Federal Gay-Activist Judges Aren't to Blame: They Rely on "Science"..

[Silhouette]

Inspired by the famous "churches" thread here at USMB and excellent points by "Where_r_my_Keys":

Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 435 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That thread has more than 33,000 views and sports one of the largest poll turnouts EVER at USMB. See how over 80% of the quiet majority voted..

Meanwhile this topic:

Upon the irrational premise that Sexual Abnormality is NORMAL. What's that based upon? 'WE ARE NOT "ABNORMAL PEOPLE"... therefore our sexuality is not Abnormal!' Their truth is Subjective... .
They claim that their position rests in "SCIENCE!" that they TRUST science... and, that opposition of their need is based upon RELIGION!, which they do NOT TRUST.
Yet the purely scientific position, which incontestably demonstrates that Homosexuality; not only deviates from the standard intrinsic to human physiology, but it deviates as far FROM that standard as can be deviated, where all participants are HUMAN. And they could not care less, they do not trust science... because their trust of science is Subjective... .

Judges are relying on the APA. It helps that gays stormed the American Psychological Association back in the 1970s and took over its ranks. The impact of that was GIGANTIC. And that is because virtually ALL "scientific" entities that have to do with the human mind or physiology take their walking orders from the APA. Gays began filling the ranks of the board of directors of the APA. The association used to abide by a ruling scientific principle called "the Leona Tyler Principle". It said that any position the APA took on a topic publicly HAD to be backed by hard science.

After gays took over the board of directors in the APA, that ruling scientific principle that had been the mooring of that institution for many many years was *disappeared*. There wasn't even an up or down vote on it by the Board. It just vanished. And in fact, a recent search for it on the APA search engines comes up with nothing.

This new relativism came to a head not too long after this coup by the gay cabal of the APA. It happened when Congress formally censured the APA at a hearing that had to do with protecting children from sexual predators. The neo-APA was arguing/urging its position which had become "sometimes it may be OK for adults to have sex with kids"...yeah...no kidding.. I think it was the first time ever that Congress voted to censure a "scientific" group's testimony.

Instead of the ruling principle based in science, that was subsequently *disappeared* by gay militants in the APA, we have this which is PRECISELY the relativism you are talking about. I just searched this today and my jaw fell in disbelief on how you NAILED IT...

Read, if you dare...straight from the APA approved books links. The "experts" call (CQR) research. It is "qualitative" (subjective group agreement) and not relying on numbers...silly numbers get in the way of "socially agreed conclusions" of the group-think. It is the ANTITHESIS of a ruling scientific principle.

You just can't make this stuff up:

Consensual Qualitative Research: A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena
Edited by Clara E. Hill, PhD Consensual Qualitative Research A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena
"
This lively and practical text presents a fresh and comprehensive approach to conducting consensual qualitative research (CQR). CQR is an inductive method that is characterized by open-ended interview questions, small samples, a reliance on words over numbers, the importance of context, an integration of multiple viewpoints, and consensus of the research team. It is especially well-suited to research that requires rich descriptions of inner experiences, attitudes, and convictions.

Written to help researchers navigate their way through qualitative techniques and methodology, leading expert Clara E. Hill and her associates provide readers with step-by-step practical guidance during each stage of the research process. Readers learn about adaptive ways of designing studies; collecting, coding, and analyzing data; and reporting findings.

Key aspects of the researcher's craft are addressed, such as establishing the research team, recruiting and interviewing participants, adhering to ethical standards, raising cultural awareness, auditing within case analyses and cross analyses, and writing up the study.
Intended as a user-friendly manual for graduate-level research courses and beyond, the text will be a valuable resource for both budding and experienced qualitative researchers for many years to come.

Examine or adopt this book for teaching a course "

Let me just repeat the underlined parts above. The APA is advocating that their researchers rely on "words over numbers" in an "adaptive" style or "craft" and that they practice "auditing" each other to insure conformity to the non-scientific (words not numbers) principle of "doing research".

