| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
28 Mar 2005 11:47:58 AM |
| Object: |
ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
Why would any man need another man to provide him with health care
benefits? The advantage of gay partnerships is that there are no
children at home that need attending. Let each man provide his own
health care, just like single straight people do. This notion that one
guy stays home and plays "Donna Reed" while the other one goes to work
should not become a burden on the American health care system. The
people of Michigan (and many other states) have spoken; No gay
marriage. Stop seeking "special" dispensations just because your
different.
http://www.freep.com/news/mich/gay22e_20050322.htm
Despite marriage ban, couples want health care
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit Monday asking the
courts to protect same-sex couples' health benefits in light of a state
constitutional ban on gay marriage.
In the suit, filed in Ingham County Circuit Court, the ACLU asked the
court to stipulate that the ban on gay marriage does not extend to
health care benefits for same-sex partners. The amendment, they said,
is ambiguous.
The ACLU filed the suit less than a week after state Attorney General
Mike Cox issued his legal interpretation about what effect the
amendment should have on health benefits. He concluded that the
amendment bans government agencies from extending benefits to same-sex
couples in any future contract negotiations.
.
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
03 May 2005 06:16:38 PM |
|
|
"Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115161782.010064.10380@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Again, where is the "buy off"? Who died?
I posted it earlier today. I don't save posts. It should be in the news
obits tomorrow. Or maybe in some paper today.
--
"And once activist judges find themselves freed from the constraints imposed
by the Constitution, there will be no practicable limit to the Court's
reach."
--- Robert Yates September 17, 1787
Maverick
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jenn" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
03 May 2005 06:20:19 PM |
|
|
Jenn: > Again, where is the "buy off"? Who died?
Maverick: <<I posted it earlier today. I don't save posts. It should
be in the news
obits tomorrow. Or maybe in some paper today.
Can you give me a clue on what to search for?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Marksman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
03 May 2005 06:23:24 PM |
|
|
"Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message
"The modern definition of a racist:
"The modern definition of a racist: someone who is winning an argument
with Jenn." Sir Marksman (2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
03 May 2005 07:04:54 PM |
|
|
Jenn wrote:
Can you give me a clue on what to search for?
<Thrusts hand enthusiastically and energetically into the air> "Oh! OH!!
ME! I can tell you!!!" <pause> "A dead guy!!!"
--
The psychotic person knows that 2 and 2 makes 5 and is perfectly happy about it; the neurotic person knows that 2 and 2 makes 4, but is terribly worried about it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
03 May 2005 06:38:12 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 May 2005 22:55:59 +0000, "Maverick"
<justgopublic@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:<3kTde.24827$GG5.5497@fe01!news.easynews.com>...
"Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115160545.801858.318070@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Maverick quotes undisclosed source: <<In 1973, the American Psychiatric
Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a
mental disorder from the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of
Mental
Disorders (DSM-II).
This decision was a significant .....>>>
It's difficult to know where to begin on this convoluted tome. For one
thing, supposed info on the "inside job" is supplied by an unnamed
informat. We are to trust that? Second, if the "inside job" was in
place by the American Psychiatric Association, what is to account for
similar findings by the American Psycological Assn, the American Medical
Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the Academy of
Pediatrics, and on and on? Are all of these learned associations also
in on the big fix? Are there other witnesses to what Bayer discribes in
1970? I've certainly never read any. Socarides is a whole story
himself, of course. The leader of NARTH, unable to "cure" his own gay
son. The questions abound. And where is the information on the alleged
payoff?
You don't have to begin at all. Like I said, just hide and watch. (that's
and old farmers phrase meaning just wait and see).
How long can we wait before we start laughing at you?
--
Lurlean Lie #9:
Sodomy is more important to you than anything else.
news:7908c278.0311091020.3d97495b@posting.google.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
03 May 2005 10:34:24 PM |
|
|
Maverick wrote:
"Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115157641.890167.139640@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
Dr. Ronald Bayer explains how homosexual activists captured the APA
for political gain.
Dr. Ronald Bayer, a pro-homosexual psychiatrist has described what
actually
occurred in his book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics
of Diagnosis. (1981)
<snip>
Bzzzttt.. Wrong!! The APA membership voted 58% to 37% to remove
homosexuality from the DSM with 5% of the membership not returning their
ballots. Even if all 5% of the non-voters felt homosexuality to be a
mental disorder, that makes the vote 58% to 42%, a difference of 16%. As
it is, the 21% difference between the two camps would be called a
landslide if this were a political election. The executive board of the
APA agreed and voted unanimously 7-0 to remove homosexuality from the
DSM. In November 1974, months after the conference and initial vote, the
13 member APA board of trustees voted unanimously to uphold the members
decision.
In the past...
The father of modern psychoanalysis is considered to be Sigmund Freud.
Freud felt that a homosexual orientation should not be viewed as a form
of pathology. In a now famous letter to an American mother in 1935,
Freud wrote:
"Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be
ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an
illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function
produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly
respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been
homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them (Plato,
Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to
persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too...." [from the
American Journal of Psychiatry, 1951, 107, 786].
Although psychoanalytic theories of homosexuality have had considerable
medical and social influences in the past, these theories had not been
subjected to rigorous empirical testing prior to 1957. Instead, they had
been based on analysts' clinical observations of patients already known
by therapists to be homosexual.
