Homosexuals and APA seek to make Pedophilia "normal" - remove from DSM
KDavis
By Lawrence Morahan
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
June 11, 2003
(CNSNews.com) - In a step critics charge could result in
decriminalizing sexual contact between adults and children, the
American Psychiatric Association (APA) recently sponsored a symposium
in which participants discussed the removal of pedophilia from an
upcoming edition of the psychiatric manual of mental disorders.
Psychiatrists attending an annual APA convention May 19 in San
Francisco proposed removing several long-recognized categories of
mental illness - including pedophilia, exhibitionism, fetishism,
transvestism, voyeurism and sadomasochism - from the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).
Most of the mental illnesses being considered for removal are known as
"paraphilias."
Psychiatrist Charles Moser of San Francisco's Institute for the
Advanced Study of Human Sexuality and co-author Peggy Kleinplatz of
the University of Ottawa presented conferees with a paper entitled
"DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal."
People whose sexual interests are atypical, culturally forbidden or
religiously proscribed should not necessarily be labeled mentally ill,
they argued.
Different societies stigmatize different sexual behaviors, and since
the existing research could not distinguish people with paraphilias
from so-called "normophilics," there is no reason to diagnose
paraphilics as either a distinct group or psychologically unhealthy,
Moser and Kleinplatz stated.
Participants also debated gender-identity disorder, a condition in
which a person feels discomfort with his or her biological sex.
Homosexual activists have long argued that gender identity disorder
should not be assumed to be abnormal.
"The situation of the paraphilias at present parallels that of
homosexuality in the early 1970s. Without the support or political
astuteness of those who fought for the removal of homosexuality, the
paraphilias continue to be listed in the DSM," Moser and Kleinplatz
wrote.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200306\CUL20030611c.html
Just as homosexuals pressured the APA to remove homosexuality from the
DSM -- they are now pressuring them to remove pedophilia. Science?
Nope -- the politics of sexual deviancy, which are now concentrating
on the sexualization and rape of children by homosexual and lesbian
adults.
I hope Steve Loather and other homophile apologists are happy that
they have supported the homosexuals in their quest to gain these new
rights.
-Red Davis
€R.L. Measures
kdavi...@hotmail.com (KDavis) wrote:
> Psychiatric Association Debates Lifting Pedophilia Taboo
> By Lawrence Morahan
> CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
> June 11, 2003
>
> (CNSNews.com) - In a step critics charge could result in
> decriminalizing sexual contact between adults and children, the
> American Psychiatric Association (APA) recently sponsored a symposium
> in which participants discussed the removal of pedophilia from an
> upcoming edition of the psychiatric manual of mental disorders.
>
> Psychiatrists attending an annual APA convention May 19 in San
> Francisco proposed removing several long-recognized categories of
> mental illness - including pedophilia, exhibitionism, fetishism,
> transvestism, voyeurism ...
** does this include Mormon guys who fantacize they are boning 16-yr old
Fannie Alger in the barn whilst they are copulating their old lady.?
--
Rich, AG6K, 805 386 3734, www.vcnet.com/measures
remove ^ from e-mail address
Fool Speck
> Just as homosexuals pressured the APA to remove homosexuality from the
> DSM -- they are now pressuring them to remove pedophilia. Science?
> Nope -- the politics of sexual deviancy, which are now concentrating
> on the sexualization and rape of children by homosexual and lesbian
> adults.
>
> I hope Steve Loather and other homophile apologists are happy that
> they have supported the homosexuals in their quest to gain these new
> rights.
>
> -Red Davis
It seems to me, Red, that what those who are arguing for its removal
from the list of mental illnesses are simply saying is that it is not
an illness. In other words, it is something that cannot be helped or
cured with psychotherapy.
This is not saying that the conduct should not be illegal. They are
arguing that it is a matter of social behavior, just like murder, or
robbery, or rape. Social pathologies are more appropriately dealt
with in the justice system.
So on the contrary, people who hold your views who want to call it an
illness are providing an avenue to a possible mental illness defense
for these criminals. I personally do not want such predatory
behaviors protected by mental illness definitions, do you?
Really, you should stop and think about it before making knee-jerk
accusations.
Steve Lowther
Val
> from the list of mental illnesses are simply saying is that it is not
> an illness. In other words, it is something that cannot be helped or
> cured with psychotherapy.
>
> This is not saying that the conduct should not be illegal. They are
> arguing that it is a matter of social behavior, just like murder, or
> robbery, or rape. Social pathologies are more appropriately dealt
> with in the justice system.
>
> So on the contrary, people who hold your views who want to call it an
> illness are providing an avenue to a possible mental illness defense
> for these criminals. I personally do not want such predatory
> behaviors protected by mental illness definitions, do you?
>
> Really, you should stop and think about it before making knee-jerk
> accusations.
>
>
> Steve Lowther
Pedophilia, Homosexuality, Beastiality, and Necrophilia are all forms of
addiction to sexual fetishes. The Gay Community has been extremely
successful at changing public opinion towards their chosen type of
sexual addiction. Perceptive people watched the public opinion gradually
change from considering homosexuality to be deviant, wrong, bad behavior
to becoming equally as valid as heterosexual behavior. Apparently
Pedophilia is next on the list for legitimization. After that you can
expect beastiality and necrophilia to follow and eventually society will
come to accept nudism and public sex everywhere. Make no mistake, that's
the type of path that people are choosing for society when they go along
with pervert agendas. It's interesting to watch the world on the path to
Gomorah. It's extremely sad and unfortunate to watch for those who know
what lies at the end of the path. I once openly questioned how my
society could devolve into open depravity as prophesied in the scripture
(scripture means Bible, not JS copyrighted fiction novels). I just
didn't think it could happen - I could see no path leading to that. What
is interesting is to see the prophesy happen in 3-D like a play with the
world as a stage. It's breathtaking to see it all coming together like
the mechanical operation of a Swiss watch.
Who could have predicted that perverts would form into groups and
gain vast political power? Who could have predicted that society would
eventually mandate that pleasure and gratification are the highest and
most majestic of ideals - that they should overrule all other
considerations. Who could have predicted that the perverts would utterly
confuse the masses with the concept of natural born perversions (God
made me this way, and so I'm proud!). Wow. It's just amazing to see.
Val
KDavis
> kdavi...@hotmail.com (KDavis) wrote in message news:<fe6e030e.03061...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Just as homosexuals pressured the APA to remove homosexuality from the
> > DSM -- they are now pressuring them to remove pedophilia. Science?
> > Nope -- the politics of sexual deviancy, which are now concentrating
> > on the sexualization and rape of children by homosexual and lesbian
> > adults.
> >
> > I hope Steve Loather and other homophile apologists are happy that
> > they have supported the homosexuals in their quest to gain these new
> > rights.
> >
> > -Red Davis
>
> It seems to me, Red, that what those who are arguing for its removal
> from the list of mental illnesses are simply saying is that it is not
> an illness. In other words, it is something that cannot be helped or
> cured with psychotherapy.
A couple of counter-points:
1. So, any disease that can't be cured should simply be re-labeled as
"not a disease"?
2. The APA has not been able to "cure" a *single* mental illness. Not
one. Does this mean we should simply burn the DSM? Or, could it
possibly mean that the field of Psychology, generally speaking, should
be categorized as modern-day alchemists, and dismissed out of hand for
being utterly ineffective?
3. If someone "enjoys" certain thoughts or behaviors -- no matter the
consequences of those thoughts or behaviors -- such enjoyment is the
singular criteria as to whether or not the thought or behavior is
normal?
4. Why is it that Dr. Charles Socarides, Dr. Joseph Nicolsi, Drs.
Masters and Johnson have *all* had huge successes over the past
decades "curing" homosexuals and pedophiles? Is it because they deem
the behavior as abnormal, understand that it is mutable, treat the
root causes, and heal their patients based on a true understanding
that humans can indeed change -- if the right approach is taken?
