NOM BLOG

Former APA President Says APA Stances on Gay Issues No Longer Based on Science

 

LifeSiteNews:

A former president of the American Psychological Association (APA), who also introduced the motion to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness in 1975, says that the APA has been taken over by “ultraliberals” beholden to the “gay rights movement,” who refuse to allow an open debate on reparative therapy for homosexuality.

Dr. Nicholas Cummings was President of the APA from 1979 to 1980, and also served as a member of the organization’s Council of Representatives. He served for years as Chief of Mental Health with the Kaiser-Permanente Health Maintenance Organization, and is the author of the book “Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm.”

...The APA “started changing pretty drastically by the late 1980s,” said Cummings.  “By the mid 1990s, the Leona Tyler principle was absolutely forgotten, that political stances seemed to override any scientific results. Cherry-picking results became the mode. The gay rights movement sort of captured the APA.”

Cummings says that the movement for “diversity” in the APA, which he endorsed, had resulted in a lack of diversity regarding heterosexuals.

114 Comments

  1. OvercameSSA
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

    "The APA “started changing pretty drastically by the late 1980s,” said Cummings."

    Late 1980s? I'd say it started changing pretty drastically as soon as they "normalized" homosexuality in 1975. Up to that point they were still handling psychology as a science, seeking to treat and prevent mental disorders rather than taking them off the list. Now, thousands of children throw their hands up and label themselves as homosexual at the slightest inkling of same-sex attraction. What an injustice.

  2. Jim
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

    @OvercameSSA - Hi. I'm a teacher. In the evenings and on weekends, I volunteer with an outreach program. I'm in a happy, committed relationship. My family and I go on trips every once in a while. I'm in good physical health--I like running, swimming, and hiking. I don't make a lot of money, but I manage to save some every month.

    I'm also gay.

    How is my sexuality a disorder?

  3. Pete
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

    Wow, NOM, you are moving fast from anti-gay group to full-fledge hate group.

  4. 14th Amend
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

    Right, it's the APA and its 137,000 members whose work isn't rooted in science and the one anti-gay wacko (who continues to push theories and treatments that have been overwhelmingly rejected by his peers) whose work is. Tell us another one NOM.

  5. flanoggin
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

    We do not need to be repaired....we are not broken....

  6. GZeus
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

    This is par for the course with NOM. They find a few scientists that agree with them, a few incestuous or polygamous people who want marriage, or a few cases where anti-SSM folk have been fired or sued and they then claim "See, told ya".

  7. OvercameSSA
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

    I'm through answering questions here; it's becoming the homosexualists' sport, I think, to come and ask the same questions over and over again.

    Here's what I propose, if you have a question to ask me, answer the opposite question first. Then I'll counter your answer.

  8. OvercameSSA
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

    Jim - I;m going to assume that you believe that since you can do a bunch of things that have nothing to do with your sexual preference, then that means you do not have a mental disorder.

    I say that if you were born with a penis and do not have the mental inclination to use it for the physiological purpose for which it exists, then that is a mental disorder. Similar to guys with certain mental disorder can't get an erection; they have the equipment, but their minds won't let them use it for its intended purpose.

  9. Randy E King
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

    Come on Fella's you can really make this a lot easier on yourselves. Just copy and save the folowing as Clipart and then copy/ paste:

    "No it isn't" "So what"

    No need to thank me; just happy to help. ;)

  10. OvercameSSA
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

    GZeus -

    You guys are funny. Homosexuals decide they want to drive public opinion in favor of homosexuality, so they force the APA to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder, then a bunch of them conduct biased "research" studies "concluding" that homosexuals are the best parents ever. Meanwhile, an uninterested party calls out the APA on its bias, and NOM is accused of producing selective information. Puhlease.

  11. GZeus
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

    Opposite Question 1: Is Overcame happy?
    Opposite Answer: yes. He is not at all bitter that after fighting his innermost feelings to settle for a loveless marriage, the gays are making strides in society, effectively leaving him behind.

  12. OvercameSSA
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

    JIm - I'm waiting for NOM to release my response to you.