THIS is the data the activist-judges in the federal circuit are relying on "as fact". It is a cult dogma within a cloistered cabal and they have renamed it "science".

I urge that every person should read this book. It defines the root of the collective insanity we see justified today. You could literally rename this book "Where it all went wrong"...

You know who else "audits" (pressures its membership in real ways) for conformity to the dogmatic rule? Scientology.

We are dealing with a cult. They are as scientific and open-minded in their research as the Jim Jones Colony.

 

[Silhouette]

"
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
was published in1952. In the early 70s, gay liberation movement chose to attack theAPA's stance on homosexuality. This case is a clear example of a socialmovement that specifically targeted the cultural status of homosexuality, instead of its political status. In order to engage incollective action and achieve successes against the political system,activists needed to attack the institutions...

...
homosexuality was no longer apassing sin, but rather a problem rooted deeply within the individual. Inthis way, sexual orientation became an identity that individuals could...

...In the midst of their own "tripartite system of domination"maintained by medical, religious, and legal authorities, gay activistsrealized that in order to achieve political victories they would need towin some cultural ones (D'Emilo 1998:129; Morris 1986:1-4). The APA’sclassification of homosexuality as a disorder was on the top of that list.But activism against the APA also satisfied the gay power activists’desire to attack society’s institutions, and it fit within the multi-facetedproject of the New Left (Armstrong 2002:56-61). Activists understoodthat cultural and political institutions work together...

...Political process theory states that broad socioeconomicprocesses lead to mobilizing structures, political opportunities, andcognitive liberation and that these three factors are required for theemergence of a social movement (McAdam 1999). Mobilizingstructures are comprised of organizations and "organizations of organizations" (Morris 1986:24) that can rally the mass base,disseminate information about tactics and successes, and coordinatecollective action. ...

...Instead of viewing the state as the only worthytarget of collective action, this approach focuses on the patchwork of institutions that collectively determine how actors will be categorizedand how those categorizations will influence the allocation of resources....

...An analysis using this model will focus on how theorganizational logic of the lesbian and gay movement in the early 70sinteracted with the organizational logic of the American PsychiatricAssociation at that time....

...Armstrong’s theory provides a framework for looking at how theinternal logics – “the rules of the game” – (2002:9) changed within thegay movement during the same time that activists were targeting theAmerican Psychiatric Association’s stance on homosexuality. Accordingto Armstrong, from 1968 to 1971 there were several different politicallogics competing within the lesbian and gay movement. This period of instability and the crystallization that followed it may help explain thechanges in the tactics used by activists against the APA.

Social Movements Final Paper

 

[Delta4Embassy]

If you say this 64,999 more times Aldous Huxley says you'll finally make it true.

 

[Silhouette]

If you say this 64,999 more times Aldous Huxley says you'll finally make it true.

You mean the (CQR) APA guidelines that tell their "researchers" to rely on group think, feeling and consensus instead of raw data?

OK, 64,999 times left to go. But to be fair, I did include links to the actual APA website and text that says that.

 

[Syriusly]

.

Judges are relying on the APA. It helps that gays stormed the American Psychological Association back in the 1970s and took over its ranks. The impact of that was GIGANTIC. And that is because virtually ALL "scientific" entities that have to do with the human mind or physiology take their walking orders from the APA. Gays began filling the ranks of the board of directors of the APA. The association used to abide by a ruling scientific principle called "the Leona Tyler Principle". It said that any position the APA took on a topic publicly HAD to be backed by hard science.

After gays took over the board of directors in the APA, that ruling scientific principle that had been the mooring of that institution for many many years was *disappeared*. There wasn't even an up or down vote on it by the Board. It just vanished. And in fact, a recent search for it on the APA search engines comes up with nothing..[/QUOTE]

Once again- revisionist history- aka lies from Silhouette.

a) The APA first called homosexuality a mental disorder in 1952
Homosexuality had been officially classified as a mental disorder in the APA's first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-1) in 1952. There it was designated as a "sociopathic personality disturbance." Viewing homosexuality as a mental illness was not controversial at the time as it coincided with prevailing societal attitudes. DSM-II, published in 1968, listed homosexuality as a sexual deviation, but sexual deviations were no longer categorized as a sociopathic personality disturbance.