>
> This is not saying that the conduct should not be illegal. They are
> arguing that it is a matter of social behavior, just like murder, or
> robbery, or rape. Social pathologies are more appropriately dealt
> with in the justice system.
What potato truck did you fall off of? Did you miss the part where I
said the APA is taking the exact same road they did with homosexual
behavior? When homosexual behavior was removed (by threats of
terrorism) from the DSM in the early 1970's -- homosexual behavior was
illegal in almost every state. The vast majority of Americans (I'd
say well over 90%) believed homosexual behavior to be immoral and
sick. Now, not only is homosexual behavior legal in every state --
most public schools are forced to teach that homosexual behavior is
normal, and "questioning youth" (a gay right's phrase to describe
their juvenile targets) are encouraged to engage in homosexual
intercourse. If the homosexual agenda is successful in this country
-- the issue of adults having sex with children will be tolerated a
few years from now -- and not only were you there for it -- you will
be one of the people responsible for children being raped.
>
> So on the contrary, people who hold your views who want to call it an
> illness are providing an avenue to a possible mental illness defense
> for these criminals. I personally do not want such predatory
> behaviors protected by mental illness definitions, do you?
Mental illness has never been a successful defense against a crime.
Mental illness is not "insanity". A person who is mentally ill
certainly can understand right and wrong, make informed choices, and
be held accountable for their behavior. In fact, my observation has
been that most mental illnesses are brought about by a slippery slope
of bad decision making where a person loses their moral compass therby
changing how they think. Choosing sin certainly has consequences --
mentally, spiritually, emotionally, and physically. There are those
who are mentally ill that suffer from physical malfunctions or
chemical imbalances. Yet, even these people still know right from
wrong -- save in the case of severe mental retardation.
>
> Really, you should stop and think about it before making knee-jerk
> accusations.
Surely we can all tell that you thought your position out well before
you responded. It truly shows. Just click your heels together and
keep denying reality.
-Red Davis
>
>
> Steve Lowther
€R.L. Measures
> > It seems to me, Red, that what those who are arguing for its removal
> > from the list of mental illnesses are simply saying is that it is not
> > an illness. In other words, it is something that cannot be helped or
> > cured with psychotherapy.
> >
> > This is not saying that the conduct should not be illegal. They are
> > arguing that it is a matter of social behavior, just like murder, or
> > robbery, or rape. Social pathologies are more appropriately dealt
> > with in the justice system.
> >
> > So on the contrary, people who hold your views who want to call it an
> > illness are providing an avenue to a possible mental illness defense
> > for these criminals. I personally do not want such predatory
> > behaviors protected by mental illness definitions, do you?
> >
> > Really, you should stop and think about it before making knee-jerk
> > accusations.
> >
> >
> > Steve Lowther
>
> Pedophilia, Homosexuality, Beastiality, and Necrophilia
** So what's hell's wrong with necrophilia?
>are all forms of
> addiction to sexual fetishes. The Gay Community has been extremely
> successful at changing public opinion towards their chosen type of
> sexual addiction. Perceptive people watched the public opinion gradually
> change from considering homosexuality to be deviant, wrong, bad behavior
> to becoming equally as valid as heterosexual behavior. Apparently
> Pedophilia is next on the list for legitimization. After that you can
> expect beastiality and necrophilia to follow and eventually society will
> come to accept nudism and public sex everywhere. ...
** Well at least.including barns. According to Book of Mormon witness
Oliver Cowdery, Prophet Joseph Smith, Junior had coitus with Emma Smith's
16-yr old maid, Fannie Alger as Cowdery, Emma, and the prophet's other
secretary, Warren Parrish watched through a crack in the wall of the
Smith's barn. [ref: O. Cowdery letter in Huntington Library and Museum,
San Marino, CA]
John Manning
Can anyone here think of the word 'homophobia' without thinking of Red
Davis?
Classic examples are embodied in his apparent obsession with this topic.
He kind of reminds me of the decorated military officer in the movie
"American Beauty" who obsessively hated 'homos' and was really secretly
gay himself - and killed the guy that knew his secret.
Such is the "Christian" love from Red Davis.
John Manning
€R.L. Measures
Fool Speck
> SRLo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote in message news:<9dcdb6ed.03061...@posting.google.com>...
> > from the list of mental illnesses are simply saying is that it is not
> > an illness. In other words, it is something that cannot be helped or
> > cured with psychotherapy.
>
> A couple of counter-points:
> 1. So, any disease that can't be cured should simply be re-labeled as
> "not a disease"?
No. The question is whether or not it is actually a mental disease or
defect. Not whether it is self-destructive or predatory behavior.
> 2. The APA has not been able to "cure" a *single* mental illness. Not
> one. Does this mean we should simply burn the DSM? Or, could it
> possibly mean that the field of Psychology, generally speaking, should
> be categorized as modern-day alchemists, and dismissed out of hand for
> being utterly ineffective?
The APA has never attempted to cure any diseases. It is a
professional organization. I will assume, however, you are talking
about the individual practioners in the organization.
I don't know if I *totally* agree with you, but I do for the most
part. I don't know of any mental illness that has been "cured"
either. But I am open to change my mind if the evidence is good
enough.
I'll go out on a limb here, because I haven't done the research to
back up my supposition: It seems to me that psychiatry is more
involved in mental diseases, organic causes, and their cures (albeit
attempted cures). Psychology on the other hand deals not so much with
mental diseases, but maladjusted behaviors. Anyway, this much I know:
psychiatrists are Medical Doctors, psychologists are not.
The field of psychiatry "successes" have mainly to do with the
abatement of symptoms. Like you, I know of no cures they have
affected.
> 3. If someone "enjoys" certain thoughts or behaviors -- no matter the
> consequences of those thoughts or behaviors -- such enjoyment is the
> singular criteria as to whether or not the thought or behavior is
> normal?
No.
> 4. Why is it that Dr. Charles Socarides, Dr. Joseph Nicolsi, Drs.
> Masters and Johnson have *all* had huge successes over the past
> decades "curing" homosexuals and pedophiles? Is it because they deem
> the behavior as abnormal, understand that it is mutable, treat the
> root causes, and heal their patients based on a true understanding
> that humans can indeed change -- if the right approach is taken?
You just contradicted yourself. You claimed in #2 above that "APA
[practioners have] not been able to 'cure' a *single* mental illness.
Not one." Or are you saying that these named people can cure mental
illnesses but if you are a member of the APA that you can't?
However, you still won't be able to back up your claim of these people
"curing" homosexuality. You simply pulled these "huge successes" out
of thin air.
There are indeed homosexuals who wish they were not homosexual. For
these people, it would be a very positive thing if they could be
"cured" into becoming heterosexual. However, as much as the doctors
in the LDS Social Services have in past years been involved with
motivated subjects, their cure rate as been abysmal, if not completely
non-existent. Today, they don't even try.
There was one poster a few years back who was an active, devout LDS
member. He was also homosexual. You may remember him. He was
married to a woman who he said was his best friend. He indicated he
does not practice homosexuality, but strongly feels same sex
attraction. I asked him about his "coming out". He said he did not
come "out"; rather that he came "forward". If anybody was motivated
to be "cured", it was he. He essentially thru himself at the mercy of
his fellow religionists. He was troubled and miserable about his
homosexuality. As I recall, members of his ward treated him pretty
well. Yet he remained a homosexual, but not from lack of wanting to
be hetero.
You seem to think that homosexuality can be converted to
heterosexuality like a smoker can become a non-smoker, or a heroin
addict can come clean. This is simply not true. Do I think that
homosexuality is innate and immutable? I don't know about every
single case; nobody does. But I suspect it is, and you have made
claims but have never offered convincing evidence to the contrary.
My wife is a teacher in a charter school whose director is a bishop,
whose administrators and nearly all of the staff are LDS. Well over
90% of the students are LDS.