    In addition to that response, I was going to call attention to the strange propensity for same-sex couples to adopt male-female gender roles in their relationships. That seems to be mentally disordered in that homosexuals claim to not be attracted to members of the opposite sex, yet they're attracted to members of the same sex who act and even dress and groom themselves like members of the opposite sex. That seems spot-on mentally normal to you, does it?

  13. LEO
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

    Jim,

    you are pretending to be happy it not the sames. Your delusion runs deep you seriously do need help.

  14. OvercameSSA
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

    Loveless marriage? Did I miss something?

  15. Good News
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

    # 1 You said it Overcame. And those thousands of kids will be told by their teachers media, advertisement, movies and people like some of our fellow posters) that they are gay! and that they were born that way! And that if they don't want to develop those habits, but get sexual pleasure from the opposite sex, than they have a mental disorder and should see the doctor in order to feel comfortable with the homosexual person that they are. And get married with the same sex. And go to the doctor when they want a baby etc. Unjust is a mild word.

    NOM – standing up for the protection of the 80 to 97 percent of children and youth who were not born that way, but who could develop habits that way.

  16. Bruce
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

    It's important to note that Dr.Cummings does NOT subscribe to the notion that gays are able to change and SHOULD seek reparative therapy. In a 2007 interview with Warren Throckmorton, he reports that most of his work with gay men has resulted in their attaining "sane, sexually responsible gay lives." He considers this a positive outcome.

    http://www.bloggernews.net/15451

  17. Posted June 8, 2012 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

    Overcame:

    It's just that JZuice apparently practices long range telepathic marriage counseling, among other comparably-developed professional skills.

  18. leehawks
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

    Why do you trolls come here? Your arguments are all substandard and we will NEVER agree with you. You've never changed anyones' mind and you never listen....at all. Why don't you leave this site and go where someone cares what you think.

  19. Zack
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

    It doesn't just apply to psycology. Radical left-wingers have hijacked every field of science and politicized it.

  20. OvercameSSA
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

    Good News, that's hilarious: if someone with same-sex attraction decides that he does not want that attraction, HE is the one with the mental disorder! I Love it!

  21. James
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    So loving another human being of the same sex is reflective of "mental illness", but talking to invisible men who live in the sky and thinking that ghosts speak through you in unintelligible languages while you roll around on the floor like a fish out of water is not?

    Um, ok. What planet is this again?

  22. James
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 3:58 pm | Permalink

    Zack writes: "It doesn't just apply to psycology. Radical left-wingers have hijacked every field of science and politicized it."

    Okay, Zack. Next time you develop a skin infection or should you develop some unfortunate illness, don't go to a doctor. Have your priest or pastor "lay hands" over you and mutter a few incantations.

    Let us know how that works out for you.

  23. Good News
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 4:00 pm | Permalink

    @Overcame
    Glad you find it funny. I find it scary ;-)
    If this continues, in the near future anyone insisting that they are a heterosexual will be considered psychologically imbalanced; since they will be teaching us that we are all bisexual (multi-sexual).

  24. Zack
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

    @James

    Ignorance must be bliss. You clearly have no idea to what issue I was referring too. But it's okay, I forgive you.

  25. OvercameSSA
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

    Richard -

    We know this much from the article: There are, in fact, people who have identified as homosexuals who have successfully adopted happy heterosexual lives. So the proposed law in Cali to make reparative therapy illegal is based on the faulty premise that reparative therapy is not only unsuccessful, but harmful.

    The other thing I gathered from the article is that the treatment of these homosexuals was premised on the notion that its ok to be homosexual; that is, none of the homosexuals who came in and said that they didn't want to be homosexual because it was "wrong" were ever encouraged to hold on to the belief that it was wrong. So, certainly some of these people were talked out of their desire to no longer be homosexual by changing their attitudes towards homosexuality. That's like telling an alcoholic that it's ok to drink.

  26. Good News
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

    @James
    Homosexuality Its not a mental illness, nor is it unnatural.
    But it is a potential social illness. And it is unnatural to tell a child that his two parents are of the same sex.