This was not based upon any 'hard science'- it was a consensus opinion of the APA

b) In 1968- 14 years later- the APA modified that to 'sexual deviation'
c) In 1972- 18 years after the APA declared homosexuality a mental disorder- with no hard science- it reversed itself- and declared that there was no 'hard science' which

Gay activists began to confront the APA about its position on homosexuality. There were a series of dramatic encounters between activists and psychiatrists at the annual meetings of the APA between 1970 and 1972. While the opposition to the activists was vehement by some in the APA, there were increasing numbers of psychiatrists (e.g.,Judd Marmor) who supported the activists' view.

These were members who were familiar with the research findings showing that homosexuality occurred in large numbers of people, in persons who demonstrated normal psychological adjustment, and that it is present across a range of cultures.

Dr. Robert Spitzer and other members of the APA Task Force on Nomenclature and Statistics agreed to meet with a group of gay activists who presented the scientific evidence to its members and convinced the Task Force to study the issue further. The subsequent research review led the Nomenclature Committee of the APA to propose that homosexuality be eliminated from the DSM. This proposal was approved by the APA's Council on Research and Development, its Reference Committee, and by the Assembly of District Branches before being accepted by the APA's Board of Trustees in December 1973. Other major mental health professional organizations, including the American Psychological Association and the National Association of Social Workers, soon endorsed the APA action. The decision to declassify homosexuality was accompanied by the passage of an APA Position Statement, which supported the protection of the civil rights of homosexual persons.

Some APA members, primarily psychoanalysts who continued to espouse pathologizing views of homosexuality, challenged the leadership of the APA by calling for a referendum of the entire APA membership. The decision to remove homosexuality was upheld by a 58% majority of voting APA

LGBT Mental Health Syllabus

To recap- far from being a 'coup', the declassification was voted for- and approved by 58% of the voting APA.

Once again Silhouette lies in order to promote discrimination against homosexuals.

Oh- the APA considered homosexuality to be mental disorder from 1952-1972- 30 years.
The APA has not considered homosexuliaty to be a mental disorder for the last 32 years.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If you say this 64,999 more times Aldous Huxley says you'll finally make it true.

What SPECIFICALLY is not true about this:

Silhouette says: "Inspired by the famous "churches" thread here at USMB and excellent points by "Where_r_my_Keys":

Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 435 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That thread has more than 33,000 views and sports one of the largest poll turnouts EVER at USMB. See how over 80% of the quiet majority voted..

Meanwhile this topic:

Upon the irrational premise that Sexual Abnormality is NORMAL. What's that based upon? 'WE ARE NOT "ABNORMAL PEOPLE"... therefore our sexuality is not Abnormal!' Their truth is Subjective... .
They claim that their position rests in "SCIENCE!" that they TRUST science... and, that opposition of their need is based upon RELIGION!, which they do NOT TRUST.
Yet the purely scientific position, which incontestably demonstrates that Homosexuality; not only deviates from the standard intrinsic to human physiology, but it deviates as far FROM that standard as can be deviated, where all participants are HUMAN. And they could not care less, they do not trust science... because their trust of science is Subjective... .

Judges are relying on the APA. It helps that gays stormed the American Psychological Association back in the 1970s and took over its ranks. The impact of that was GIGANTIC. And that is because virtually ALL "scientific" entities that have to do with the human mind or physiology take their walking orders from the APA. Gays began filling the ranks of the board of directors of the APA. The association used to abide by a ruling scientific principle called "the Leona Tyler Principle". It said that any position the APA took on a topic publicly HAD to be backed by hard science.