Two major problems result from this procedure. First, the analyst's
theoretical orientations, expectations, and personal attitudes are
likely to bias her or his observations. This is why scientists take
great pains in their studies to ensure that the researchers who actually
collect the data do not have expectations about how a particular
research participant will respond. An example is the "double blind"
procedure used in many experiments. Such procedures had not been used in
clinical psychoanalytic studies of homosexuality prior to the Hooker study.
A second problem with early psychoanalytic studies is that they have
only examined homosexuals who were already under psychiatric care in
other words, homosexuals who were seeking treatment or therapy. This is
akin to going to dentist waiting rooms and doing a survey of tooth decay
and then announcing that the vast majority of the population has serious
cavity problems.
Patients, however, are probably not representative of well adjusted
individuals in the general population. Just as it would be inappropriate
to draw conclusions about all heterosexuals based only on data from
heterosexual psychiatric patients, we cannot generalize from
observations of homosexual patients to the entire population of gay men
and lesbians.
Although dispassionate scientific research on homosexuality was largely
absent from the fields of psychiatry, psychology, and medicine during
the first half of the twentieth century, some researchers remained
unconvinced that all homosexual individuals were mentally ill or
socially misfit. Berube (1990) reported the results of previously
unpublished studies conducted by military physicians and researchers
during W.W.II. These studies challenged the equation of homosexuality
with psychopathology, as well as the stereotype that homosexual recruits
could not be good soldiers.
A common conclusion in their wartime studies was that, in the words of
Maj. Carl H. Jonas, who studied fifty three white and seven black men at
Camp Haan, California, "overt homosexuality occurs in a heterogeneous
group of individuals." Dr. Clements Fry, director of the Yale University
student clinic, and Edna Rostow, a social worker, who together studied
the service records of 183 servicemen, discovered that there was no
evidence to support the common belief that "homosexuality is uniformly
correlated with specific personality traits" and concluded that
generalizations about the homosexual personality "are not yet reliable."
The Pentagon has commissioned a number of studies - mostly to find
ammunition to continue excluding gays from the military. The forces
biggest claim is that gays are more likely to be blackmailed. In a
closeted military with a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, this may be
correct. In Militaries such as those of Israel and Canada where gays
serve openly, blackmail is not an issue since everybody already knows.
The Pentagon has simply shelved such taxpayer funded studies to gather
dust when the results did not agree with what the military was looking for.
The beginnings or real research...
Today, a large body of published empirical research clearly refutes the
notion that homosexuality per se is indicative of or correlated with
psychopathology. One of the first and most famous published studies in
this area was conducted by psychologist Evelyn Hooker.
Hooker's study
Hooker's (1957) study was innovative in several important respects.
First, rather than simply accepting the predominant view of
homosexuality as pathology, she posed the question of whether
homosexuals and heterosexuals differed in their psychological
adjustment. Second, rather than studying psychiatric patients, she
recruited a sample of homosexual men who were functioning normally in
society. Third, she employed a procedure that asked experts to rate the
adjustment of men without prior knowledge of their sexual orientation.
This method addressed an important source of bias that had been a
feature so many previous studies on homosexuality.
Hooker administered three projective tests (the Rorschach,
Thematic Apperception Test [TAT], and Make-A-Picture-Story [MAPS] Test)
to 30 homosexual males and 30 heterosexual males recruited through
community organizations. The two groups were matched for age, IQ, and
education. None of the men were in therapy at the time of the study.
Unaware of each subject's sexual orientation, two independent
Rorschach experts evaluated the men's overall adjustment using a 5 point
scale. They classified two thirds of the heterosexuals and two thirds of
the homosexuals in the three highest categories of adjustment. When
asked to identify which Rorschach protocols were obtained from
homosexuals, the experts could not distinguish respondents' sexual
orientation at a level better than chance. The were experts who believe
that homosexuality was a mental illness, and yet they could NOT
determine who was homosexual using standard tests.
A third expert used the TAT and MAPS protocols to evaluate the
psychological adjustment of the men. As with the Rorschach responses,
the adjustment ratings of the homosexual and heterosexuals did not
differ significantly.
Hooker concluded from her data that homosexuality as a clinical
entity does not exist and that homosexuality is not inherently
associated with psychopathology.
Hooker's findings have since been replicated by many other
investigators using a variety of research methods. Freedman (1971), for
example, used Hooker's basic design to study lesbian and heterosexual
women. Instead of projective tests, he administered objectively scored
personality tests to the women. His conclusions were similar to those of
Hooker.
Although some investigations published since Hooker's study
have claimed to support the view of homosexuality as pathological, they
have been methodologically weak. Many used only clinical or incarcerated
samples, for example, from which generalizations to the population at
large are not possible. Others failed to safeguard the data collection
procedures from possible biases by the investigators for example, a
man's psychological functioning would be evaluated by his own
psychoanalyst, who was simultaneously treating him for his homosexuality.
Some studies found differences between homosexual and
heterosexual respondents, and then assumed that those differences
indicated pathology in the homosexuals. For example, heterosexual and
homosexual respondents might report different kinds of childhood
experiences or family relationships. It would then be incorrectly
assumed that the patterns reported by the homosexuals indicated
pathology - even though there were no differences in psychological
functioning between the two groups.