  27. OvercameSSA
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

    Richard - sorry, previous comment was meant in reply to Bruce.

  28. Posted June 8, 2012 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

    Good News:

    The rapidly diminishing credibility of politicized "Big Science" Ops (see "global warming" for the game changer) applies in spades to the ridiculously obvious homosexualist takeover of the APA.

    What we are witnessing this year is the collapse of the Great Facade; in finance, in economics, in morals, in culture.

    The Emperor Has No Clothes, but he still has the New York Times and the Washington Post.

  29. Randy E King
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

    @Bruce

    So when the good doctor appears to agree with your position he is being reasonable, but when his observations run counter to your agenda he is a quack?

  30. OvercameSSA
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

    "talking to invisible men who live in the sky"

    Ah, yes, this is how "enlightened" people mock people who believe in God, as if by belittling the concept they have somehow provided a counter argument to it.

    Silly atheists, so smart to know what they know; but not smart enough to know what they do not.

  31. OvercameSSA
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

    Jim misinterprets: "loving another human being of the same sex is reflective of "mental illness"

    No, Jim; it's perfectly normal to love someone of the same sex. It's mentally disordered to not have the instinct to use your reproductive organs on the sex that you can actually reproduce with and to have that be the basis of forming a couple with someone of the same sex. It's clearly imitative of a heterosexual relationship (as I've mentioned in the m/f gender adoption of ss couples), even in the desire to have children, yet it shuns reproductive behavior.

  32. Ash
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

    This is going to be a long post, but my posts are usually pretty lengthy :)

    Glad to hear more from Dr. Cummings. I’ve actually heard him speak in person and appreciated his experience, knowledge, and testimonies of working in San Francisco during a time when gays first began to openly live their lives.

    He has some thorough criticisms of the APA, and as a former president and current member, he is well-suited to shed some light on these matters.

    I love his writings on the Leona Tyler principle, which has been abandoned, in practice, by the APA. It pretty much states that the APA will not take positions on issues unless it is supported by the best scientific evidence. In his books and writings, Dr. Cummings lays out a number of instances where the APA has violated this principle.

    Although he supports ssm, he said that the APA’s endorsement of it was unbearably flimsy in terms of science and research. By abandoning the Leona Tyler principle, he fears (and it is a genuine fear, because he loves the APA) that the organization will lose all credibility with the public and will simply be seen as another loud lobbying voice.

    One flagrant violation of the Leona Tyler principle is the APA’s position on same-sex parenting. If there is any area where the organization is speaking beyond the realm of scientific evidence, it is the area of same-sex parenting.

    In his book, Eleven Blunders that Cripple Psychotherapy in America, Dr. Cummings speaks of a private communication that he had with a psychologist at Yale University, who was also on the board of directors for the Connecticut branch of the APA. She was asked to sign an amicus brief on lesbian and gay parenting, and expressed concerns to the APA’s Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Concerns Office about the way the research was being generalized in an inappropriate fashion.

    In response, one of the officials changed the brief’s title to alleviate her concerns. The title literally went from: “Gay and Lesbian Parents are as Fit and Capable as Heterosexual Parents, and Their Children are as Psychologically Healthy and Well Adjusted” to “There is No Scientific Basis for Concluding that Gay and Lesbian Parents are Any Less Fit or Capable than Heterosexual Parents, or that Their Children are Any Less Psychologically Healthy and Well Adjusted.”

    But even Dr. Cumming’s discussion of the APA’s work on the issue of same-sex parenting is not as thorough as the recent review by Loren Marks. I recommend that all marriage supporters read this excellent (“excellent” is an understatement) piece by Marks, where she examines the APA’s 2005 paper on lesbian and gay parenting, written by Charlotte Patterson (surprise, surprise).

    Please read it, but here are a few notable items, clearly demonstrating the APA’s bias:

    -They attempt to generalize findings of the studies to the overall population (racial minorities, Americans with meager education, gay men, etc.) though the studies focus on White, educated, middle to upper class, lesbian women.