There was one young man who was extrememly effeminate, who more than
likely was not heterosexual. He grew very close to one of the
teachers. As his friend, she coached him in modifying his effeminate
mannerisms to help him become someone who could more easily fit in
with his peer group. As motivated as he was, he could not become less
effeminate. It simply was not who he was.
Let's say he was not gay, as his orientation is not really relevant.
Let's ask ourselves if his effeminate nature was innate and immutable.
I can't see how it could be anything else considering he comes from a
large "normal" LDS family with quite "normal" parents and siblings.
He acknowledged his effeminate mannerisms were a handicap to his
social acceptance, yet he could not control these mannerisms except
very superficially. Immutable and innate? I don't know how anybody
could make that determination quantitatively. But if even the
superficial characteristics of gender mannerisms cannot be controlled
in this case, how can more deeply rooted elements of one's personal
identity be changed?
Yes, this is only one case. It is simply an anecdote. However, I
think we all know effeminate males, homosexual or not, who have had to
live with peer abuse simply because they were not able to master the
norm for masculine behavior.
> > This is not saying that the conduct should not be illegal. They are
> > arguing that it is a matter of social behavior, just like murder, or
> > robbery, or rape. Social pathologies are more appropriately dealt
> > with in the justice system.
>
> What potato truck did you fall off of? Did you miss the part where I
> said the APA is taking the exact same road they did with homosexual
> behavior? When homosexual behavior was removed (by threats of
> terrorism) from the DSM in the early 1970's -- homosexual behavior was
> illegal in almost every state. The vast majority of Americans (I'd
> say well over 90%) believed homosexual behavior to be immoral and
> sick. Now, not only is homosexual behavior legal in every state --
> most public schools are forced to teach that homosexual behavior is
> normal, and "questioning youth" (a gay right's phrase to describe
> their juvenile targets) are encouraged to engage in homosexual
> intercourse. If the homosexual agenda is successful in this country
> -- the issue of adults having sex with children will be tolerated a
> few years from now -- and not only were you there for it -- you will
> be one of the people responsible for children being raped.
First of all, it was a turnip truck I fell off. :-)
You imply by removing homosexuality from the DSM, that it precipitated
a domino effect legalizing homosexuality in all states. I doubt that
is the case; you certainly cannot support it with data. The rest of
your statement is more unsupported homophobic rhetoric ("threats of
terrorism", "encouraged to engage in homosexual intercourse") You
seem oblivious to how this rhetoric dilutes the credibility of your
position. Extreme accusations require extremely good evidence. You
offer no evidence, and this is your modus operandi.
So why does the APA's action coincide with states decriminalizing
homosexuality? It seems apparent that society's attitude had become
more tolerant as more homosexuals "came out" about their sexuality.
People everywhere found they had family members and trusted friends
who were gay and did not deserve to be persecuted (or prosecuted) for
it.
As to our society accepting predatory behavior to our children? It
simply will not happen, anymore than rape itself will ever be
legalized or remotely tolerated. In fact, in recent years these
behaviors have become less tolerated and more actively prosecuted.
This is definitely a good thing as long as innocent people are not
caught up in the net.
It is the nature of your personality, Red, (it is immutable and
innate, I suppose) to react extremely and vociferously to what you
perceive as antisocial behavior. You do this in order to effect a
counterweight to the social balance.
The problem with this type of behavior, is that it, itself, approaches
antisocial fringe behavior. Part of that behavior is rhetoric which
invariably accuses those with a more moderate, tolerant stance of
edging over to your opposite extreme. I remember once your accusing
me of "writing pro-gay all day, all night, for the past two years."
The hatred is so abhorent that people recoil and pull away from you.
Your rage then increases and becomes directed at these more moderate
people. You become distressed, your anger increases, and you feign an
"I don't care what people think" attitude, and display the bravado
using arrogance, often including passages telling us how smart you
are. In this way you effect just the opposite of your intentions as
people react in disgust to your extreme behavior.
> > So on the contrary, people who hold your views who want to call it an
> > illness are providing an avenue to a possible mental illness defense
> > for these criminals. I personally do not want such predatory
> > behaviors protected by mental illness definitions, do you?
>
> Mental illness has never been a successful defense against a crime.
This is patently absurd.
> Mental illness is not "insanity". A person who is mentally ill
> certainly can understand right and wrong, make informed choices, and
> be held accountable for their behavior.
If insanity is not mental illness, then what is it?
An encyclopedia article on http://public.onelook.com states "The
insanity and incomptence defenses refer to possible defenses by
excuse; via which, a defendant may argue that they should not be held
criminally liable for breaking the law, as they were MENTALLY ILL or
mentally incompetent at the time of their allegedly 'criminal'
actions." (emphasis mine)
> In fact, my observation has
> been that most mental illnesses are brought about by a slippery slope
> of bad decision making where a person loses their moral compass therby
> changing how they think. Choosing sin certainly has consequences --
> mentally, spiritually, emotionally, and physically. There are those
> who are mentally ill that suffer from physical malfunctions or
> chemical imbalances. Yet, even these people still know right from
> wrong -- save in the case of severe mental retardation.
Well, you have some part truths in there. In fact I will agree that
there are mental illnesses that can be and have been precipitated by
wrong choices. Wrong choices (and sometimes even difficult, noble
choices) bring stress into a person's life that results in varying
degrees of mental illness, and a person will suffer "mentally,
spiritually, emotionally, and physically." In fact I see your
constant state of anger, bashing, and hatred as a form of mental
illness. An angry, hating person is simply not a happy person, Red.
Steve Lowther
Taiki
> A couple of counter-points:
> 1. So, any disease that can't be cured should simply be re-labeled as
> "not a disease"?
Not exactly. The APA is saying that pedophilia is not a disease to itself,
it MAY be a symptom, but it is not a disease unto itself.
> 2. The APA has not been able to "cure" a *single* mental illness. Not
> one. Does this mean we should simply burn the DSM? Or, could it
> possibly mean that the field of Psychology, generally speaking, should
> be categorized as modern-day alchemists, and dismissed out of hand for
> being utterly ineffective?
APA hasn't. But the doctors who practice as members of the APA cure mental
illnesses all the time. It's those NARTH people I'm really wondering about.
They make baseless claims, no evidence, or any documentable procedure to
"cure" homosexuality.
> 3. If someone "enjoys" certain thoughts or behaviors -- no matter the
> consequences of those thoughts or behaviors -- such enjoyment is the
> singular criteria as to whether or not the thought or behavior is
> normal?
No. Look at addiction. If there is a negative impact to the individual or
others, then we have a problem.
The idea
> 4. Why is it that Dr. Charles Socarides, Dr. Joseph Nicolsi, Drs.
> Masters and Johnson have *all* had huge successes over the past
> decades "curing" homosexuals and pedophiles? Is it because they deem
> the behavior as abnormal, understand that it is mutable, treat the
> root causes, and heal their patients based on a true understanding
> that humans can indeed change -- if the right approach is taken?
>
Actually, thier website, NARTH, show nothing of the sort. Furthermore, the
NARTH website causes my machine to slow down. I think this is the first
time it's actually reacted in disgust. :)
-taiki
KDavis
> > It seems to me, Red, that what those who are arguing for its removal
> > from the list of mental illnesses are simply saying is that it is not
> > an illness. In other words, it is something that cannot be helped or
> > cured with psychotherapy.
> >
> > This is not saying that the conduct should not be illegal. They are
> > arguing that it is a matter of social behavior, just like murder, or
> > robbery, or rape. Social pathologies are more appropriately dealt
> > with in the justice system.
> >
> > So on the contrary, people who hold your views who want to call it an
> > illness are providing an avenue to a possible mental illness defense
> > for these criminals. I personally do not want such predatory
> > behaviors protected by mental illness definitions, do you?
> >
> > Really, you should stop and think about it before making knee-jerk
> > accusations.