After gays took over the board of directors in the APA, that ruling scientific principle that had been the mooring of that institution for many many years was *disappeared*. There wasn't even an up or down vote on it by the Board. It just vanished. And in fact, a recent search for it on the APA search engines comes up with nothing.

This new relativism came to a head not too long after this coup by the gay cabal of the APA. It happened when Congress formally censured the APA at a hearing that had to do with protecting children from sexual predators. The neo-APA was arguing/urging its position which had become "sometimes it may be OK for adults to have sex with kids"...yeah...no kidding.. I think it was the first time ever that Congress voted to censure a "scientific" group's testimony.

Instead of the ruling principle based in science, that was subsequently *disappeared* by gay militants in the APA, we have this which is PRECISELY the relativism you are talking about. I just searched this today and my jaw fell in disbelief on how you NAILED IT...

Read, if you dare...straight from the APA approved books links. The "experts" call (CQR) research. It is "qualitative" (subjective group agreement) and not relying on numbers...silly numbers get in the way of "socially agreed conclusions" of the group-think. It is the ANTITHESIS of a ruling scientific principle.

You just can't make this stuff up:

Consensual Qualitative Research: A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena
Edited by Clara E. Hill, PhD Consensual Qualitative Research A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena
"
This lively and practical text presents a fresh and comprehensive approach to conducting consensual qualitative research (CQR). CQR is an inductive method that is characterized by open-ended interview questions, small samples, a reliance on words over numbers, the importance of context, an integration of multiple viewpoints, and consensus of the research team. It is especially well-suited to research that requires rich descriptions of inner experiences, attitudes, and convictions.

Written to help researchers navigate their way through qualitative techniques and methodology, leading expert Clara E. Hill and her associates provide readers with step-by-step practical guidance during each stage of the research process. Readers learn about adaptive ways of designing studies; collecting, coding, and analyzing data; and reporting findings.

Key aspects of the researcher's craft are addressed, such as establishing the research team, recruiting and interviewing participants, adhering to ethical standards, raising cultural awareness, auditing within case analyses and cross analyses, and writing up the study.
Intended as a user-friendly manual for graduate-level research courses and beyond, the text will be a valuable resource for both budding and experienced qualitative researchers for many years to come.

Examine or adopt this book for teaching a course "

Let me just repeat the underlined parts above. The APA is advocating that their researchers rely on "words over numbers" in an "adaptive" style or "craft" and that they practice "auditing" each other to insure conformity to the non-scientific (words not numbers) principle of "doing research".

THIS is the data the activist-judges in the federal circuit are relying on "as fact". It is a cult dogma within a cloistered cabal and they have renamed it "science".

I urge that every person should read this book. It defines the root of the collective insanity we see justified today. You could literally rename this book "Where it all went wrong"...

You know who else "audits" (pressures its membership in real ways) for conformity to the dogmatic rule? Scientology.

We are dealing with a cult. They are as scientific and open-minded in their research as the Jim Jones Colony.


Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
was published in1952. In the early 70s, gay liberation movement chose to attack theAPA's stance on homosexuality. This case is a clear example of a socialmovement that specifically targeted the cultural status of homosexuality, instead of its political status. In order to engage incollective action and achieve successes against the political system,activists needed to attack the institutions...

...
homosexuality was no longer apassing sin, but rather a problem rooted deeply within the individual. Inthis way, sexual orientation became an identity that individuals could...

...In the midst of their own "tripartite system of domination"maintained by medical, religious, and legal authorities, gay activistsrealized that in order to achieve political victories they would need towin some cultural ones (D'Emilo 1998:129; Morris 1986:1-4). The APA’sclassification of homosexuality as a disorder was on the top of that list.But activism against the APA also satisfied the gay power activists’desire to attack society’s institutions, and it fit within the multi-facetedproject of the New Left (Armstrong 2002:56-61). Activists understoodthat cultural and political institutions work together...