The weight of evidence
In a review of published studies comparing homosexual and
heterosexual samples on psychological tests, Gonsiorek (1982) found
that, although some differences have been observed in test results
between homosexuals and heterosexuals, both groups consistently score
within the normal range. Gonsiorek concluded that "Homosexuality in and
of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment.
Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account
of their homosexuality" (Gonsiorek, 1982, p. 74; see also reviews by
Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walston & McKee, 1978;
Reiss, 1980).
Confronted with overwhelming empirical evidence and changing
cultural views of homosexuality, psychiatrists and psychologists have
radically altered their views during the last two decades.
Removal from the DSM
In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled by changing
social norms and the development of an active gay community in the
United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric
Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).
Their decision was supported in 1974 by a vote of the membership. The
APA membership voted 58% to 37% to remove homosexuality from the DSM
with 5% of the membership not returning their ballots. Even if all 5% of
the non voters felt homosexuality to be a mental disorder, that makes
the vote 58% to 42%, a difference of 16%. The 21% difference between the
two camps would be called a landslide if this were a political election.
The executive board of the APA agreed and voted unanimously 7-0 to
remove homosexuality from the DSM. In November 1974, months after the
conference and initial vote, the 13 member APA board of trustees voted
unanimously to uphold the members decision.
Subsequently, a new diagnosis, ego-dystonic homosexuality, was
created for the DSM's third edition in 1980. In 1986, the diagnosis was
removed entirely from the DSM. The only vestige of ego-dystonic
homosexuality in the revised DSM-III occurred under Sexual Disorders Not
Otherwise Specified, which included persistent and marked distress about
one's sexual orientation (American Psychiatric Association, 1987; see
Bayer, 1987, for an account of the events leading up to the 1973 and
1986 decisions).
Reparative Therapy
Some groups, mostly religious or affiliated with religious
organizations, have made the claim that they can "change' or "repair"
homosexuals. The major proponents of this line of thinking is an
organization called NARTH which advocates "reparative therapy".
Examining the claims of NARTH, one finds that even their own published
data, scanty as it is, is internally inconsistent and never actually
claims to "cure" homosexuality, only to modify homosexual behaviour.
NARTH has never given a detailed account of the clinical methodology
used in their "treatments". NARTH have never submitted any of their
findings for publication in reputable peer reviewed journal - rather the
papers appear in the "vanity press" or in publications with strong ties
to religious organization (for reviews, see Haldeman, 1991, 1994).
Another issue is the lack of adequate classification of the patient's
initial sexual orientation. Naturally it is easier for a highly
motivated bi-sexual to repress homosexuality and adopt a heterosexual
behaviour pattern.
There is also a complete absence of any long term follow up of patients
who have undergone this "reparative therapy", or any review of patients
by independent professionals. Without proper follow up study, any
claims made for the efficacy of the therapy are worthless as there is no
data available on the success rate.
The American Psychiatric Association's official web site [
http://www.psych.org/public_info/HOMOSE~1.HTM ] notes that:
"There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of
'reparative therapy' as a treatment to change one's sexual
orientation.... There are a few reports in the literature of efforts to
use psychotherapeutic and counselling techniques to treat persons
troubled by their homosexuality who desire to become heterosexual;
however, results have not been conclusive, nor have they been replicated."
"There is no evidence that any treatment can change a homosexual
person's deep seated sexual feelings for others of the same sex.
Clinical experience suggests that any person who seeks conversion
therapy may be doing so because of social bias that has resulted in
internalized homophobia, and that gay men and lesbians who have accepted
their sexual orientation positively are better adjusted than those who
have not done so."
Reading list
Hooker, E. (1957). The adjustment of the male overt homosexual. Journal
of Projective Techniques, 21, 18-31.
Berube, A. (1990). Coming out under fire: The history of gay men and
women in World War II. New York: Free Press
Gonsiorek, J.C. (1982). Results of psychological testing on homosexual
populations. American Behavioral Scientist, 25 (4), 385-396.
Ford, C.S., & Beach, F.A. (1951). Patterns of sexual behavior. New York:
Harper & Brothers.
Freedman, M. (1971). Homosexuality and psychological functioning.
Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Gonsiorek, J.C. (1991). The empirical basis for the demise of the
illness model of homosexuality. In J. Gonsiorek & J. Weinrich (Eds.),
Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy (pp. 115-136).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Reiss, B.F. (1980). Psychological tests in homosexuality. In J.Marmor
(Ed.), Homosexual behavior: A modern reappraisal (pp. 296-311). New
York: Basic Books.
Bayer, R. (1987). Homosexuality and American psychiatry: The politics of
diagnosis (2nd Ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Haldeman, D.C. (1991). Conversion therapy for gay men and lesbians: A
scientific examination. In J. Gonsiorek & J. Weinrich (Eds.),
Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy (pp. 149-160).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Haldeman, D.C. (1994). The practice and ethics of sexual orientation
conversion therapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62
(2), 221-227.
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
04 May 2005 03:21:39 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 May 2005 23:34:24 -0400, "L. Michael Roberts"
<L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote:
Maverick wrote:
"Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115157641.890167.139640@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
Dr. Ronald Bayer explains how homosexual activists captured the APA
for political gain.