> >
> >
> > Steve Lowther
>
> Pedophilia, Homosexuality, Beastiality, and Necrophilia are all forms of
> addiction to sexual fetishes. The Gay Community has been extremely
> successful at changing public opinion towards their chosen type of
> sexual addiction. Perceptive people watched the public opinion gradually
> change from considering homosexuality to be deviant, wrong, bad behavior
> to becoming equally as valid as heterosexual behavior. Apparently
> Pedophilia is next on the list for legitimization. After that you can
> expect beastiality and necrophilia to follow and eventually society will
> come to accept nudism and public sex everywhere.
Val,
In my abnormal psychology class in college (a 400 level course) - we
were taught that the APA's official stance on rape is that it is *not*
abnormal behavior *if* the rapist feels good about it.
I kid you not.
You are correct: Homosexuality put our society on the slipper slope
where all deviant behavior will be normalized -- lead by the perverts
who now control the APA.
BTW, my psychology professor at college? A lesbian "vampire" who
drinks animal blood - and human blood if she can find a donor. This
is the type or person that now makes up the rank and file of the APA.
-Red Davis
Mike W
> news:fe6e030e.03061...@posting.google.com...
> BTW, my psychology professor at college? A lesbian "vampire" who
> drinks animal blood - and human blood if she can find a donor. This
> is the type or person that now makes up the rank and file of the APA.
>
> -Red Davis
So that's why there are so many whack-jobs out there. They're all afraid of
psychologists, assuming you reflect the average bloke's experience. I'm not
so sure about that.
Remember the intellectual left and how it fell apart when the Soviet system
crashed? The intellectual right prevailed there. Now the intellectual
right is falling apart thanks to Enron and Worldcom. Things change... don't
give up hope.
Mike
John Lemings
> BTW, my psychology professor at college? A lesbian "vampire" who
> drinks animal blood - and human blood if she can find a donor. This
> is the type or person that now makes up the rank and file of the APA.
>
> -Red Davis
I'm not calling into question your ab psych professor's desire for blood
with the following; what university did you attend?
KDavis
> kdavi...@hotmail.com (KDavis) wrote in message news:<fe6e030e.03061...@posting.google.com>...
> > SRLo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote in message news:<9dcdb6ed.03061...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > > It seems to me, Red, that what those who are arguing for its removal
> > > from the list of mental illnesses are simply saying is that it is not
> > > an illness. In other words, it is something that cannot be helped or
> > > cured with psychotherapy.
> >
> > A couple of counter-points:
> > 1. So, any disease that can't be cured should simply be re-labeled as
> > "not a disease"?
>
> No. The question is whether or not it is actually a mental disease or
> defect. Not whether it is self-destructive or predatory behavior.
Are you mad? I mean -- crazy? The consequence of thought or
behavior should *not* be taken into account as to whether or not it
should be described as normal and acceptable thought or behavior? You
must be daft.
As to the question of defect -- are you asserting that thoughts of and
adult having sex with children is *not* a sympton of mental defect?
What next?
Is it not true that those who are engaged in pedophilia can be
described as being obssessed by it? And do not these people become
addicted to pornography, stalking children, seeking to be around them
at all times? Are they not compelled to act on their thoughts? And
are not such obsessions and compulsions text book examples of mental
illnesses?
Yes - they are. *Text book* examples -- save the way the perverts who
lead and make up the psychological community are seeking to rewrite
them for the future.
"The APA's classifications of sexual deviancy gradually have shifted
from an objective description of aberrant behavior to the subjective
perception of the individual. Thus, according to DSM IV, if a person
feels no desire to change, there is no need to seek therapy."
>
> > 2. The APA has not been able to "cure" a *single* mental illness. Not
> > one. Does this mean we should simply burn the DSM? Or, could it
> > possibly mean that the field of Psychology, generally speaking, should
> > be categorized as modern-day alchemists, and dismissed out of hand for
> > being utterly ineffective?
>
> The APA has never attempted to cure any diseases. It is a
> professional organization. I will assume, however, you are talking
> about the individual practioners in the organization.
Wow, what an assumption. The purpose of the APA is to licence and
direct the effectivenes and legitimacy of their practitioners, and to
define what are billable diagnosis as published in their DSM. They
are responsbile for the condition of psychology today.
>
> I don't know if I *totally* agree with you, but I do for the most
> part. I don't know of any mental illness that has been "cured"
> either. But I am open to change my mind if the evidence is good
> enough.
The answer of how many mental illnesses have been cure is thusly: 0
The answer as to which paradigm in psychology may be effective on
individuals who are mentally ill is: anyone's guess
>
> I'll go out on a limb here, because I haven't done the research to
> back up my supposition: It seems to me that psychiatry is more
> involved in mental diseases, organic causes, and their cures (albeit
> attempted cures). Psychology on the other hand deals not so much with
> mental diseases, but maladjusted behaviors. Anyway, this much I know:
> psychiatrists are Medical Doctors, psychologists are not.
Wow, another astute obeservation. You are giving us your "A" game
today.
Yes, Psychiatrists are M.D.s, where Psychologists are Ph.D.s usually
with undergraduate degress in silliness.
>
> The field of psychiatry "successes" have mainly to do with the
> abatement of symptoms. Like you, I know of no cures they have
> affected.
The field of psychiatry's "successes" come from using chemicals on
mental patients to fry their brains and neuter their thoughts. And
you are correct -- they have not cured anything, though they do use
chemicals to fry the brains of their patients into creamed corn.
>
> > 3. If someone "enjoys" certain thoughts or behaviors -- no matter the
> > consequences of those thoughts or behaviors -- such enjoyment is the
> > singular criteria as to whether or not the thought or behavior is
> > normal?
>
> No.
That is what the APA says. "Abnormal" behavior can only be such if
the thought or behavior causes harmful stress to the subject.
>
> > 4. Why is it that Dr. Charles Socarides, Dr. Joseph Nicolsi, Drs.
> > Masters and Johnson have *all* had huge successes over the past
> > decades "curing" homosexuals and pedophiles? Is it because they deem
> > the behavior as abnormal, understand that it is mutable, treat the
> > root causes, and heal their patients based on a true understanding
> > that humans can indeed change -- if the right approach is taken?
>
> You just contradicted yourself. You claimed in #2 above that "APA
> [practioners have] not been able to 'cure' a *single* mental illness.
> Not one." Or are you saying that these named people can cure mental
> illnesses but if you are a member of the APA that you can't?
The homosexuals tried to have these doctor's licenses pulled two years
ago -- as their practice is considered to be nothing less than hateful
bigotry by the homosexual activists, and the APA leadership agrees.
The APA came within a whisker of pulling their licenses. So, while
these individuals have been successful in their practices -- the APA
has officially turned a blind eye to those facts, and in fact, has
sought every turn to denounce them -- though these are the only
members who can show clinical studies where they have cured their
patients.
>
> However, you still won't be able to back up your claim of these people
> "curing" homosexuality. You simply pulled these "huge successes" out
> of thin air.
Really, go to www.narth.com and do some reading. I think you will
find that you don't have a clue.
>
> There are indeed homosexuals who wish they were not homosexual. For
> these people, it would be a very positive thing if they could be
> "cured" into becoming heterosexual. However, as much as the doctors
> in the LDS Social Services have in past years been involved with
> motivated subjects, their cure rate as been abysmal, if not completely
> non-existent. Today, they don't even try.
The reason they "don't even try" has nothing to do with where science
is in relation to this subject -- it has everything to do with not
having their license pulled by the APA, being the subject of violent
protests by homosexual activists, and being the subject of hate
conduct where activists go after their jobs and families. Just look
what homosexual activists did to Dr. James Dobson (a religion ethics
commentator), or Andy Rooney, or Anita Bryant, or Dr. Laura, or the
APA convention in 1972 where they used violence and terrorism to force
the APA to politcally vote to remove homosexual behavior from DSM II.