...Political process theory states that broad socioeconomicprocesses lead to mobilizing structures, political opportunities, andcognitive liberation and that these three factors are required for the emergence of a social movement (McAdam 1999). Mobilizing structures are comprised of organizations and "organizations of organizations" (Morris 1986:24) that can rally the mass base,disseminate information about tactics and successes, and coordinate collective action. ...

...Instead of viewing the state as the only worthy target of collective action, this approach focuses on the patchwork of institutions that collectively determine how actors will be categorized and how those categorizations will influence the allocation of resources....

...An analysis using this model will focus on how theorganizational logic of the lesbian and gay movement in the early 70sinteracted with the organizational logic of the American PsychiatricAssociation at that time....

...Armstrong’s theory provides a framework for looking at how theinternal logics – “the rules of the game” – (2002:9) changed within thegay movement during the same time that activists were targeting theAmerican Psychiatric Association’s stance on homosexuality. Accordingto Armstrong, from 1968 to 1971 there were several different politicallogics competing within the lesbian and gay movement. This period of instability and the crystallization that followed it may help explain the changes in the tactics used by activists against the APA."

The reason I ask is to help you prove... ya can't sustain a dam' thing ya say; in this case that there is something untrue about the above facts.

 

[Silhouette]

Once again- revisionist history- aka lies from Silhouette.

All anyone has to do to confirm what the OP says is to follow those links or google for themselves "Leona Tyler principle" & "Cummings". They can read for themselves how the APA decided that facts, hard data and numbers don't matter anymore in pyschology.

 

[Syriusly]

Once again- revisionist history- aka lies from Silhouette.

All anyone has to do to confirm what the OP says is to follow those links or google for themselves "Leona Tyler principle" & "Cummings". They can read for themselves how the APA decided that facts, hard data and numbers don't matter anymore in pyschology.

Or they can read the real history, rather than the fictional homophobic history

Judges are relying on the APA. It helps that gays stormed the American Psychological Association back in the 1970s and took over its ranks. The impact of that was GIGANTIC. And that is because virtually ALL "scientific" entities that have to do with the human mind or physiology take their walking orders from the APA. Gays began filling the ranks of the board of directors of the APA. The association used to abide by a ruling scientific principle called "the Leona Tyler Principle". It said that any position the APA took on a topic publicly HAD to be backed by hard science.

After gays took over the board of directors in the APA, that ruling scientific principle that had been the mooring of that institution for many many years was *disappeared*. There wasn't even an up or down vote on it by the Board. It just vanished. And in fact, a recent search for it on the APA search engines comes up with nothing..[/QUOTE]

Once again- revisionist history- aka lies from Silhouette.

a) The APA first called homosexuality a mental disorder in 1952
Homosexuality had been officially classified as a mental disorder in the APA's first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-1) in 1952. There it was designated as a "sociopathic personality disturbance." Viewing homosexuality as a mental illness was not controversial at the time as it coincided with prevailing societal attitudes. DSM-II, published in 1968, listed homosexuality as a sexual deviation, but sexual deviations were no longer categorized as a sociopathic personality disturbance.

This was not based upon any 'hard science'- it was a consensus opinion of the APA

b) In 1968- 14 years later- the APA modified that to 'sexual deviation'
c) In 1972- 18 years after the APA declared homosexuality a mental disorder- with no hard science- it reversed itself- and declared that there was no 'hard science' which

Gay activists began to confront the APA about its position on homosexuality. There were a series of dramatic encounters between activists and psychiatrists at the annual meetings of the APA between 1970 and 1972. While the opposition to the activists was vehement by some in the APA, there were increasing numbers of psychiatrists (e.g.,Judd Marmor) who supported the activists' view.

These were members who were familiar with the research findings showing that homosexuality occurred in large numbers of people, in persons who demonstrated normal psychological adjustment, and that it is present across a range of cultures.