    -Of the 59 studies cited in the brief, only 33 even involved a heterosexual comparison group, and in 13 of the 33, the authors explicitly stated that the comparison groups involved single or divorced parents (the remaining 20 used generic terms such as “mother” or “couple” to describe the comparison group sample).

    -Although the brief claimed that there was not a *single* scientific study to show that children raised by same-sex couples are disadvantaged as compared to “heterosexual” couples, there is one study the brief includes in the footnotes which actually showed that children raised by a married mother and father fared best, children raised by cohabitating couples fared second best, and children raised by homosexual couples ranked third on a number of measures. Needless to say, this study was more rigorous and objective than the long line of “no differences” studies; and the author had published textbooks on research methodology. But Patterson only cited it in a footnote to dismiss it as invalid, because it bucked against the prevailing “no differences” mantra, and because it was published in a lesser known journal.

    -All of the outcomes investigated by these studies are not ones of societal concern, as are most outcomes measured in studies which focus on family structure and child well-being. Most family structure studies, for instance, focus on propensity for criminal behavior, academic failure, later divorce and unwed childbearing, etc.; while the same-sex parenting research tends to focus on gender identity, self-esteem, sexual orientation, and other things, while still finding differences between the children of homosexual and heterosexual parents!

    Readers will get a good laugh when they reach the part of the article where Marks shows how the APA doesn’t hold the same-sex parenting studies to the same research standards that it lays out in its Publication Manual!

    Enjoy :)

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1937762

    Honestly, the APA is really caught between a rock and a hard place in terms of reorientation therapy. They seem a little stuck, and they don’t appear to want to condemn the efforts of clients who seek to change their sexual orientation. They recognize that client self-determination is a key part of their practice. And though they express concerns that these therapies might promote homophobia, etc., they do continue to encourage psychologists to be sensitive to the religious beliefs of their clients, and to remember that the client determines the treatment goals.

    This writhing within the organization, as well as the APA’s admitting that there is no scientific basis that explains the origins of homosexuality, show me that they might be interested in regaining some credibility.

  33. Good News
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

    Rick. The eternal optimist.
    Feels good, to someone who has already thrown in the towel, as far as his society goes, and is only looking for a quiet out of the way cave to move the family into.

  34. LEO
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

    Overcame AAS excellence post at @ 26.. Please repeat that post, post it on as many bloggs you can. Good job! And a great argument why homosexuality is a mental disorder.

  35. Bruce
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

    OvercameSSA:
    "So, certainly some of these people were talked out of their desire to no longer be homosexual by changing their attitudes towards homosexuality."

    Cummings says absolutely nothing like this in the article. In fact, he acknowledges that the therapy is "difficult," and that they had failures. The article also states that Cummings supports equality for gay people, including same sex marriage.

  36. Posted June 8, 2012 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

    Good News:

    It might come to that, but so what?

    It is the account we give of ourselves that matters, not the outcome at any given stage of these end times.

    But just between us-----

    we are going to win an absolutely shocking landslide victory this election, and it is precisely Obama's same sex marriage endorsement that has opened the door.

    Have fun!

  37. Pete
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 5:50 pm | Permalink

    "we are going to win an absolutely shocking landslide victory this election, and it is precisely Obama's same sex marriage endorsement that has opened the door."

    There's that crystal ball again. Must be as effective as long range telepathic marriage counseling.

  38. Pete
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

    "we are going to win an absolutely shocking landslide victory this election, and it is precisely Obama's same sex marriage endorsement that has opened the door."

    There's that crystal ball again. Must be as effective as long range telepathic marriage counseling but the again, some people believe the earth revolves arround the sun.

  39. Pete
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

    "Why do you trolls come here? "

    To correct the lies told he by NOMers.

  40. Randy E King
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

    Pete,

    How does telling lies help your cause? You experienced some short term gains, but now all you have left to fight with is "Who are you going to believe; me, or your damn lying eyes."

  41. M. Jones
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

    It only goes to show you that once respected main stream organizations supposedly base their positions on science, are nothing more than political organizations hell bent on pushing the homosexual agenda.

  42. Chairm
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

    Jim, the behavior is immoral. The inclination toward immoral behavior is human but that does not justify immoral human behavior.