>
> There was one poster a few years back who was an active, devout LDS
> member. He was also homosexual. You may remember him. He was
> married to a woman who he said was his best friend. He indicated he
> does not practice homosexuality, but strongly feels same sex
> attraction. I asked him about his "coming out". He said he did not
> come "out"; rather that he came "forward". If anybody was motivated
> to be "cured", it was he. He essentially thru himself at the mercy of
> his fellow religionists. He was troubled and miserable about his
> homosexuality. As I recall, members of his ward treated him pretty
> well. Yet he remained a homosexual, but not from lack of wanting to
> be hetero.
This is where you have your biggest error:
Because you are *tempted* by a sin - does not mean you *are* that sin.
Period.
Chirst was tempted -- was He defined by those temptations -- or by His
resistance to those temptations?
If a person is tempted by thoughts of adultery, are they an adulterer
if they put them out of their mind and don't act upon them?
We, as human beings and children of God, are defined by how we react
to temptation -- not by the temptation itself.
>
> You seem to think that homosexuality can be converted to
> heterosexuality like a smoker can become a non-smoker, or a heroin
> addict can come clean. This is simply not true. Do I think that
This is where you are wrong - again. Almost every study done on the
behavior of homosexual males has found that homosexual males have sex
with *both* men and women all the time. They *choose* to have sex
with men, they *choose* to have sex with women. Indeed, the Kinsey
Scale of 0-6 was developed to measure what frequence homosexuals have
for sexual intercourse with same or different sex partners -- and they
found that very, very, very few "homosexuals" are a "6" - that is,
they exclusively have sex with other males.
I reject the idea that a person cannot choose when and with whom they
have sex with.
Are you next going to make the argument that adultery is genetic and
immutable? That those who commit adultery can't "come clean"?
You argue nothing less then to state that the atonement of Christ is
void to sin.
> homosexuality is innate and immutable? I don't know about every
> single case; nobody does. But I suspect it is, and you have made
> claims but have never offered convincing evidence to the contrary.
BS. I have posted mountains of evidence to the contrary. Let's start
first with you reading the NARTH website, then you can go back and
read the hundreds of posts where I have posted the clinical studies,
research papers, and scientific findings that *all* have concluded
that homosexuality is not innate nor immutable. Are you really
stating you have never read by debunk posts of LeVay and Hammer, two
homosexual militants who tweaked their data in order to alledge they
had found the link showing homosexuality was immutable -- and were
forced upon peer review to admit that their studies were in error, and
indeed, all evidence to the contrary shows that homosexuality *is*
strongly influenced by environment?
Will you next claim the sky is not blue?
>
> My wife is a teacher in a charter school whose director is a bishop,
> whose administrators and nearly all of the staff are LDS. Well over
> 90% of the students are LDS.
>
> There was one young man who was extrememly effeminate, who more than
> likely was not heterosexual. He grew very close to one of the
> teachers. As his friend, she coached him in modifying his effeminate
> mannerisms to help him become someone who could more easily fit in
> with his peer group. As motivated as he was, he could not become less
> effeminate. It simply was not who he was.
Effeminate does not equal homosexual. Though, homosexual activists
who are seeking "questioning youth" would love to get their paws on
this kid and screw up his mind. Quantify for us "effeminate". You
can't.
I have found that kids fit into the peer groups that "accept" them -
and they will do all kinds of stupid things -- including sexual
behavior and drug use -- in order to fit in somewhere, with someone.
>
> Let's say he was not gay, as his orientation is not really relevant.
> Let's ask ourselves if his effeminate nature was innate and immutable.
> I can't see how it could be anything else considering he comes from a
> large "normal" LDS family with quite "normal" parents and siblings.
Has this kid been molested? You don't know that he hasn't. I have
seen kids question their sexual identity who have been molested, I
have seen kids act out various ways to rebel against their parents, I
have seen kids act out in self-destructive behavior due to mental
illness, and I have seen kids behave the way they were expected to
behave -- be it good, bad, or ugly.
> He acknowledged his effeminate mannerisms were a handicap to his
> social acceptance, yet he could not control these mannerisms except
> very superficially. Immutable and innate? I don't know how anybody
> could make that determination quantitatively. But if even the
> superficial characteristics of gender mannerisms cannot be controlled
> in this case, how can more deeply rooted elements of one's personal
> identity be changed?
How? The best way: It's called faith. It's called the Gospel of
Christ. That I have to tell you this tells me you are a person who
does not understand faith because you, yourself, have no faith.
I have seen faith make remarkable changes in people's lives.
>
> Yes, this is only one case. It is simply an anecdote. However, I
> think we all know effeminate males, homosexual or not, who have had to
> live with peer abuse simply because they were not able to master the
> norm for masculine behavior.
They did not master because they did not try hard enough. I have a
hearing and speech defect. I cannot hear the letter "r". I was
teased terribly by children in elementary school because of this. In
the Spelling Bee, I had to get the word "arrow" -- and had to spend
the next three years hearing bullies taunt, "A-ah-ah-oh-w". Yet, I
decided I would get past this behavior -- and I taught myself how to
say "r" when it is called for -- even though I still hear "ah". What
difference did this make in my life? I regularly speak before
national symposiums and audiences -- with never a hint of a hearing or
speech defect.
On the lighter side, are you really going to argue that those potato
heads in Idaho can never unlearn being country bumpkins? ;^)
>
> > > This is not saying that the conduct should not be illegal. They are
> > > arguing that it is a matter of social behavior, just like murder, or
> > > robbery, or rape. Social pathologies are more appropriately dealt
> > > with in the justice system.
> >
> > What potato truck did you fall off of? Did you miss the part where I
> > said the APA is taking the exact same road they did with homosexual
> > behavior? When homosexual behavior was removed (by threats of
> > terrorism) from the DSM in the early 1970's -- homosexual behavior was
> > illegal in almost every state. The vast majority of Americans (I'd
> > say well over 90%) believed homosexual behavior to be immoral and
> > sick. Now, not only is homosexual behavior legal in every state --
> > most public schools are forced to teach that homosexual behavior is
> > normal, and "questioning youth" (a gay right's phrase to describe
> > their juvenile targets) are encouraged to engage in homosexual
> > intercourse. If the homosexual agenda is successful in this country
> > -- the issue of adults having sex with children will be tolerated a
> > few years from now -- and not only were you there for it -- you will
> > be one of the people responsible for children being raped.
>
> First of all, it was a turnip truck I fell off. :-)
>
> You imply by removing homosexuality from the DSM, that it precipitated
> a domino effect legalizing homosexuality in all states. I doubt that
I am not implying anything, I am summarizing history as it occurred.
Homosexual activists repeatedly made the argument, "homosexual
behavior is not a disorder, nor is it abnormal, and that's why the APA
removed it...."
Even though the APA did so without a single *fact* before it to
support their vote, which passed 60%-40% while homosexual activists
literally held a bomb at their head.
Here, people with those little letters behind their names agree:
"Cracks in the floodgates have been appearing regarding pedophilia as
well. Emboldened by the APA's acceptance of homosexuality as a valid
lifestyle, advocates of adult-child sex are making cautious forays
into the scholarly literature. Once again, this move is shrewdly
calculated, with the expectation that society in general will follow
the lead of the "high priests" of the scientific community."
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyPedophilia.htm
> is the case; you certainly cannot support it with data. The rest of
> your statement is more unsupported homophobic rhetoric ("threats of
> terrorism", "encouraged to engage in homosexual intercourse") You
> seem oblivious to how this rhetoric dilutes the credibility of your
> position. Extreme accusations require extremely good evidence. You
> offer no evidence, and this is your modus operandi.
Nope. Those are some facts. Though this site is associate with
Regent University's Law Review, it has some great source material for
you that documents the actions of homosexual activists and their
attacks on the APA:
http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/lawreview/articles/14_2Rondeau.PDF
>
> So why does the APA's action coincide with states decriminalizing
> homosexuality? It seems apparent that society's attitude had become
> more tolerant as more homosexuals "came out" about their sexuality.
> People everywhere found they had family members and trusted friends
> who were gay and did not deserve to be persecuted (or prosecuted) for
> it.