Dr. Ronald Bayer, a pro-homosexual psychiatrist has described what
actually
occurred in his book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics
of Diagnosis. (1981)
<snip>
Bzzzttt.. Wrong!! The APA membership voted 58% to 37% to remove
homosexuality from the DSM with 5% of the membership not returning their
ballots. Even if all 5% of the non-voters felt homosexuality to be a
mental disorder, that makes the vote 58% to 42%, a difference of 16%. As
it is, the 21% difference between the two camps would be called a
landslide if this were a political election. The executive board of the
APA agreed and voted unanimously 7-0 to remove homosexuality from the
DSM. In November 1974, months after the conference and initial vote, the
13 member APA board of trustees voted unanimously to uphold the members
decision.
The above is an example of the Homosexual Dogma that demands that
homosexuals, Lie, Deny and make every effort to Suppress the Truth
about Homosexuality.
Here is the Truth about the APA and its domination by homosexuals:
*****
Exposed: The Myth That Psychiatry Has Proven That Homosexual Behavior
Is Normal
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed
homosexuality as a mental disorder from the APA's Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM-II).
This decision was a significant victory for homosexual activists, and
they have continued to claim that the APA based their decision on new
scientific discoveries that proved that homosexual behavior is normal
and should be affirmed in our culture.
This is false and part of numerous homosexual urban legends that have
infiltrated every aspect of our culture. The removal of homosexuality
as a mental disorder has given homosexual activists credibility in the
culture, and they have demanded that their sexual behavior be affirmed
in society.
What Really Happened?
Numerous psychiatrists over the past decades have described what
forces were really at work both inside and outside of the American
Psychiatric Association-and what led to the removal of homosexuality
as a mental disorder.
Dr. Ronald Bayer explains how homosexual activists captured the APA
for political gain.
Dr. Ronald Bayer, a pro-homosexual psychiatrist has described what
actually occurred in his book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry:
The Politics of Diagnosis. (1981)
In Chapter 4, "Diagnostic Politics: Homosexuality and the American
Psychiatric Association," Dr. Bayer says that the first attack by
homosexual activists against the APA began in 1970 when this
organization held its convention in San Francisco. Homosexual
activists decided to disrupt the conference by interrupting speakers
and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed
homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, homosexual activist Frank
Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate
against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed
the microphone and yelled, "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate.
Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You
may take this as a declaration of war against you."
Homosexuals forged APA credentials and gained access to exhibit areas
in the conference. They threatened anyone who claimed that homosexuals
needed to be cured.
Kameny had found an ally inside of the APA named Kent Robinson who
helped the homosexual activist present his demand that homosexuality
be removed from the DSM. At the 1972 convention, homosexual activists
were permitted to set up a display booth, entitled "Gay, Proud and
Healthy."
Kameny was then permitted to be part of a panel of psychiatrists who
were to discuss homosexuality. The effort to remove homosexuality as a
mental disorder from the DSM was the result of power politics,
threats, and intimidation, not scientific discoveries.
Prior to the APA's 1973 convention, several psychiatrists attempted to
organize opposition to the efforts of homosexuals to remove homosexual
behavior from the DSM. Organizing this effort were Drs. Irving Bieber
and Charles Socarides who formed the Ad Hoc Committee Against the
Deletion of Homosexuality from DSM-II.
The DSM-II listed homosexuality as an abnormal behavior under section
"302. Sexual Deviations." It was the first deviation listed.
After much political pressure, a committee of the APA met behind
closed doors in 1973 and voted to remove homosexuality as a mental
disorder from the DSM-II. Opponents of this effort were given 15
minutes to protest this change, according to Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, in
Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Satinover writes that after
this vote was taken, the decision was to be voted on by the entire APA
membership. The National Gay Task Force purchased the APA's mailing
list and sent out a letter to the APA members urging them to vote to
remove homosexuality as a disorder. No APA member was informed that
the mailing had been funded by this homosexual activist group.
According to Satinover, "How much the 1973 APA decision was motivated
by politics is only becoming clear even now. While attending a
conference in England in 1994, I met a man who told me an account that
he had told no one else. He had been in the gay life for years but had
left the lifestyle. He recounted how after the 1973 APA decision, he
and his lover, along with a certain very highly placed officer of the
APA Board of Trustees and his lover, all sat around the officer's
apartment celebrating their victory. For among the gay activists
placed high in the APA who maneuvered to ensure a victory was this
man-suborning from the top what was presented to both the membership
and the public as a disinterested search for truth."
Dr. Socarides Speaks Out
Dr. Satinover shows how APA's policies were influenced by closeted
homosexual APA leaders.
Dr. Charles Socarides has set the record straight on how homosexuals
inside and outside of the APA forced this organization to remove
homosexuality as a mental disorder. This was done without any valid
scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality is not a disordered
behavior.
Dr. Socarides, writing in Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The
Issue of Homosexuality writes: "To declare a condition a
'non-condition,' a group of practitioners had removed it from our list
of serious psychosexual disorders. The action was all the more
remarkable when one considers that it involved an out-of-hand and
peremptory disregard and dismissal not only of hundreds of psychiatric
and psychoanalytic research papers and reports, but also a number of
other serious studies by groups of psychiatrists, psychologists, and
educators over the past seventy years…"
Socarides continued: "For the next 18 years, the APA decision served
as a Trojan horse, opening the gates to widespread psychological and
social change in sexual customs and mores. The decision was to be used
on numerous occasions for numerous purposes with the goal of
normalizing homosexuality and elevating it to an esteemed status.
