And they once called homosexuality a mental disorder. I wonder which time they were right? I guess we will each have to decide for ourselves unless they can show which replicable experiements they ran to scientifically prove that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.
Nothing surprising here!
Most shrinks choose the profession because they are trying to understand their own insanity.
Confirms suspicions--The blind telling the confused where to go.
The press and homosexual politics again takes precedence over science...much to the chagrine of science, I add, and the setback to science, which is worse.
Let's see...the original determination I read by this "group" was that they reasoned that "'gay' 'marriage'" would make society "nicer" and less strifeful for some in our society (gays) and that, therefore, that they should be indulged and given what they want ("'gay' 'marriage") in order to help society out in general.
On the other hand, MANY OTHER psychiatrists and pscyhogoists (different entirely in academics and training and practices, to state the obvious) also reason (these are the sane group) that their profession is not to reason politics nor to advise about social issues.
Which I agree with, that last group and part.
This determination (that "gay marriage is advisable" or thereabouts) is no more a statement about mental wellness and/or pschological reliability than is the group making the advisement...meaning, it appears to be an imbalanced group of human beings with their own pscyhological disturbance "ruling" (that's a sure giveaway right there that the source is questionable, given what and who they are trained to be and yet are not) making waves because they have the command of a high level of publicity, to promote personal wants and whims, and not even remotely something that bespeaks or represents sound psychology or wellness of human personality.
This group has no place or business or even vehicle to cast such an irresponsible statement into our public discourse -- they can as individuals, yes, but to rely instead on their clinical and licensed positions to attempt to "advise society" on something such as this, it's as if a band of schizophrenics are "ruling" a hospital complete with white coats and stern looks of authority but who are completely deranged behind the personnas.
I heard the "President" of the American Psychological Society (or something close to that) on a televised program not too long ago and the woman was bonkers, very, very presumptuous, condescending and quite irrational.
She and her group have no more basis for making this opinion known as they do as individual with opinions, but it is an issue that is altogether outside and apart from who and what the group is and represents. They have no basis to even make this statement within the definitions of their professional group...I mean, why aren't they also making pronouncements on what the price of apples "should" be or, perhaps, that all humans "would be" happier (?) if all humans drove a Chevrolet convertible or some other sort of inappropriate nonsense to their clinical areas of expertise.
I think that by the very nature that this statement has been made by this group, particularly, it's a pretty good indication that society can now see who it is who'se driving the "be gay and be happy" philosphy.
Because, it's personal philosophy -- the "be gay and be married and everyone will be happy" stuff, to paraphrase -- and not even remotely an area of advice or professional opinion that this group should even be involved in.
Because they are (involved in it by their own decision), I think they're revealing their inability and incompetence in a clinical capacity.
Sorry for the typos (^^)....
They're only looking out for their own members, after all ...
Can you think of a better way to increase business. They must have had a marketing expert advise them on this.
Must ping later.
Just remember that psychiatrists also used to prescribe cocaine for "women's ailments" and such...and/or send women in menopause to institutions because of the "insanity" of the experience.
Now I do recall that the woman I saw and heard not too long ago on that television program was the female M.D. who is the President of the American Psychiatric Association...and was as nutty and shrill as ever I have heard and seen, anywhere.
This just isn't an area that that group should even be involving itself in and because it is, as that "President" described on that program (and as this article shares), I'd say it's pretty good evidence that the group itself is top-heavy troubled.
Let's see...would "society" be "better" if all houses were painted pink? I'm waiting for the American Psychiatric Association to make a determination about that, and a few other things that may make society a happy place.
Why not. It's as reasonable an issue for them to consider and opine about as is "gay marriage".
And don't even get me started on the issue of religion and religous values and doctrine as it's perceived by many among that group.
This is politics, not psychiatry.
Again?
I'm SHOCKED, I tell you, just plain SHOCKED!! sarcasm/off
ping
I haven't left the The American Psychiatric Association, the The American Psychiatric Association left me.
Has it occurred to the APA that not every psychiatrist agrees with gay marriage? Or that it does not—and has no right to—speak for psychiatry, or for psychiatrists?
Sure it occurred to them. They just made sure that those who disagreed with the APA's pro-homosexual agenda were kept out of the association's leadership positions.
"The decision by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness was considered a watershed in the fledgling gay liberation movement. "This was, I think, a major issue that allowed society and the government to change a lot of stances that had been based on the pseudo-friendly idea that gayness was an illness," Hartmann explains. "Gayness traditionally, historically has been considered a sin, and a crime and then an illness. And to consider it simply a difference involved a major shift..."
The APA's decision was the result of a three-year process that began when the Gay Activists Alliance, energized by the 1969 Stonewall riots, disrupted an APA meeting in San Francisco in 1970 to protest APA seminars on treating and curing homosexuality. In 1971 the APA allowed a gay activist to address the APA meeting directly... Meanwhile, Hartmann and a group of psychiatrists worked successfully behind the scenes to install more liberal leadership in the APA. In 1973, the APA agreed to re-examine the scientific literature on homosexuality in preparation for revising the DSM and concluded that homosexuality did not fit the criteria of a mental disturbance...
But declassifying homosexuality as an illness was not immediately accepted by the entire membership of the APA. After the decision was announced, roughly 200 psychiatrists and psychoanalysts opposed to the move called for a member referendum on the issue. The membership voted to uphold the APA board of trustees decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM. "Whether they voted because they believed it is another question," says Drescher.
Since then, the APA has taken positions in favor of gay civil rights, for instance by supporting civil unions and gay parenting. The organization signed on to an amicus brief in Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, in support of overturning Texas' anti-gay sodomy law. The case was heard before the U.S. Supreme Court March 26. "I think the organization thirty years later is on the right side on all these issues," says Drescher.
And gay psychiatrists have become much more integrated into the profession and its institutions, as a result of the APA's declassification, say both Drescher and Hartmann. "It made a huge difference of course to whether people could be open, whether they could be respectful of a wide variety of patients, whether they themselves could be open enough to get professorships and distinguished positions. At the time it was impossible to be openly gay and to be in a psychiatric residency training program or in a psychoanalytic training program." Hartmann himself has served as both president and vice president of the APA. Drescher, who practices in New York City, is a past president of the APA's New York branch, the largest in the country.
But is the position that homosexuality is not an illness accepted by the entire APA membership today? Drescher concedes that there could be members who disagree. He adds, however, "They're not in positions of leadership in the organization and the American Psychiatric Association, for example, in 2000 ... put out a position statement which was critical of reparative therapies, saying that they're not proving to be effective, some people may be harmed by them, there has not been much good research done in this area. And the APA is publicly against religious groups or other non-mental health groups calling homosexuality an illness when it's not"..."
From the 'other' APA:
Gay Psychologist Urges Associates To Use Psychology As A Liberationist Tactic
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
Surprise, suprise. Just think - psychiatrists, the high priests of mental illness, support "gay" marriage. I really like the phrase "collective malignant narcissism". The write really skewers these docs for their increasing dependence on pharmaceuticals to make people mentally "well".
I know how people can get mentally well, and it does not involve drugs, either legal or illegal.*
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
*It's called "realizing that God exists, He loves me, I should try to love and serve Him with my life, and He will take care of me like a mother bird takes care of her baby bird. And as God is eternal, the soul is eternal."