Posted on 02/13/2005 7:02:46 PM PST by dzzrtrock
INTERVIEW: Psychiatrist and Princeton law professor traces the advances of the gay-rights agenda in science and the law to a common source: political intimidation | by Marvin Olasky
PRINCETON, N.J.—A big contributor to the gay movement's political success is the portrayal of homosexuality as an orientation over which individuals have no control. Jeffrey Satinover, author of Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Baker Books, 1996) and other books, has practiced psychiatry since 1986 and come to a different understanding, which he explained at a recent conference of the Witherspoon Institute here.
Dr. Satinover is a graduate of M.I.T. (Humanities and Science), Harvard (Clinical Psychology), and Yale (Physics), and received an M.D. from the University of Texas Medical School. He presently conducts research into complex systems at the National Center for Scientific Research at the University of Nice in France and teaches civil liberties and constitutional law part-time at Princeton.
WORLD: You've argued, against today's conventional wisdom, that the idea of "sexual orientation" is a fiction. What's the scientific evidence?
JS: A nationwide University of Chicago study of sexuality in America in 1994 concluded, ". . . it is patently false that homosexuality is a uniform attribute across individuals, that it is stable over time, and that it can be easily measured." Studies across the globe that have now sampled over 100,000 individuals have found the same.
We now know that in the majority of both men and women, "homosexuality," as defined by any scientifically rigorous criteria, spontaneously tends to "mutate" into heterosexuality over the course of a lifetime. The proportion of people who adopt a homosexual identity and the length of time they persist in holding on to it are affected primarily by environmental factors clearly identifiable in these epidemiologic studies..... sexual abuse, and cultural beliefs. (read more) http://www.worldmag.com/subscriber/displayarticle.cfm?id=10331
(Excerpt) Read more at worldmag.com ...
The debate about homosexual marriage and civil unions ultimatly boils down to the "born debate".
That is what all this become a referendum on.
In the final analysis, "born homosexual" is about as valid as "born to paaaaaarty".
This can be said on an anonymous bulletin board.
Try saying it at work or in a letter to the editor of your local paper and you will be unemployed pronto.
is it possible thaat when the psychological folks that said you were "born" with being gay, the group was needing good press and needed to be revived?
-----The debate about homosexual marriage and civil unions ultimatly boils down to the "born debate".
----
I wish I could agree with you but the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Lawrence vs Texas without determining whether someone is "born that way". I guess they just assumed it.
And the other day, while listening to a debate on this subject on Hugh Hewitt's show, I heard the fag lawyer say "there have been gays for thousands of years" and yet the conservative failed to point out..."There have been rapists, thieves, pedophiles, and all sorts of sickos for thousands of years... your point?" but he didn't.
We are losing this one.
Well, well, well...
This is most interesting. I've been catching hell from family members for years for merely suggesting that homosexuality could be a mental disorder, and not just an "alternative lifestyle".
I believe that it's rooted in one's response to abuse and/or neglect, and is the ultimate manifesation of self-loathing.
Kinda funny, but I have been posting that opinon to this forum for a long time.
It makes sense, and one doesn't need to be psychiatrist to understand that.
Good find.
Unfortunately, in today's homo-centric media, this message will get little traction.
If you want on/off the ping list see my profile page.
Excellent post. Very important, I think.
if we have gay rights can we have white rights, black rights, heterosexual rights,you get the picture? The US constitution only guarantees rights to individuals, not groups of individuals especially homosexuals. Most states have anti-sodomy laws still in the books but not so much in practice. American society still rejects the presence of homosexual "rights" like gay marriage and stuff of that nature. GWB won by 2 million votes and one of his major points was a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. So society still is more conservative than people in San Francisco like to think (pun intended, hey maybe even NJ):). Would anyone like to hear my arguement for why I should have heterosexual rights? I did not think so.
The debate about homosexual marriage and civil unions ultimatly boils down to the "born debate".
--
I was listening to 'Progressive' (ultra lib) radio, and they were saying several times how people 'choose' to be gay, etc. They were making other points, but kept referring to people choosing this lifestyle, while not realizing that they were contracicting thier own supposed arguement about 'being born' gay, as justification. They did not even catch the contradiction.
By the early '70s, Judd Marmor was on his way to the vice presidency of the American Psychiatric Association. He and a number of allies in the APA arranged to have outside gay activists disrupt APA meetings to protest the persistence of homosexuality as a diagnostic category within the APA's list of disorders. Eventually, these protests led to a series of meetings with the APA's "nomenclature committee" at which "research" was presented purportedly demonstrating no connection between homosexuality and psychopathology. These presentations were tendentious, the "research" consisting largely of Hooker's bogus work and Kinsey's data. With that, along with political pressure and the "civil-rights" argument, homosexuality was removed from the diagnostic manual.
Perhaps we need to get Thousands of people to walk on Washington, and have every article these good Freepers have gathered, including this very informative article, and hand deliver copies to the President, andf for good measure, the Secretary of Education, and Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Olasky is a Jewish believer in Jesus and Satinover is Jewish. Who'd'a thunk...
I agree with you 100%! I think any and ALL "hate crimes" laws should be banned. Every American is already equally entitled to protection, justice, due process etc, no small group is any more entitled than anyone else.
From mental disorder to civil-rights cause
--
20 years ago, this was considered a shameful, unspeakable abnormality, and the DSM categorized it as mental disorder- I remember this from psych class texts. The movement/agenda has progressed quite far. But they are not done yet. They intend much more.
How much longer before the homo-advocates demand homosexual sex is mandatory? It is the logical end to their indoctrination tollerance objectives.
I agree. I never did figure out how sexual orientation became a 'race' anyway.
It seems like having the ability to procreate would be a major criteria of ANY 'race', and one obviously unattainable in a same sex union.
bump
That's an interesting statement. How do you come to this conclusion? (I can almost see the rationale for it intuitively, but please explain.)
Hi, Paloma_55. I still have your great quote on my profile page!
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.