    As for the question you asked, well, there are plenty of examples of persons living with disorders and functioning well in society. Your question therefore entails a false premise.

  43. Posted June 8, 2012 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

    Well, now, Pete, let's see here.

    You are not up to speed on either biology or cosmology, so as to the first I will simply point out that election predictions are of course just as useful as they turn out to comport with election results.

    In that sense both of us enjoy complete prediction equality :-)

    As for the whole Earth/Sun, thingy, here is a little observation on the subject from a fellow I am told looked into it fairly comprehensively:

    "
    "The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [coordinate system] could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves', or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest', would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems]."
     
    ---"The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, New York, Simon and Schuster 1938, 1966 p.212

    If you have evidence to the contrary, may I invite you to post it on my blog, where I focus on such matters.

  44. M. Jones
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 6:05 pm | Permalink

    It should be noted that some behaviors are morally appropriate, only if it involves uniting the two great half's of humanity leading to procreation.

  45. James
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 6:30 pm | Permalink

    Overcame writes: ", as if by belittling the concept they have somehow provided a counter argument to it. "

    For the record, I'm actually not an atheist.

    I'm merely questioning the use of the phrase "mental illness" by people who reject science and the APA. It's like an atheist calling others "sinners".

    Look guys, society as a whole rejects the notion that sex is ONLY for procreation. Do any of you really want to insist that the only time heterosexuals engage in sex is the 1 -3 times in their lives that they are seeking to produce offspring? Do heterosexuals only engage in sex that is procreative in form? I mean unless you wish to insist that women can get pregnant from oral sex ....

  46. Posted June 8, 2012 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

    James:

    The assertion "sex is ONLY for procreation" forms no part of either Catholic theology or marriage law.

    That marriage is FOR the uniting of the complementary genders of our species into stable, long term unions, from which children commonly result, and within which they are best nurtured, is the simple truth on the ground which enables us to consistently defeat the marriage corruption arguments, whenever the people are given the chance to assess them and vote on them.

    This will continue to be demonstrated this Novmeber.

  47. Posted June 8, 2012 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

    James:

    The assertion "sex is ONLY for procreation" forms no part of either Catholic theology or marriage law.

    But marriage *is* FOR the uniting of the complementary genders of our species into stable, long term unions, from which children commonly result, and within which they are best nurtured.

  48. Stefan
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

    Homosexuality is immoral according to whom exactly?

  49. LEO
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

    James,

    You are referring to heathly sex habits, lets talk about that shell we?

    Can I ask you a question, do you feel that the anus was create to have sex with someone of the same sex? yes or no? Is AIDS a lesson in what not to do with your body? Do you know and accept healthy sex practices, and do you disagree with medical science that some sexal behavior( especially homosexuliy) is a health hazard? And, why isn't HIVAIDS ( amoung other associated health diseases) is not enough deterrent to avoid gay coupling or meaningless sex? Because?
    Last but not least, thoses who engage in the behavior knowing full well of what the outcome could be, do these people need help to break their dangerous, sexual bad habits, or should society embrace these people?

    Please, in your response, try hard to stay on topic.

  50. LEO
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

    sorry! my message @ 28 is for Overcame SSA.

  51. Randy E King
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

    James,

    What science is that? I believe myself to be a thoughtful and open-minded individual; and when you come in here with your "who are you going to believe; me, or your lying eyes" and "pay no attention to that man behind the green curtain" routine all I can see is red.

    The APA's original position – penned by the APA “Gay” and “Lesbian” task force made up mostly of “gays” and “lesbians” - on "homosexuality" was that science proves it to be an immutable an innate characteristic with biological links. This position created immense controversy in the field of science and demands for proof led the APA to reverse course and re-release its official position on this topic to read:

    "Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

    "Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles" also means just as many do not believe this unfounded position. Lying to others is bad enough, but lying to yourself makes you a fool – and a fool is the lowest thing a man can be.

  52. Randy E King
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 8:46 pm | Permalink

    The marriage corruption movements rational has degenerated to "but little Johnny is just as bad as I am."

