"More popular than Jesus Christ"

[007]

Respect isn't given because it is asked for or demanded, it is given because it is earned.

Thank you for repeating what I've already said here. I'm glad we agree.

 

[GotZoom]

To answer your seemingly sincere question...

The American Psychiatric Association Coup

Homosexuals commonly point to the fact that the 'medical community' and, more specifically, psychiatrists agree with them that homosexuality is a "normal human sexual response."

It is certainly true that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality from its list of "mental disorders" twenty years ago, in 1973. This is a fact that almost always comes up in debates with sodomites.

What the homosexuals do not mention, of course, is that this sudden change in attitude was not based on any new scientific evidence. As described in the following paragraphs, it was a purely political move, induced by a relentless saturation campaign of deception, intimidation, and unethical collusion between the APA committee and activist sodomite groups.

Preparing the Ground:

In 1968, representatives of activist homosexual groups approached leading psychiatrists and the officers of psychiatric organizations and began to lay the groundwork for the reclassification of their perversions as normal manifestations of human sexuality.

These activists correctly recognized that such a move was absolutely mandatory if they were to win public acceptance. After all, society in general would not look very kindly upon the subsequent lobbying done by a group whose members were officially recognized as "mentally disordered."

In the three years during which the APA's Homosexuality Task Force was deliberating, it collaborated actively with several sodomite groups, including the Gay Activist's Alliance, the Mattachine Society, and the Daughters of Bilitis, while completely ignoring organizations with views that contrasted with the homosexuals.

Abram Kardiner, former Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University, revealed that "A powerful lobby of "gay" organizations has brought pressure on the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the category of aberrancy. This is only one facet of the tidal wave of egalitarianism and divisiveness that is sweeping the country...."

During this unethical collusion, Kinsey colleague Paul Gebhard said that anyone who was known to harbor the view that homosexuality was a disorder was systematically excluded from being a member of the Task Force or from even being able to present his views or evidence to it.

In other words, the sodomites packed this committee in the same manner that pro-abortionist and fetal tissue harvesters do: Only those people with the "correct" viewpoint were allowed to voice an opinion.

But the homosexuals did not focus on the APA alone; they intimidated psychiatrists all over the nation. While the APA Task Force ws preparing its report, any psychiatrist or psychoanalyst who dared present documentation that homosexuality was a psychological disorder (anywhere in the country) was shouted down and even physically attacked at public forums or at local and national meetings of mental health professionals.

The APA Caves In:

The years of hard work put in by the sodomites began to pay off in 1972. The "National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Task Force on Homosexuality Final Report" parroted Alfred Kinsey's proclamation that "exclusive heterosexuality" and exclusive homosexuality" were "sexual extremes," and that most people were basically bisexual.

This report in turn exerted a great deal of influence on the APA. In order to make its final report appear to be scientific, the APA's Homosexuality Task Force sent a letter to all APA member psychiatritst. This letter did not ask whether or not homosexuality should or should not be declared "normal." It was signed by all candidates for the upcoming elections for the APA presidency and urged all members to "vote" that homosexuality was thereafter declared to be on a level with normal sexuality.

This view was so voted by a very slim margin. The letter did not, of course, reveal the fact that it was written and funded by the National Gay Task Force. One of the letter's signers, in fact, later confessed that he knew that such knowledge would have been the "kiss of death" for a pro homosexual vote.

Subsequently, the APA eliminated homosexuality as a mental disorder from the 1973 edition of its "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual."

APA member Dr. Henry W. Reicken cut to the heart of the APA's motivation as he wrote a scathing dissent in the appendix to the above mentioned NIMH report entitled "Detailed Reservations Regarding the Task Force Recommendations on Social Policy:" "It is as if they 'the Task Force' said, "Here is a phenomenon about which we know almost nothing and about which there is a great deal of anxiety and concern; therefore, let us suggest a major revision in public policy for dealing with this phenomenon." I cannot escape the belief that this is an utterly unreasonable conclusion to draw from the sea of ignorance and misinformation in which we find ourselves."

