well planned media campaign ( outlined in 'The Overhauling of Straight America' ), and to kids in the public schools via Kevin Jennings' GLSEN. Kids as young as kindergarten age are now being indoctrinated with "homosexuality is normal" propaganda.
It wasn't science, but rather pro-homosexual activism that was, and continues to be, the primary force behind policy changes and the politically correct statments made by the APA and the majority of the other "professional" medical and scientific organizations.
For documentation of homosexual activism in both the APA's and the AAP, see the following replies in scripter's "Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Revision 1.1)" thread:
American Psychological Association: 121, 240, 242, 300, 329, 331, 336, and 357.
American Psychiatric Association: 46, 139, 213, 232, 237, 239, 241, 243, 246, 300, 363, and 364.
American Academy of Pediatrics: 284
Ping! (#373)
Ping (#373)
"The American Psychiatric Association considers whether anyone who disagrees with its rosy view of homosexuality is nuts.
Beginning in the early seventies, when it first declared that homosexuality was not a psychiatric illness but perfectly normal and healthy behavior, the American Psychiatric Association has given its seal of approval to every imaginable form of sexual behavior once considered aberrant or pathological. Last year, for example, the association published a study asserting that pedophilia wasn't a mental disorder—unless the pedophile found himself stressed out by his condition or unable to work or have meaningful relationships. Accordingly, the study suggested we should no longer label adult sex with "willing" pre-teen kids as molestation but instead should call it, more normatively, "adult-child sex."
After a huge public uproar and sharp criticism from some members who excoriated the study's sloppy research, the APA retracted the study (one of the authors of which, it turned out, had previously written for Paidika, a pro-pedophilia Danish journal). But the sorry report was in keeping with the APA's entire post-sixties history...
Not too long ago, for example, an APA-approved study, "Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?" argued that people who object to homosexuality in fact have a deep attraction toward it—and presumably need therapy to get over their conflicted feelings. This May in Chicago, further evidence of this troubling trend revealed itself at an APA conference workshop: "Is Homophobia a Mental Illness?"—as indeed the use of the term to describe those who disapprove of homosexuality implies. The politicized tenor of the session revealed itself from the outset, when two of the four male panelists kissed each other on the lips immediately prior to the presentations—exhibiting a provocative attitude toward appropriate professional behavior, if nothing else. To the extent one could glean a definition of homophobia from the confused panelists—as a scientific or theoretical discussion, the session didn't rise above the high school level—it seemed to be simply this: to oppose the agenda of homosexual-rights activism, or even to disapprove of homosexual acts means that one is mentally ill..."
An excerpt from "GAY ORTHODOXY AND ACADEMIC HERESY"
( Free Republic thread posted here )
"Those who discount the effect of systemic bias and political correctness in academia, such as Professor Mary Coombs of the University of Miami Law School, are willfully ignorant, if not dishonest. Coombs argues, somewhat like my former colleagues, that only pro-gay articles are published in academic journals because the other side is so bereft of substance. While that notion may suit her own intellectual vanity, it overlooks mounting evidence to the contrary.
At a recent meeting of the American Psychological Association (APA), for example, former APA President Robert Perloff denounced the organization as "too politically correct" and beholden to special interests. He noted that the organization had tried to prevent research into "conversion therapy" (therapy to change one's sexual orientation) and had tried to label it "unethical" a priori, even when the patient wants conversion therapy.
The APA blocked presentations from researchers on whether sexual orientation can be changed through counseling and therapy, yet it published controversial research suggesting that sex between children and adults may not be harmful and then styled itself a defender of academic freedom (prompting both houses of Congress to take the unusual step of passing a unanimous resolution of condemnation).
Meanwhile, the American Psychiatric Association [not to be confused with APA, which is American Psychological Association] offered luridly titled presentations on counseling aspiring transsexuals.
This creates a rather bizarre contrast. On the one hand, "mainstream" academic/professional organizations publish research suggesting adult- child sex may not be harmful, and they endorse supportive therapy for individuals who wish to surgically alter themselves (some would say physically mutilate themselves) from one sex to the other. Yet, they denounce as unethical any healthcare professionals who offer therapy to homosexuals who wish to become heterosexuals.
In other words, it is ethical to counsel a man to have his penis removed so he can have sex as a heterosexual woman, but it's unethical to counsel a man to have sex as a heterosexual man even if he wants to have sex as a typical man...
Even Byne concedes that gay activists, specifically gay psychiatrists and psychologists, have likely produced biased research on gay parenting. However, that bias exists not only within the research produced by gay activists themselves; instead, the bias is exerted against publication of any research that does not conform to pro-gay orthodoxy. In fact, the most consistent theme among the articles in this volume is that a pervasive bias exists against those who stray from pro-gay orthodoxy.
Many libertarians, myself included, debate the role of public morality versus individual liberty, but disputes about sexual mores are no longer the central issue in the gay rights debate. Instead, the greater threat to individual liberties comes from gay activists themselves, many of whom seem to view the slightest deviation from pro-gay orthodoxy as something akin to religious heresy.
The work of Dr. Robert Spitzer, one of the reviewers of the Rekers article, is an example of this phenomenon. Dr. Spitzer is perhaps best known for his role in removing homosexuality from classification as a mental disorder, and he was widely hailed as a hero by the gay rights community thereafter. But in the fall of 2000 he announced preliminary results from research on re-orientation therapy, i.e., therapy to change homosexuals to heterosexuals, wherein he found evidence that change was possible, at least in some cases.
The reaction was swift and hyperbolic. The communications director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, whose scientific expertise consisted of having worked as a newspaper reporter, intoned that Spitzer's work was "snake oil" and "scientific bunk."
The Human Rights Campaign accused Spitzer of "anti-gay views, close ties to right-wing political groups and [a] lack of objective data," and a psychologist at the Lesbian and Gay Service Center said "she cannot believe Columbia would allow any of its professors to do anything like this." As a Wall Street Journal editorial noted, no one called Spitzer a quack back in 1973 when he spearheaded the effort to de-classify homosexuality as a mental disorder. Yet he quickly became a pariah among gay activists when he deviated ever-so-slightly from the party line.
Dr. Spitzer's treatment illustrates the rampant extremism and intolerance among gay rights activists toward those who dare question their orthodoxy. In an interview for this essay, Dr. Spitzer reported that a colleague at Columbia objected that merely conducting the research was "unethical," and that same colleague later formally complained to Columbia's Institutional Review Board that it should not have approved the research. Dr. Spitzer has since submitted the article for publication, and he reports that he expects the article to be rejected due to the biases of the journal. Fortunately, another journal has already expressed interest in publishing the research.
As Dr. Spitzer explained, it is very easy for a gay-activist journal staff to torpedo a non-conforming article merely by assigning the article to hostile peer reviewers. Similarly, private and government funding agencies, which ostensibly fund research on scientific merit, can be subverted merely by assigning biased reviewers to the funding committees. Unlike the voir dire process for selecting jurors, establishment science has no process for vetting the fairness of peer reviewers. In fact, peer reviewers are often anonymous.
Yet, when non-conforming researchers are forced to turn to alternative venues for publication, that fact is held against them insofar as their work is not published in a "mainstream" peer-reviewed journal..."