"To some American psychiatrists, this action remains a chilling
reminder that if scientific principles are not fought for, they can be
lost-a disillusioning warning that unless we make no exceptions to
science, we are subject to the snares of political factionalism and
the propagation of untruths to an unsuspecting and uninformed public,
to the rest of the medical profession, and to the behavioral
sciences." Dr. Socarides' report is available from the National
Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality:
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DSM
The DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) is the
most widely used diagnostic reference book utilized by mental health
professionals in the United States.
It's a manual by which all diagnostic codes are derived for diagnosis
and treatment - every single physician (an estimated 850,000*) in the
United States refers to this book in order to code for a diagnosis. In
plain English, what does this mean? It means that for over 30 years
physicians have been prevented from properly diagnosing homosexuality
as an aberrant behavior and thus, cannot, recommend a course of
treatment for these individuals.
Prior to that time, homosexuality had been treated as a mental
disorder under section "302. Sexual Deviations" in the DSM-II. Section
302 said, in part: "This category is for individuals whose sexual
interests are directed primarily toward objects other than people of
the opposite sex, toward sexual acts … performed under bizarre
circumstances. … Even though many find their practices distasteful,
they remain unable to substitute normal sexual behavior for them."
Homosexuality was listed as the first sexual deviation under 302. Once
that diagnostic code for homosexuality was removed, physicians,
including psychiatrists, have been prevented from diagnosing
homosexuality as a mental disorder for more than three decades.
*American Medical Association statistic, 2002.
***********
http://tinyurl.com/67kdv
***********
More information on the APA:
The APA's and the Pedophilia Controversy
For many years now, psychology has been locked into a philosophical
quandary. Is "mental illness" something that's unhealthy according to
an objective, scientifically "neutral" standard? The truth is, there
are no universally agreed upon, external validating criteria that can
objectively prove most psychiatric diagnoses to be illnesses.
This problem has come to the fore now in the case of pedophilia. Child
molestation is illegal and our culture considers it morally wrong--but
some clinicians say an attraction to children can't be considered a
mental illness.
APA Reverses Diagnostic Change on Pedophilia
Recent changes in the APA's diagnostic manual may have encouraged
pedophile advocates.
In an earlier version of the diagnostic manual (DSM-III) , the
American Psychiatric Association contended that merely acting upon
one's urges toward children was considered sufficient to generate a
diagnosis of pedophilia.
But then a few years later, in the DSM-IV, the APA changed its
criteria in a way that made room for the psychologically normal type
of pedophile. A person who molested children was considered to have a
psychiatric disorder only if his actions "caused clinically
significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other
important areas of functioning." In other words, a man who molested
children without remorse, and without experiencing significant
impairment in his social and work relationships, could be
diagnosed--at least theoretically--as a "psychologically normal" type
of pedophile. NARTH brought that DSM shift to public attention.
The APA stated categorically that it had, in fact, no intention of
normalizing pedophilia. However, "man-boy love" advocates cheered the
DSM shift as good news, and a door appeared to be opened, because soon
afterward, a major journal published a pedophile-friendly
meta-analysis of the evidence surrounding the effects of, in
particular, homosexual pedophilia.
After that version of the DSM was issued and before the next one
appeared, an event occurred which may have encouraged the psychiatric
association to rethink the effects of its shift in diagnostic
criteria. "The political storm of the century" hit the field of
psychology. According to the March 2002 issue of the Psychological
Association's official journal, the American Psychologist, that storm
hit "with gale-force winds raging from the media, congressional
leaders, states legislatures, and conservative grassroots
organizations."
The fiasco the Psychological Association was referring to had followed
its own publication of a controversial study by Rind, et al. which
concluded that man-boy, "consensual" sexual relationships were not
necessarily harmful and might even be positive. The Rind study marked
the first time, the APA said, that it had been called into the public
arena to defend publication of a study.
******
Don't trust the APA (at least around your children.)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
29 Apr 2005 01:39:28 PM |
|
|
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:5au471lm3d29jtleuonceottga27gm27oo@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 07:00:55 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
You argument is flawed from the git-go. There is no such thing as an
unmarried spouse. Why do you waste time with such BULL *****, boy?
If you go any further right, you'll fall of the edge of the world.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
29 Apr 2005 04:48:39 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:39:28 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
<unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote:
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:5au471lm3d29jtleuonceottga27gm27oo@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 07:00:55 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
You argument is flawed from the git-go. There is no such thing as an
unmarried spouse. Why do you waste time with such BULL *****, boy?
If you go any further right, you'll fall of the edge of the world.
Thank ya, thank ya vera much.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Duke Kahanamoku" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
29 Apr 2005 02:14:29 AM |
|
|
Sanders Kaufman wrote:
"Duke Kahanamoku" <longboard@oldtimers.org> wrote in message
news:d4sl8n$pj0$1@services.kq.no...