The APA's action came first - then the states followed. Both were
hounded by homosexual protestors and politicians were flooded with $3
bills to finance their campaigns if they sided with the gay activists
-- and protests and attacks if they opposed the activists. When was
the last time you heard a homosxual protestor call someone a "bigot"
or "hateful" or "intolerance" who opposed their agenda? Oh, yea,
that's right -- you do it *all* the time.
>
> As to our society accepting predatory behavior to our children? It
> simply will not happen, anymore than rape itself will ever be
> legalized or remotely tolerated. In fact, in recent years these
> behaviors have become less tolerated and more actively prosecuted.
> This is definitely a good thing as long as innocent people are not
> caught up in the net.
That's probably what Rome and Greece said. They rose to power and
influence, then homosexuality became common place - then pedophilia -
then each society collapsed. Why do you think that collapsed? I
think it was for this simple reason: a society that cannot draw a
distinction between right and wrong and protect its children cannot
sustain order within itself, and collapses under its own wickedness.
>
> It is the nature of your personality, Red, (it is immutable and
> innate, I suppose) to react extremely and vociferously to what you
> perceive as antisocial behavior. You do this in order to effect a
> counterweight to the social balance.
It is the nature of my personality to research, form an opinion, and
defend it vigorously.
>
> The problem with this type of behavior, is that it, itself, approaches
> antisocial fringe behavior. Part of that behavior is rhetoric which
> invariably accuses those with a more moderate, tolerant stance of
> edging over to your opposite extreme. I remember once your accusing
> me of "writing pro-gay all day, all night, for the past two years."
Here you are, writing pro-gay. Sequitur.
>
> The hatred is so abhorent that people recoil and pull away from you.
> Your rage then increases and becomes directed at these more moderate
> people. You become distressed, your anger increases, and you feign an
> "I don't care what people think" attitude, and display the bravado
> using arrogance, often including passages telling us how smart you
> are. In this way you effect just the opposite of your intentions as
> people react in disgust to your extreme behavior.
A "moderate" is what a liberal calls someone who caves into their
demands and shouts of "intolerance" and "bigotry" or of "starving the
children".
I do not cave. I could chare less whether you call me distressed,
angered, an extremist, or any other ad hominem.
I will simply kick back in my chair, swig another Dr. Pepper, and
hunker up to the keyboard and post what I know to be true. If you
have something to trade me up with -- some research that supports your
point of view -- I will surely consider it and change my views based
on facts accordingly.
However, when you merely sit there and fail to do your homework (you
admit having done no research, and being ignorant on this subject) and
argue from utter stupidity - please pardon me while I dismiss your
conjecture as what it is.
>
> > > So on the contrary, people who hold your views who want to call it an
> > > illness are providing an avenue to a possible mental illness defense
> > > for these criminals. I personally do not want such predatory
> > > behaviors protected by mental illness definitions, do you?
> >
> > Mental illness has never been a successful defense against a crime.
>
> This is patently absurd.
Nope. Mentally ill are locked up all over the place -- cept those who
are begging at the local traffic signal.
>
> > Mental illness is not "insanity". A person who is mentally ill
> > certainly can understand right and wrong, make informed choices, and
> > be held accountable for their behavior.
>
> If insanity is not mental illness, then what is it?
Insanity is a condition which implies the inability to know right and
wrong or make legitimate decisions. There are literally millions of
people who are mentally ill -- who are not insane.
>
> An encyclopedia article on http://public.onelook.com states "The
> insanity and incomptence defenses refer to possible defenses by
> excuse; via which, a defendant may argue that they should not be held
> criminally liable for breaking the law, as they were MENTALLY ILL or
> mentally incompetent at the time of their allegedly 'criminal'
> actions." (emphasis mine)
Go read WestLaw cases. It's not that simple. They do not simply
argue that they were simply mentally ill - but that such mental
illness diminshed their capacity to the point they did not know right
from wrong.
>
> > In fact, my observation has
> > been that most mental illnesses are brought about by a slippery slope
> > of bad decision making where a person loses their moral compass therby
> > changing how they think. Choosing sin certainly has consequences --
> > mentally, spiritually, emotionally, and physically. There are those
> > who are mentally ill that suffer from physical malfunctions or
> > chemical imbalances. Yet, even these people still know right from
> > wrong -- save in the case of severe mental retardation.
>
> Well, you have some part truths in there. In fact I will agree that
> there are mental illnesses that can be and have been precipitated by
> wrong choices. Wrong choices (and sometimes even difficult, noble
> choices) bring stress into a person's life that results in varying
> degrees of mental illness, and a person will suffer "mentally,
> spiritually, emotionally, and physically." In fact I see your
> constant state of anger, bashing, and hatred as a form of mental
> illness. An angry, hating person is simply not a happy person, Red.
There you go again. I am not angry, I do not hate, but I certainly
call homosexuality for what it is: a perversion.
A perversion that is now being used to open the door for the wholesale
rape of our children.
-Red Davis
>
>
> Steve Lowther
Nathan Packer
My goodness, you mean I missed this from Red. How did Red surmise all
this? But then this is Red.
Red's thinking:
The rumor is that my psychology professor was a lesbian and drank
blood
Psychologists make up the APA
Therefore, the APA is made up of lesbian vampires.
Red claims to have graduated from Texas A&M and says that it is a top
university. Hey with lesbian vampire professors, it sounds like an
interesting skool to attend.
Maybe someone should inform the dean of the school of engineering that
Red is displaying some third rate thinking and is besmearching the
good school's reputation.
KDavis
Texas A&M University. That's right. The most conservative public
university in the nation. She even gave us Halloween off as it was
her "holiday". One day we had a substitute -- and the substitute was
even more weird. Definitely the patients are in charge in the
psychology arena.
Some things she took pleasure in forcing us to study: The "Brothers
of Pain" in Houston, Texas who liked to "mummyfy" a member and abuse
them -- said she, such behavior is "normal" as long as all involved
feel good about it. Our text book seconded that notion. "Golden
showers" (urination on others), and how refereshing they can be - and
such is normal as long as all involved feel good about it. I already
told you about rape being normal. She also went into S&M -and how
that is normal. Again - the APA has embraced and is emphasizing the
notion that "normal" is simply defined as to whether or not it makes
you feel good when you engage in such thoughts or behavior.
BTW, she almost always wore all black, and wore this pendant with a
weird symbol on it most of the time. She also got into witchcraft.
Again, this is the rank and file of the APA today.
My experience has been that whenever you find one freak like this --
it took a committee of freaks to hire them, and you have a whole nest
of freaks to contend with. Look at any psychology departemnt on any
campus (even BYUs) and you will find that they are nuts. No wonder
they can't find a cure.
-Red Davis
Taiki
> Texas A&M University. That's right. The most conservative public
> university in the nation. She even gave us Halloween off as it was
> her "holiday". One day we had a substitute -- and the substitute was
> even more weird. Definitely the patients are in charge in the
> psychology arena.
>
Can you provide a name and year in which you attended?
-taiki
Lee Paulson
> Val,
> In my abnormal psychology class in college (a 400 level course) -
Gee, Red, they must have changed the Texas A&M psychology courses since you
were there. Now there are no 400 level abnormal psych classes.
we
> were taught that the APA's official stance on rape is that it is *not*
> abnormal behavior *if* the rapist feels good about it.
You were mistaught. According to two psychologists here, there is no such
stance.
snip
>
> BTW, my psychology professor at college? A lesbian "vampire" who
> drinks animal blood - and human blood if she can find a donor. This
> is the type or person that now makes up the rank and file of the APA.
>
What was her name, Red? I'd like to contact her.
--
Regards,
Lee, the James, uM, feminist
"It is undesirable to believe a proposition when
there is no ground whatever for supposing it true."
Bertrand Russell, 1928
Fool Speck
> SRLo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote in message news:<9dcdb6ed.03061...@posting.google.com>...