The Essential Point:

The essential point to be made about this chicanery is that the sudden complete reversal in the APA position on homosexuality was not brought about as a result of a careful regime of scholarly research and study; it was a blatantly political move, a 'vote', of all things, on the status of a mental illness. Furthermore, this vote was undertaken in a climate of deception and intimidation.

At no time before or since has the APA or any other psychological or psychiatric professional group 'ever' addressed a mental health question in this manner.

Behind the Scenes:

It is fascinating indeed to see what psychiatrists 'really' think about homosexuality when they are free of the restraints of intimidation and political pressure.

Almost simultaneously with the 1972 National Institute of Mental Health report, the New York County District Branch of the APA's Task Force on Homosexuality produced a second report. According to APA member Charles Socarides, M.D., the document concluded that "....exclusive homosexuality was a disorder of psychosexual development, and simultaneously asked for civil rights for those suffering from the disorder."

It is even more revealing to examine the results of polls of psychiatrists taken since 1973 regarding the issue of homosexual orientation.

The original "voting" letter distributed by the APA Homosexuality Task Force in 1973 was answered by only about one-quarter of the recipients, leading one to speculate that the "volunteer bias" ignored by Kinsey in his original studies led to pro-homosexual results. It is quite certain that, if 'all' of the APA members had returned their "ballots," homosexuality would have remained a mental disorder in the view of the organization.

A later series of private surveys which could be answered confidentially and without fear of retaliation showed that two-thirds of APA members psychiatrists regarded homosexuality as abnormal despite the parent organization's switch

More specifically, in 1977, four years after the APA 'switch,' the journal "Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality" revealed that it had polled 2,500 psychiatrists on their view of what "current thinking on homosexuality" was, and, by a lopsided margin of 69% to 18% (nearly four to one, with 13%undecided). the respondents answered that "Homosexuality was usually a pathological adaptation as opposed to a normal variation."

This is certainly a more accurate poll than the original APA letter because the letter was subject to all of the "volunteer bias" that self selected populations exhibit. However, by comparison, the 1977 survey was truly random, and so its results should certainly be given more weight.

http://www.inoohr.org/americanpsychiatricassociation.htm

Imagine that.

Thanks for the post - very informative - and not surprising.

I hope certain other groups don't rally and start pressure tactics.

 

[freeandfun1]

Imagine that.

Thanks for the post - very informative - and not surprising.

I hope certain other groups don't rally and start pressure tactics.

They already have. This time though, we need to be vigilant and prevent it from happening. Already there is an effort to "mainstream" pedophilia.

 

[no1tovote4]

They already have. This time though, we need to be vigilant and prevent it from happening. Already there is an effort to "mainstream" pedophilia.

NAMBLA has been an organization for decades. Nobody believes that pedophilia will ever be "mainstreamed", at least nobody that I know does. It is too easy to point to the victim in pedophilia, and every reasonable person that I know realizes that if it isn't between two consenting adults it is simply a crime. The only way they'll be mainstreamed is there no longer will be protection in prisons for such a "special" crime and they will all be mainstreamed directly to genpop.

 

[Gem]

The fact that NAMBLA has been around for awhile but hasn't gained acceptance yet is no indication that it will not fight for acceptance later on. How long have people been homosexual in our society? In the world?

And if you do not believe that it is happening...very, very slowly, but still happening...I would point you in the direction of universities that have begun to offer courses on understanding the man/boy relationships throughout history...

While no one believes that "NAMBLA" and their similar organizations will ever be mainstreamed, I wonder what my great-great-grandfather would have thought about mayors marrying two men on the courthouse steps, or even what my grandmother would have thought about gay pride parades?

I am willing to believe that people a few decades ago would have laughed in your face when you told them that many people in the US really felt that homosexuals should be legally allowed to marry just like a man and woman. It would have been ridiculous and unimaginable.

While I'm not sure we will ever be as accepting of bestiality and/or the idea of man/boy love....I know that most peoples older relatives could never have dreamed of where we are today...times change...the unacceptable becomes first whispered about, then there but uncommented on, then somewhat tolerated, then avant garde, then accepted, then trendy, then popularly and widely accepted...

If you want an interesting example of how the gay agenda is being watched and studied by other fringe groups...you can find some interesting articles about how polygamists are studying the gay struggle for acceptance in order to determine how best to push for their own rights of polygamy.