Dr. Robert Spitzer and other members of the APA Task Force on Nomenclature and Statistics agreed to meet with a group of gay activists who presented the scientific evidence to its members and convinced the Task Force to study the issue further. The subsequent research review led the Nomenclature Committee of the APA to propose that homosexuality be eliminated from the DSM. This proposal was approved by the APA's Council on Research and Development, its Reference Committee, and by the Assembly of District Branches before being accepted by the APA's Board of Trustees in December 1973. Other major mental health professional organizations, including the American Psychological Association and the National Association of Social Workers, soon endorsed the APA action. The decision to declassify homosexuality was accompanied by the passage of an APA Position Statement, which supported the protection of the civil rights of homosexual persons.

Some APA members, primarily psychoanalysts who continued to espouse pathologizing views of homosexuality, challenged the leadership of the APA by calling for a referendum of the entire APA membership. The decision to remove homosexuality was upheld by a 58% majority of voting APA

LGBT Mental Health Syllabus

To recap- far from being a 'coup', the declassification was voted for- and approved by 58% of the voting APA.

Once again Silhouette lies in order to promote discrimination against homosexuals.

Oh- the APA considered homosexuality to be mental disorder from 1952-1972- 30 years.
The APA has not considered homosexuliaty to be a mental disorder for the last 32 years.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Sorry dude, but any man who wants to suck dick, or have his dick sucked by another dude, is mentally fucked up.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

To recap- far from being a 'coup', the declassification was voted for- and approved by 58% of the voting APA.

LOL! This ... offered as a means to PROVE that the APA's 'findings' were based upon HARD EVIDENCE! Through the mathematical precision of HARD SCIENCE!

'We voted and the Homos won!'

ROFLMNAO! You ca't make this crap up. VOTING ON SCIENCE? LOL! How precious is THAT?

 

[Syriusly]

Sorry dude, but any man who wants to suck dick, or have his dick sucked by another dude, is mentally fucked up.

Why would you care? As long as he isn't sucking your dick- why would you care?

In a world full of people more than willing to hate other people- why on earth would you care how Bob is having sex- whether it is a blow job from his boyfriend- or a blowjob from his girlfriend.

Certainly I have no interest in how you have- or don't have- sex. I won't call you mentally fucked up because you no longer want to have sex, or because you can only have sex when you pay for it. None of my business. I don't care.

 

[Syriusly]

To recap- far from being a 'coup', the declassification was voted for- and approved by 58% of the voting APA.

LOL! This ... offered as a means to PROVE that the APA's 'findings' were based upon HARD EVIDENCE!?

What you avoid- and of course Silhouette avoids, is that the APA original determination was based upon even less 'hard evidence'(pun intended?).

Everytime you- or Silhouette whines about the 'lack of science'- you just expose your prejudices- because there was no science involved when the APA made their original determination.

It was more like Care Bears statement that he just finds it icky.

 

[Silhouette]

Sorry dude, but any man who wants to suck dick, or have his dick sucked by another dude, is mentally fucked up.

Why would you care? As long as he isn't sucking your dick- why would you care?
.

Because in a legal institution created for and maintained for the benefit of raising children, two dudes are not and never will be "mom and dad", neither will two lesbians.

Children have an inaliable right to have the gender that they are represented as an example "as parent" in their lives. States have an inaliable right to disincentivize an environment for children where that situation will 100% of the time not be true. Plus it's a terrible message to send to children even if they are the same gender as their fake "mom or dad" that "that other gender isn't necessary". It's TOXIC to society as a whole to raise generations of children so stripped of their inaliable rights and so skewed by such a one-sided representation of society at large.

 

[Silhouette]

Everytime you- or Silhouette whines about the 'lack of science'- you just expose your prejudices- because there was no science involved when the APA made their original determination.

Are you talking about the Leona Tyler Principle that was *disappeared* by the gay cabal at the APA in the 1980s? The past president Cummings had very bitter recollections of how he was bamboozled and his organization ultimately taken over lock stock and barrel by the "feelings, not facts" "experts" at the APA.