> > kdavi...@hotmail.com (KDavis) wrote in message news:<fe6e030e.03061...@posting.google.com>...
> > > SRLo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote in message news:<9dcdb6ed.03061...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > > > It seems to me, Red, that what those who are arguing for its removal
> > > > from the list of mental illnesses are simply saying is that it is not
> > > > an illness. In other words, it is something that cannot be helped or
> > > > cured with psychotherapy.
> > >
> > > A couple of counter-points:
> > > 1. So, any disease that can't be cured should simply be re-labeled as
> > > "not a disease"?
> >
> > No. The question is whether or not it is actually a mental disease or
> > defect. Not whether it is self-destructive or predatory behavior.
>
> Are you mad? I mean -- crazy? The consequence of thought or
> behavior should *not* be taken into account as to whether or not it
> should be described as normal and acceptable thought or behavior? You
> must be daft.
No, you are just not thinking. We are not talking about the entire
scope of normal and acceptable thought or behavior. We are talking
about mental illnesses. Not all abnormal or unacceptable thought or
behavior is caused by mental illnesses. Antisocial behavior has other
causes.
> > > 2. The APA has not been able to "cure" a *single* mental illness. Not
> > > one. Does this mean we should simply burn the DSM? Or, could it
> > > possibly mean that the field of Psychology, generally speaking, should
> > > be categorized as modern-day alchemists, and dismissed out of hand for
> > > being utterly ineffective?
> >
> > The APA has never attempted to cure any diseases. It is a
> > professional organization. I will assume, however, you are talking
> > about the individual practioners in the organization.
>
> Wow, what an assumption. The purpose of the APA is to licence and
> direct the effectivenes and legitimacy of their practitioners, and to
> define what are billable diagnosis as published in their DSM. They
> are responsbile for the condition of psychology today.
So what was my assumption? The APA has never attempted to cure any
diseases. It is a professional organization. You said nothing to
contradict in your reply.
> > I'll go out on a limb here, because I haven't done the research to
> > back up my supposition: It seems to me that psychiatry is more
> > involved in mental diseases, organic causes, and their cures (albeit
> > attempted cures). Psychology on the other hand deals not so much with
> > mental diseases, but maladjusted behaviors. Anyway, this much I know:
> > psychiatrists are Medical Doctors, psychologists are not.
>
> Wow, another astute obeservation. You are giving us your "A" game
> today.
> Yes, Psychiatrists are M.D.s, where Psychologists are Ph.D.s usually
> with undergraduate degress in silliness.
Ooops, sorry. I left you an opening for a bit of meanness and of
course you took advantage of it. Sometimes I forget not to tempt your
"predatory" nature.
> > However, you still won't be able to back up your claim of these people
> > "curing" homosexuality. You simply pulled these "huge successes" out
> > of thin air.
>
> Really, go to www.narth.com and do some reading. I think you will
> find that you don't have a clue.
A religious, anti-homosexual website with an obvious agenda is the
best you can do?
> > He acknowledged his effeminate mannerisms were a handicap to his
> > social acceptance, yet he could not control these mannerisms except
> > very superficially. Immutable and innate? I don't know how anybody
> > could make that determination quantitatively. But if even the
> > superficial characteristics of gender mannerisms cannot be controlled
> > in this case, how can more deeply rooted elements of one's personal
> > identity be changed?
>
> How? The best way: It's called faith. It's called the Gospel of
> Christ. That I have to tell you this tells me you are a person who
> does not understand faith because you, yourself, have no faith.
>
> I have seen faith make remarkable changes in people's lives.
Absolutely. The power of the placebo effect should never be
underestimated, nor denegrated. Faith harnessess that very well. But
so do other modalities.
> > Yes, this is only one case. It is simply an anecdote. However, I
> > think we all know effeminate males, homosexual or not, who have had to
> > live with peer abuse simply because they were not able to master the
> > norm for masculine behavior.
>
> They did not master because they did not try hard enough. I have a
> hearing and speech defect. I cannot hear the letter "r". I was
> teased terribly by children in elementary school because of this. In
> the Spelling Bee, I had to get the word "arrow" -- and had to spend
> the next three years hearing bullies taunt, "A-ah-ah-oh-w". Yet, I
> decided I would get past this behavior -- and I taught myself how to
> say "r" when it is called for -- even though I still hear "ah". What
> difference did this make in my life? I regularly speak before
> national symposiums and audiences -- with never a hint of a hearing or
> speech defect.
I am the kid that got beaten up for sticking up for the kid with the
speech impediment. I am a sucker for underdog causes. I guess that
is the liberal bleeding heart in me. Interesting that were
circumstances a little different, that I would have been the one sent
to the office for fighting instead of you.
It is unfortunate that had you lived in another part of the country,
your impediment would have been masked by a regional accent. At least
you would not have been tormented by the bullying.
I respect the fact you have made yourself vulnerable to ridicule here
by revealing that about yourself, so I will not take advantage of it.
However, Red, they are simply nowhere the same.
You are equating your overcoming speech and hearing impediments with
someone who overcame homosexuality. Not being able to distinguish
what other people can and one's feeling of attraction to whichever sex
he is attracted to are apples and orange marmelade.
The very basis of our disagreement is whether or not homosexuality is
innate. You state it is absolutely is not, and I say as far as I can
tell, it probably is, according to the experience that I have had in
talking to people who are homosexual. Of all the homosexuals that I
have talked to, including those who wished they were not, not one of
them has correlated the way you say they feel. I am in the position
of believing the sum total of this experience or you.
It's like deciding who to believe, a paraplegic describing how being
wheel chair bound feels or you.
So who should I believe?
> On the lighter side, are you really going to argue that those potato
> heads in Idaho can never unlearn being country bumpkins? ;^)
Naw. Particularly since ignorance is not something one unlearns
anymore than one can pour out the empty space in a glass. But I
recognize here that you are being facetious. I appreciate the humor.
> > You imply by removing homosexuality from the DSM, that it precipitated
> > a domino effect legalizing homosexuality in all states. I doubt that
>
> I am not implying anything, I am summarizing history as it occurred.
> Homosexual activists repeatedly made the argument, "homosexual
> behavior is not a disorder, nor is it abnormal, and that's why the APA
> removed it...."
>
> Even though the APA did so without a single *fact* before it to
> support their vote, which passed 60%-40% while homosexual activists
> literally held a bomb at their head.
I think you mean "figuratively", not "literally", unless there was an
actual explosive involved. You do have a propensity, Red, for
hyperbole so what you write is suspect. I would like to see what you
say happened written from a neutral perspective.
> The APA's action came first - then the states followed. Both were
> hounded by homosexual protestors and politicians were flooded with $3
> bills to finance their campaigns if they sided with the gay activists
> -- and protests and attacks if they opposed the activists. When was
> the last time you heard a homosxual protestor call someone a "bigot"
> or "hateful" or "intolerance" who opposed their agenda? Oh, yea,
> that's right -- you do it *all* the time.
When the shoe fits, Red. You have displayed an appalling amount of
hatred on ARM. You seem to be the only one not aware of this.
> > It is the nature of your personality, Red, (it is immutable and
> > innate, I suppose) to react extremely and vociferously to what you
> > perceive as antisocial behavior. You do this in order to effect a
> > counterweight to the social balance.
>
> It is the nature of my personality to research, form an opinion, and
> defend it vigorously.
Your opinions are consistently knee-jerk group think. You do not
present a blend of independent thought. Whenever a group of people,
be they conservative or liberal, all agree with little variation, you
can bet very few are doing any independent thinking. To paraphrase
Emerson:
Mindless consistency is the hob-goblin of small minds.
> > The problem with this type of behavior, is that it, itself, approaches
> > antisocial fringe behavior. Part of that behavior is rhetoric which
> > invariably accuses those with a more moderate, tolerant stance of
> > edging over to your opposite extreme. I remember once your accusing
> > me of "writing pro-gay all day, all night, for the past two years."