Maverick wrote:
What state benefits are you talking about. I don't think there are many
state benefits for married couples. There might be a state income tax
benefit, but that would be small, so if that's your only beef with SSM,
then you can have it.
That, of course, TOTALLY overlooks the Right to Life and the Right to Equal
Protection before the Law.
I didn't overlook them. We are now talking about a married couple, since
a same sex marriage license granted in one state is recognized in all of
them.
Medical rights - unmarried spouses don't have the right to give consent for
medical treatment.
A same sex married couple would have this right.
Insurance rights - unmarried couples are often denied the right to have
their spouse covered as a "family member".
A same sex married couple would have this right.
Adoption rights - unmarried couples are often denied the right (and
responsiblity) of caring for children.
A same sex married couple would have this right.
There are others.
Estate rights - unmarried spouses don't have a right to their partner's
estate.
Legal rights - unmarried couples are denied the right to remain silent about
confidential communiqes between family members.
Human Rights - unmarried couples are often denied the right to share
state-sponsored welfare benefits.
The list goes on, and on, and on, and on.
A same sex married couple would have all those rights.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dusty.Rhodes" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
28 Apr 2005 02:56:28 PM |
|
|
wrote:
It's troubling for me too. As a conservative, I don't want to amend
the
constitution. I think it should be a state's right to determine who
can
legally get married and who's marriage a state recognizes.
Honest to goodness conservatives believe in state's rights, and
upholding the Constitution. Neo-cons, on the other hand, are often
conservative in name only. They favor big government, and governmental
intervention on personal matters. Some of us see the neo-con fraud for
what it is.
Hang on, if one state approves same sex marriage, then all states must
recognize marriages authorized by that state. That's already a federal
law, yes?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
28 Apr 2005 04:22:21 PM |
|
|
"Dusty.Rhodes" <knothole.club@cheney.com> wrote in message
news:d4rf5b$8i4$1@services.kq.no...
rms1@my-deja.com wrote:
It's troubling for me too. As a conservative, I don't want to amend
the
constitution. I think it should be a state's right to determine who
can
legally get married and who's marriage a state recognizes.
Honest to goodness conservatives believe in state's rights, and
upholding the Constitution. Neo-cons, on the other hand, are often
conservative in name only. They favor big government, and governmental
intervention on personal matters. Some of us see the neo-con fraud for
what it is.
Hang on, if one state approves same sex marriage, then all states must
recognize marriages authorized by that state. That's already a federal
law, yes?
No, as a matter of fact it is not. If it was, a doctor would not have to get
a license to practice in a second state, a lawyer would not have to get a
license to practice in a second state, a CCW permit holder would not have to
get a license to carry in a second state and so on ad infinitum. Those
matters are handled by the instrument commonly known as a "reciprical
agreement". What people seem to trying to overlook is that the individual
states have the retained power to determine their own social diversity and
they mainly exercise that power by way of the granting of licenses to do
certain things. Some states allow cousins to marry but others do not have to
recognize those marriages and so what usually happens when the need to
recognize one is that the "receiving state legislature" will very quietly
pass a variance for the one married couple. They can either pass it or deny
it. Texas, just recently either passed or refused to pass (I didn't pay
attention to it) a bill to raise the legal age to marry from 14 to 16 with
parental consent. Other states that have 18 as the age of majority do not
have to honor that.
Why in the world people want to cram us all into the same Sardine can is
beyond me. If that's what the future of America is going to look like, a
bunch robots being controlled by 5 people in black robes in Washington DC,
I'm thankful that I'm slowly fading out of the picture.
This country was built by some pretty brave, rugged individualistic folks. I
honestly don't think the current generation could even build a vocabulary.
--
5 false pretenses for Mr. Baker
Claiming that Loving grants a civil right called "marriage", for one.
Claiming that kids raised by homosexuals do not turn to homosexuality, when
the University of Illinois research proves otherwise, for two. Claiming
homosexuality harms no one yet turns a deaf ear when those harms a pointed
out to them, for three. Claiming homosexuals want to be treated just like
everyone else while they start their own "homosexuals only" school in New
York and the others they are trying to form in Dallas, Texas and Tulsa,
Oklahoma and other places, for four. Claiming that homosexuals want to marry
because of love but when it is pointed out to them that they can already do
they, the say that's not good enough because they don't get state granted
benefits, for five.
Maverick
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
29 Apr 2005 01:43:36 AM |
|
|
"Maverick" <justgopublic@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:hucce.5814587$Zm5.890551@news.easynews.com...
"Dusty.Rhodes" <knothole.club@cheney.com> wrote in message
Hang on, if one state approves same sex marriage, then all states must
recognize marriages authorized by that state. That's already a federal
law, yes?
No, as a matter of fact it is not. If it was, a doctor would not have to
get
a license to practice in a second state, a lawyer would not have to get a
Your stated belief that marriage laws regulate the Medical Profession this
way is as insane as your dishonesty in the matter is evil.
..
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dusty.Rhodes" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
28 Apr 2005 04:32:23 PM |
|
|
Maverick wrote:
"Dusty.Rhodes" <knothole.club@cheney.com> wrote in message
news:d4rf5b$8i4$1@services.kq.no...
rms1@my-deja.com wrote:
It's troubling for me too. As a conservative, I don't want to amend
the
constitution. I think it should be a state's right to determine who
can
legally get married and who's marriage a state recognizes.