 

[no1tovote4]

The fact that NAMBLA has been around for awhile but hasn't gained acceptance yet is no indication that it will not fight for acceptance later on. How long have people been homosexual in our society? In the world?

And if you do not believe that it is happening...very, very slowly, but still happening...I would point you in the direction of universities that have begun to offer courses on understanding the man/boy relationships throughout history...

While no one believes that "NAMBLA" and their similar organizations will ever be mainstreamed, I wonder what my great-great-grandfather would have thought about mayors marrying two men on the courthouse steps, or even what my grandmother would have thought about gay pride parades?

I am willing to believe that people a few decades ago would have laughed in your face when you told them that many people in the US really felt that homosexuals should be legally allowed to marry just like a man and woman. It would have been ridiculous and unimaginable.

While I'm not sure we will ever be as accepting of bestiality and/or the idea of man/boy love....I know that most peoples older relatives could never have dreamed of where we are today...times change...the unacceptable becomes first whispered about, then there but uncommented on, then somewhat tolerated, then avant garde, then accepted, then trendy, then popularly and widely accepted...

If you want an interesting example of how the gay agenda is being watched and studied by other fringe groups...you can find some interesting articles about how polygamists are studying the gay struggle for acceptance in order to determine how best to push for their own rights of polygamy.

My point was there is little danger that they will ever be "accepted" such as homosexuality would. Largely from the fact that more than a supermajority of society knows that one "participant" cannot give concent as they do not have the experience and knowledge necessary nor the drive yet for such activity. Since they cannot consent they become victims. This is much like somebody fighting for the sacrifice of children to gods they believe in, while there may be fringes that believe it to be okay, society itself would never be able to encompass such a belief because of the understanding of the victimhood of the child who could not possibly be making a knowledgable choice.

 

[Gem]

No1tovotefor,

While I am almost in complete agreement with you...the cynic in me cautions you not to be so overly confident in the morals of the society we are in today.

Man/boy relationships have existed throughout history...and have been completely accepted at certain times. Key in the formation of this acceptance is the notion that the children are merely young adults..."little people," rather than children who are not capable of making grown up decisions.

While we are a society that takes protecting children very seriously...we are also a society that makes strides every day to make children more grown up then they are.

For example:

- The case in which a mother's tape recording of a minor admitting to criminal activity on her phone line was ruled inadmissible in court because the minor had "a reasonable expection to his right of privacy."
- The over sexualization of minors. The fact that numerous states allow minors to have major surgery (abortions) without the knowledge and/or consent of their parents. Basically these states are saying that the minor is mature enough to decide for herself whether or not potentially dangeous surgery is appropriate for her.


We are a society that says a child can not be executed because they are too young to know what they have done...but that a child can get an abortion without notifying their parents becasue they are old enough to know what they are doing.

Such a strange juxtaposition of values is an indication that we, as a society, are battling a desire to make children "young adults" vs. a desire to protect and nurture the idea of "childhood."

If we succeed in making a child a mini-adult...then the idea of a mini-adult - adult relationship suddenly begins to look more acceptable.

Will it happen overnight? No, of course not. But, as I said before, I would caution you against sitting comfortably in the "its never going to happen" camp...and instead...think about how it could possibly happen...and guard against it.

 

[GotZoom]

No1tovotefor has some good points and I do agree that we ...probably...won't have to worry about that.

However, I agree more with Gem.

There have been many instances where complacentcy has bitten people in the ass. Being aware of what is going on around us - on any size scale - is so important for everyone to do.

But I have a feeling that everybody on this board already does that - isn't that why we are all here?

 

[007]

Will it happen overnight? No, of course not. But, as I said before, I would caution you against sitting comfortably in the "its never going to happen" camp...and instead...think about how it could possibly happen...and guard against it.

I agree with you completely gem. Things change. Some fast, some slow, some with pressure, some without.

Take a look back in time to Colonial America...

Courtship & Marriage in Colonial America


In the South, colonial weddings were held at 11:00 a.m. in the morning at the bride's home. The wedding was the opportunity for drinking and feasting. Some wedding guests would travel some distance for the event and would sleep over night at the bride's home.