>
> Here you are, writing pro-gay. Sequitur.
And still you fail to recognize not only your own hyperbole, but my
"I-won't-join-in-your-persecution" stance as being pro-gay. That in
itself speaks volumes.
> > The hatred is so abhorent that people recoil and pull away from you.
> > Your rage then increases and becomes directed at these more moderate
> > people. You become distressed, your anger increases, and you feign an
> > "I don't care what people think" attitude, and display the bravado
> > using arrogance, often including passages telling us how smart you
> > are. In this way you effect just the opposite of your intentions as
> > people react in disgust to your extreme behavior.
>
> A "moderate" is what a liberal calls someone who caves into their
> demands and shouts of "intolerance" and "bigotry" or of "starving the
> children".
Seig Heil!
> I do not cave. I could chare less whether you call me distressed,
> angered, an extremist, or any other ad hominem.
<sigh> Time to look up "ad hominem", Red.
"In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a
really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would
actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from
them
again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should,
because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it
happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that
happened in politics or religion." -Carl Sagan
> I will simply kick back in my chair, swig another Dr. Pepper, and
> hunker up to the keyboard and post what I know to be true. If you
> have something to trade me up with -- some research that supports your
> point of view -- I will surely consider it and change my views based
> on facts accordingly.
Of course, Red.
> However, when you merely sit there and fail to do your homework (you
> admit having done no research, and being ignorant on this subject) and
> argue from utter stupidity - please pardon me while I dismiss your
> conjecture as what it is.
So you go from a smug statement of posting what you "know to be true"
to a blatant misrepresentation, "(you admit having done no research,
and being ignorant on this subject)". This speaks more eloquently to
the truth than all your claims of implied infallibility.
> > > > So on the contrary, people who hold your views who want to call it an
> > > > illness are providing an avenue to a possible mental illness defense
> > > > for these criminals. I personally do not want such predatory
> > > > behaviors protected by mental illness definitions, do you?
> > >
> > > Mental illness has never been a successful defense against a crime.
> >
> > This is patently absurd.
>
> Nope. Mentally ill are locked up all over the place -- cept those who
> are begging at the local traffic signal.
You seem to delight shooting yourself in the foot with these inane
statements, Red.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which
cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance--that principle
is
contempt prior to investigation." - Herbert Spencer, British
philosopher
Steve Lowther
"It is a fool's prerogative to utter truths that no one else will
speak."
- Shakespeare
cham
> By Lawrence Morahan
> CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
> June 11, 2003
>
> (CNSNews.com) - In a step critics charge could result in
> decriminalizing sexual contact between adults and children, the
> American Psychiatric Association (APA) recently sponsored a symposium
> in which participants discussed the removal of pedophilia from an
> upcoming edition of the psychiatric manual of mental disorders.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200306\CUL20030611c.html
A quote apropos of these assertions from the American Psychiatric
Association itself mentioned in the "CNS" piece"
"In a fact sheet on pedophilia, the APA calls the behavior "criminal
and immoral."
"An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a
criminal and immoral act that never can be considered normal or
socially acceptable behavior," the APA said."
and then this-which makes the news non-news: "Dr. Darrel A. Regier,
director of research for the APA, said there were 'no plans and there
is no process set up that would lead to the removal of the paraphilias
(n.b. where pedophilia is classed) from their consideration as
legitimate mental disorders.'"
However most of the CNS article is anti-APA filled with thunder and
lightining by Drs. Soccarides, Nicolosi, and A. Dean Byrd, vice
president of the National Association for Research and Therapy of
Homosexuality (NARTH) and a clinical professor of medicine at the
University of Utah, (he condemned the debate).
And that perhaps is what this is all about--
chuck
cham
> By Lawrence Morahan
> CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
> June 11, 2003
>
> (CNSNews.com) - In a step critics charge could result in
> decriminalizing sexual contact between adults and children, the
> American Psychiatric Association (APA) recently sponsored a symposium
> in which participants discussed the removal of pedophilia from an
> upcoming edition of the psychiatric manual of mental disorders.
>
> Psychiatrists attending an annual APA convention May 19 in San
> Francisco proposed removing several long-recognized categories of
> mental illness - including pedophilia, exhibitionism, fetishism,
> transvestism, voyeurism and sadomasochism - from the Diagnostic and
> Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).
>
> Most of the mental illnesses being considered for removal are known as
> "paraphilias."
Part of what isn't included in this quote is about the APA's actual
position on this issue:
"'In a fact sheet on pedophilia, the APA calls the behavior "criminal
and immoral."(http://www.psych.org/public_info/pedfacts2.pdf for the
fact sheet)
"An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a
criminal and immoral act that never can be considered normal or
socially acceptable behavior," the APA said.'"
and this which sort of puts the rest of the opinions on their head:
"Dr. Darrel A. Regier, director of research for the APA, said there
were "no plans and there is no process set up that would lead to the
removal of the paraphilias from their consideration as legitimate
mental disorders..."
Other experts quoted about the possibility of APA action include
Soccarides,& Nicossi. "A. Dean Byrd, vice president of the National
Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) and a
clinical professor of medicine at the University of Utah, condemned
the debate. Taking the paraphilias out of the DSM without research
would have negative consequences, he said."
So is APA really doing what these folks said they were going to do,
i.e. removing the parphilias.
Not according to APA's director. 'Tis APA's most vocal critics who
made the claim, as near as I can tell. No queers in the closet- in
fact the article from a news service that has gone out of its way to
attack APA that indicates it is the lack of queer voices that makes it
highly unlikely. Chuck
concernedmd
This story demonstrates the lack of journalistic standards in the
far-right press. The story is a fiction, composed by a reporter who
did not attend the APA session. The reporter constructed the story by
talking with others who also did not attend the session, but have an
agenda to discredit the APA. The quotes attributed to one symposium
panelist were not from the session, but rather selectively quoted from
an unpublished draft of a paper, not yet edited nor peer-reviewed,
without the consent of the author.
The actual agenda of the APA symposium was a discussion of the
diagnostic criteria of a larger chapter of the DSM, of which
pedophilia is one of many disorders. Pedophilia was mentioned only
briefly in the 3 hour session, by one non-psychiatrist critic of the
paraphilia diagnoses; that speaker supported strong criminal penalties
for pedophilia but pointed out that rapists (of adults) are not
presumed to be mentally ill. The two psychiatrists on the panel who
addressed pedophilia both strongly supported its retention as a mental
disorder.
The APA has not yet begun to write the next version of the DSM, and is
not considering altering the diagnosis of pedophilia.
cham
> caha...@yahoo.com (cham) wrote in message news:<88e74498.0306...@posting.google.com>...
> > kdavi...@hotmail.com (KDavis) wrote in message news:<fe6e030e.03061...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > they have supported the homosexuals in their quest to gain these new
> > > rights.
> > >
> > > -Red Davis
>
>
> This story demonstrates the lack of journalistic standards in the
> far-right press. The story is a fiction, composed by a reporter who
> did not attend the APA session. The reporter constructed the story by
> talking with others who also did not attend the session, but have an
> agenda to discredit the APA. The quotes attributed to one symposium
> panelist were not from the session, but rather selectively quoted from
> an unpublished draft of a paper, not yet edited nor peer-reviewed,
> without the consent of the author.
>
> The actual agenda of the APA symposium was a discussion of the
> diagnostic criteria of a larger chapter of the DSM, of which
> pedophilia is one of many disorders. Pedophilia was mentioned only
> briefly in the 3 hour session, by one non-psychiatrist critic of the
> paraphilia diagnoses; that speaker supported strong criminal penalties
> for pedophilia but pointed out that rapists (of adults) are not
> presumed to be mentally ill. The two psychiatrists on the panel who
> addressed pedophilia both strongly supported its retention as a mental
> disorder.
>
> The APA has not yet begun to write the next version of the DSM, and is
> not considering altering the diagnosis of pedophilia.
thanks for the clarification. T