Honest to goodness conservatives believe in state's rights, and
upholding the Constitution. Neo-cons, on the other hand, are often
conservative in name only. They favor big government, and governmental
intervention on personal matters. Some of us see the neo-con fraud for
what it is.
Hang on, if one state approves same sex marriage, then all states must
recognize marriages authorized by that state. That's already a federal
law, yes?
No, as a matter of fact it is not. If it was, a doctor would not have to get
a license to practice in a second state,
We're talking about marriage. I am quite sure that if you get married in
any state of the union, your marriage must be recognized by all states.
Do you really mean that if you and your wife move the family to another
state you have to get a new marriage license for that state?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
28 Apr 2005 04:50:13 PM |
|
|
"Dusty.Rhodes" <knothole.club@cheney.com> wrote in message
news:d4rkp8$j1i$1@services.kq.no...
Maverick wrote:
"Dusty.Rhodes" <knothole.club@cheney.com> wrote in message
news:d4rf5b$8i4$1@services.kq.no...
rms1@my-deja.com wrote:
It's troubling for me too. As a conservative, I don't want to amend
the
constitution. I think it should be a state's right to determine who
can
legally get married and who's marriage a state recognizes.
Honest to goodness conservatives believe in state's rights, and
upholding the Constitution. Neo-cons, on the other hand, are often
conservative in name only. They favor big government, and governmental
intervention on personal matters. Some of us see the neo-con fraud for
what it is.
Hang on, if one state approves same sex marriage, then all states must
recognize marriages authorized by that state. That's already a federal
law, yes?
No, as a matter of fact it is not. If it was, a doctor would not have to
get
a license to practice in a second state,
We're talking about marriage. I am quite sure that if you get married in
any state of the union, your marriage must be recognized by all states.
I think if you check into it, you will find that not to be the case or that
some states have an agreement to do so. Why else would they have felt the
need to jump on the DOMA band wagon? My guess is that it was the simplest
way to over-ride any agreements the individual states might have had.
Do you really mean that if you and your wife move the family to another
state you have to get a new marriage license for that state?
No, not at all. But I can tell you this from my over 30 years working in a
welfare office. A couple of 16 year old marrieds coming into my state that
had an 18 year old age requirement, did NOT get welfare. In most states, if
you are a new resident, you only have from 30 to 90 days to change all your
licenses over to the new state. That's an edict laid down by those
reciprical agreements.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Duke Kahanamoku" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
29 Apr 2005 01:39:29 AM |
|
|
Maverick wrote:
"Dusty.Rhodes" <knothole.club@cheney.com> wrote in message
news:d4rkp8$j1i$1@services.kq.no...
Maverick wrote:
"Dusty.Rhodes" <knothole.club@cheney.com> wrote in message
news:d4rf5b$8i4$1@services.kq.no...
rms1@my-deja.com wrote:
It's troubling for me too. As a conservative, I don't want to amend
the
constitution. I think it should be a state's right to determine who
can
legally get married and who's marriage a state recognizes.
Honest to goodness conservatives believe in state's rights, and
upholding the Constitution. Neo-cons, on the other hand, are often
conservative in name only. They favor big government, and governmental
intervention on personal matters. Some of us see the neo-con fraud for
what it is.
Hang on, if one state approves same sex marriage, then all states must
recognize marriages authorized by that state. That's already a federal
law, yes?
No, as a matter of fact it is not. If it was, a doctor would not have to
get
a license to practice in a second state,
We're talking about marriage. I am quite sure that if you get married in
any state of the union, your marriage must be recognized by all states.
I think if you check into it, you will find that not to be the case or that
some states have an agreement to do so. Why else would they have felt the
need to jump on the DOMA band wagon? My guess is that it was the simplest
way to over-ride any agreements the individual states might have had.
Your guess? I'm sure your guess is incorrect. I'm sure Andrealphus is
correct. A marriage license authorized in any state must be recognized
in all of the states.
Do you really mean that if you and your wife move the family to another
state you have to get a new marriage license for that state?
No, not at all. But I can tell you this from my over 30 years working in a
welfare office. A couple of 16 year old marrieds coming into my state that
had an 18 year old age requirement, did NOT get welfare.
But that isn't relevant.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
28 Apr 2005 04:49:02 PM |
|
|
"Dusty.Rhodes" <knothole.club@cheney.com> wrote in message
news:d4rkp8$j1i$1@services.kq.no...
Maverick wrote:
"Dusty.Rhodes" <knothole.club@cheney.com> wrote in message
news:d4rf5b$8i4$1@services.kq.no...
rms1@my-deja.com wrote:
It's troubling for me too. As a conservative, I don't want to amend
the
constitution. I think it should be a state's right to determine who
can
legally get married and who's marriage a state recognizes.
Honest to goodness conservatives believe in state's rights, and
upholding the Constitution. Neo-cons, on the other hand, are often
conservative in name only. They favor big government, and governmental
intervention on personal matters. Some of us see the neo-con fraud for
what it is.
Hang on, if one state approves same sex marriage, then all states must
recognize marriages authorized by that state. That's already a federal
law, yes?