Marriage A Business Transaction

For families of consequence, marriage was viewed as a business transaction, love not being made a part of the arrangement. Love was saved for affairs outside of the marriage contract. Marriage, on the other hand, was the institution in which legitimate heirs were produced, a title obtained or additional monies and properties achieved.

The children of poor families had an easier time selecting a mate. Property and money didn't play a role in their decision. Love could be taken into the equation when it came to spouse selection.

A Division of Labor

A marriage in colonial America could be viewed as an absolute partnership with the man and woman having a specific role to fulfill. A man's sphere of influence was in the area of war, politics, and business. Although women did not have a legal right to property ownership, they could hold influence over the running of the internal affairs of the home. A high stationed, literate wife would be expected to handle basic accounting and management affairs within the household. The overseeing of servants in the higher classes also demanded her time in addition to her other traditional duties including child rearing and sewing.

When death took a spouse, little time was put aside for mourning. Within four weeks of a spouse's passing, the surviving spouse might remarry. The challenges of day-to-day living demanded that a partnership always be in place.

When Did Men/Women Marry?

What was the life expectancy
of a typical colonial resident?

The life expectancy of a colonial was short. As many as 50% of all women died in childbirth or from childbed disease. The infant mortality rate was also high. If a child could reach the age of eleven, they stood a better chance at survival. Individuals in their forties and fifties during the 17th century were considered "old." Statistics peering back to the 18th century indicate the average life expectancy was the age of 45!

Early marriage was typically not done for immigrants to Colonial America. Immigrants did not enter into being indentured* until the age of 21. As such, it might be five to seven years before they could marry.

For ladies living in the South during this period, they could marry as young as fourteen.

*indenture: a written agreement or contract which an apprentice is bound to service.

Courtship

The wealthy aristocracy of the Southern colonies arranged marriages of their offspring. A young man simply did not go off on his own and begin a courtship without attending to business first. Restrictions existed on the inheritance a couple received if they married without the permission of their parents. As such, a young man approached his father first before soliciting his attentions to a local girl.

If a young man's father approved of the match, he would write a letter to the girl's father outlining the financial particulars of the match. Upon receipt of a letter from the girl's father approving the match, including his own financial tribute, the couple could commence with their courtship.

Courting took place in the typical places: dances, church, and visiting the young girl's home.

 

[manu1959]

The Catholic Church is the world's largest terrorist organization.

really? i don't recall the swiss guards blowing up anything or shooting anyone

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Such a strange juxtaposition of values is an indication that we, as a society, are battling a desire to make children "young adults" vs. a desire to protect and nurture the idea of "childhood."

No, we are NOT battling a desire to make children "young adults".

We are battling the dangerous mental disorder of liberalism. Liberal sex combined with the porno and pharmacy industries makes for a dangerous combination that is getting out of hand.

Much of this sexual revolution has its roots in the work of Alfred Kinsey who used to be the "guru" of liberal sex. He's the one who said at least one out of ten were homosexuals. This sick man also obtained ongoing reports through child abuse. Today the Kinsey Institute carries on the torch.

Despite full knowledge of the origin of Kinsey's criminal child sexual-abuse "data" in 1998, the Kinsey Institute coolly republished the fraudulent "Kinsey Reports" (1948, 1953) as ethical, accurate science.

Liberalism promotes sexologists such as those from the Kinsey Institute of which 90% of their work is directed toward sexual arousal at younger and younger ages as well as the more elder (think Viagra). Follow the money.

An ongoing attack on puberty as the normal hormonal basis for sexual awakening underpins the Kinsey Institute child-sex frauds and the bad laws that spawned the sex-industrial complex. The Kinsey Institute's Big Porno and Big Pharma experiments and its "Sexual Development in Childhood" are lap dance partners – they advocate for "childhood sexuality" that would justify a lowered age of consent and pornography access for all.

With child pregnancy and venereal-disease vaccines already tested, one mandated (Hepatitis B), and more in the wings, enter the "Brave New World" of Big Pharma. Unless we turn off the "sexology" music fast, America will truly be dancing with the devil.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44043