Are other scientific agencies such as the AMA remiss in taking their walking orders on very important medical issues [like amputating healthy organs for "sex change operations"] from an APA that not only has abandoned science but also openly flaunts how "researchers" should focus on group consensus [of people who can be drummed out in a number of ways for failing to fall in line...or be "audited"...] instead of raw data in research?

Here's some raw data that I'll bet the APA's peer-pressure-program wants to eliminate from its "research" on "gay and lesbian issues"...

Youth aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 26% of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010.

• Most new HIV infections among youth occur among gay and bisexual males; there was a 22% increase in estimated new infections in this group from 2008 to 2010.

• Almost 60% of youth with HIV in the United States do not know they are infected. CDC - HIV Among Youth - Age - Risk - HIV AIDS

I'm sure the peer-pressure-program at the APA wouldn't allow exploration of whether or not these virginal young boys are getting HIV from gay sex with each other? Or by inappropriate contact from an older infected man.. That kind of 'unnecessary data' might get in the way of the group consensus..

 

[Syriusly]

Sorry dude, but any man who wants to suck dick, or have his dick sucked by another dude, is mentally fucked up.

Why would you care? As long as he isn't sucking your dick- why would you care?
.

Because in a legal institution created for and maintained for the benefit of raising children,.

I have no idea what legal institution you are talking about.

Clearly it isn't marriage.

Since marriage neither requires anyone to have children, or desire to have children, or be able to have children.
And since the state does not require parents to marry, or even that married parents stay married.

And the state even requires some couples to prove that they cannot have children before they allow them to marry.

LIke I said- whatever institution you are talking about - it isn't marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

Everytime you- or Silhouette whines about the 'lack of science'- you just expose your prejudices- because there was no science involved when the APA made their original determination.

Are you talking about the Leona Tyler Principle that was *disappeared* ..

I think I was very clear about what I was talking about.

a) The APA first called homosexuality a mental disorder in 1952
Homosexuality had been officially classified as a mental disorder in the APA's first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-1) in 1952. There it was designated as a "sociopathic personality disturbance." Viewing homosexuality as a mental illness was not controversial at the time as it coincided with prevailing societal attitudes. DSM-II, published in 1968, listed homosexuality as a sexual deviation, but sexual deviations were no longer categorized as a sociopathic personality disturbance.

This was not based upon any 'hard science'- it was a consensus opinion of the APA

b) In 1968- 14 years later- the APA modified that to 'sexual deviation'
c) In 1972- 18 years after the APA declared homosexuality a mental disorder- with no hard science- it reversed itself- and declared that there was no 'hard science' which supported considering homosexuality a mental disorder.

The APA considered homosexuality to be mental disorder from 1952-1972- 30 years.
The APA has not considered homosexuliaty to be a mental disorder for the last 32 years.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It WAS decidedly clear... incontestably clear... incontrovertibly clear.

That the purpose of your contribution, was to DEFLECT from that to which 'IT' was responding.

Ya see... Homosexuality IS a mental disorder, because it deviates from the natural order.

This is HARD SCIENCE... at least where science accepts that the standard of human physiological order is established by the physiological design, thus reasoning which rejects that otherwise incontrovertible reality, deviates from the standard that IS REALITY, thus such is DELUSIONAL.

 

[Syriusly]

Ya see... Homosexuality IS a mental disorder, because it deviates from the natural order.

This is HARD SCIENCE..

Then provide the Hard science- show me the scientific studies which have proven conclusively that homosexuality is a mental disorder.

Because otherwise- what you claim has no more scientific validity than me claiming that your posts are the result of traumatic brain injury.

 

[Syriusly]

Plus it's a terrible message to send to children even if they are the same gender as their fake "mom or dad" that "that other gender isn't necessary". It's TOXIC to society as a whole to raise generations of children so stripped of their inaliable rights and so skewed by such a one-sided representation of society at large.

If children have an 'inaliable' right to their mom and dad- how come we allow parents to divorce?

 

[bodecea]

Poor benighted people afraid of gay fellow citizens.