No, as a matter of fact it is not. If it was, a doctor would not have to
get
a license to practice in a second state,
We're talking about marriage. I am quite sure that if you get married in
any state of the union, your marriage must be recognized by all states.
You'll have to forgive Maverick, his mother dropped him on his head,
repeatedly. What the Full Faith and Credit clause protects, as set through
legal precidence, are common certificates and common licenses. Birth
Certificates, Death Certificates, Marriage Certificates, High School/College
Diplomas from acredited schools, etc. A Doctor's License, naturally, is a
professional license, and therefore falls under a different set of rules for
reasons of public safety.
Do you really mean that if you and your wife move the family to another
state you have to get a new marriage license for that state?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
28 Apr 2005 07:03:24 PM |
|
|
"Dusty.Rhodes" <knothole.club@cheney.com> wrote in message
news:d4rkp8$j1i$1@services.kq.no...
Maverick wrote:
"Dusty.Rhodes" <knothole.club@cheney.com> wrote in message
Hang on, if one state approves same sex marriage, then all states must
recognize marriages authorized by that state. That's already a federal
law, yes?
No, as a matter of fact it is not. If it was, a doctor would not have to
get
a license to practice in a second state,
We're talking about marriage. I am quite sure that if you get married in
any state of the union, your marriage must be recognized by all states.
Do you really mean that if you and your wife move the family to another
state you have to get a new marriage license for that state?
COOL!
I could re-do my wedding!
Just the excuse I need to wear that gown again.....
Susan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
28 Apr 2005 10:49:25 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 23:32:23 +0200, "Dusty.Rhodes"
<knothole.club@cheney.com> wrote:
Maverick wrote:
"Dusty.Rhodes" <knothole.club@cheney.com> wrote in message
news:d4rf5b$8i4$1@services.kq.no...
rms1@my-deja.com wrote:
It's troubling for me too. As a conservative, I don't want to amend
the
constitution. I think it should be a state's right to determine who
can
legally get married and who's marriage a state recognizes.
Honest to goodness conservatives believe in state's rights, and
upholding the Constitution. Neo-cons, on the other hand, are often
conservative in name only. They favor big government, and governmental
intervention on personal matters. Some of us see the neo-con fraud for
what it is.
Hang on, if one state approves same sex marriage, then all states must
recognize marriages authorized by that state. That's already a federal
law, yes?
No, as a matter of fact it is not. If it was, a doctor would not have to get
a license to practice in a second state,
We're talking about marriage. I am quite sure that if you get married in
any state of the union, your marriage must be recognized by all states.
Do you really mean that if you and your wife move the family to another
state you have to get a new marriage license for that state?
DOMA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jenn" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
29 Apr 2005 12:57:02 AM |
|
|
<<<DOMA
Article IV of the Constitution.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
29 Apr 2005 01:32:38 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 03:49:25 GMT, drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following
Do you really mean that if you and your wife move the family to another
state you have to get a new marriage license for that state?
DOMA
Which violates the Constitution of the U*nited States. Specifically:
Article. IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts,
Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the
Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts,
Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Dozens of Supreme Court rulings support that a marriage in one state
is a marriage in them all.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
29 Apr 2005 07:16:24 AM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:a2l37199djaqf6r1f8ord6kab919vqqdm2@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 03:49:25 GMT, drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following
Do you really mean that if you and your wife move the family to another
state you have to get a new marriage license for that state?
DOMA
Which violates the Constitution of the U*nited States. Specifically:
Article. IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts,
Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the
Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts,
Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Dozens of Supreme Court rulings support that a marriage in one state
is a marriage in them all.
--
That does not mean anything. See Loving and Skinner for an example,
according to the homosexual community.
Anyhow, it is excepted by the Tenth Amendment.
--
5 false pretenses for Mr. Baker
Claiming that Loving grants a civil right called "marriage", for one.
Claiming that kids raised by homosexuals do not turn to homosexuality, when
the University of Illinois research proves otherwise, for two. Claiming
homosexuality harms no one yet turns a deaf ear when those harms a pointed
out to them, for three. Claiming homosexuals want to be treated just like
everyone else while they start their own "homosexuals only" school in New
York and the others they are trying to form in Dallas, Texas and Tulsa,
Oklahoma and other places, for four. Claiming that homosexuals want to marry
because of love but when it is pointed out to them that they can already do
they, the say that's not good enough because they don't get state granted
benefits, for five.
Maverick
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
29 Apr 2005 01:52:49 AM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:a2l37199djaqf6r1f8ord6kab919vqqdm2@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 03:49:25 GMT, drained his beer,
Dozens of Supreme Court rulings support that a marriage in one state
is a marriage in them all.
Change that to "lawful marriage", and you would be correct.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
29 Apr 2005 11:05:14 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 06:52:49 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
<unsentt@kaufman.net> drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism
beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:a2l37199djaqf6r1f8ord6kab919vqqdm2@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 03:49:25 GMT, drained his beer,
Dozens of Supreme Court rulings support that a marriage in one state
is a marriage in them all.
Change that to "lawful marriage", and you would be correct.
Point. But if two men are lawfully married in Mass., then by law and
tradition they are married in all fifty states
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
29 Apr 2005 11:47:32 AM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:vmm471tsj6f2f7onsbr787gv70gotqnitb@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 06:52:49 | | | | | | | | |