  53. Randy E King
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

    And how exactly do they go about proving these individuals have no sense of having made a choice; they ask them. That's like asking an illegal immigrant if they sense making a choice to immigrate illegally; they will most always provide answer that is most beneficial to them.

    It is the nature of the beast.

  54. Pete
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 9:36 pm | Permalink

    Randy, your my favorite fiction writer at NOM. We love haw your mind is wrapped by your hate. Please enjoy the future, it's going to bend you over and send you home.

  55. Pete
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 9:41 pm | Permalink

    ""The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [coordinate system] could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves', or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest', would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems]."

    Yeah, Delano, you are one f u c k e d up person. No wonder you fit so well with NOM.

  56. Randy E King
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 10:01 pm | Permalink

    Pete,

    When you quote verbatim it is referred to as "Non-Fiction."

    Non-Fiction: factual, true-life, reference

    The call it an education Petey; get one.

  57. Ash
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 10:13 pm | Permalink

    Pete is going to be banned soon. All he does is lodge personal insults, and stalk Rick.

    Honestly, I think many on his side will be happy once he is banned, because he doesn’t represent them well.

  58. Ash
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

    (Not that this will be "Pete's" first ban.)

  59. John Noe
    Posted June 8, 2012 at 11:36 pm | Permalink

    Poster #36 homosexuality is immoral to hudreds of millions of us Americans. We understand how immoral it is to stick your sexual organs where they do not belong.
    Biology alone from nature proves how immoral you are.

  60. Posted June 9, 2012 at 12:28 am | Permalink

    Unfortunately, Pete has certainly descended to levels that would tend to render him damaged goods even for his own team.

    I keep hoping they will send some more interesting and compelling opposition ever here.

    Maybe Pete and his "intelligence files" are all they've got :-)

  61. LEO
    Posted June 9, 2012 at 12:49 am | Permalink

    The APA “started changing pretty drastically by the late 1980s,” said Cummings. “By the mid 1990s, the Leona Tyler principle was absolutely forgotten, that political stances seemed to override any scientific results. Cherry-picking results became the mode. The gay rights movement sort of captured the APA.”

  62. LEO
    Posted June 9, 2012 at 1:10 am | Permalink

    Where the APA strewed up is when they allowed their patients to intimidate them ( homosexuals) and allowed them to take over. When think about it, imagine how many lives this organization could have saved between 1975 and now if they had stud their ground from the take over of those who are deviance and sexual preditors.

  63. M. Jones
    Posted June 9, 2012 at 4:16 am | Permalink

    Finally the APA president comes out and joins with other main stream organizations like the American College of Pediatrics in disavowing the homosexual agenda within the psychiatric community.

  64. Good News
    Posted June 9, 2012 at 5:24 am | Permalink

    Example, 60,000 adult pornographic web sites where shut down in China in less than one year. Why? In order to protect growing children, youth and citizens. (Opium wars taught them a lesson.) In America we would call that BAD. Unconstitutional, anti capitalism, anti free market, censorship, not letting the people decide for themselves, etc. When in reality, it is a good thing, a helpful thing. A hard decision to make, but a loving and responsible one toward the well being of children and the society alike.
    52 billion dollars a year business or more. Taking down all barriers and taboos to homosexuality, creating new desires in the market place, could no doubt help bring those numbers up to 80, 90, 100 billion dollars. The sky's the limit. And Wall Street, City of London and our economic system is aiming high; unrestrained. Sell our mothers and fathers, children and youth – profits! Its good for the economy. Good for our way of life... Translated: its so good for our people.
    I'm not endorsing China, I'm talking about “our” responsibilities. To our children and our community.

  65. Good News
    Posted June 9, 2012 at 5:26 am | Permalink

    “And we have... # 28... a number 28 anyone?”
    A government, state laws, a national Constitution, an association, can never tell a man what is good and right, what is pure, what is life giving. Rather, “it is the account we give of ourselves [within a perverse and dishonest community] that matters”.
    “Number 28 - BINGO!”
    But a little help and support coming from ones on societal leaders, toward the helpful education and protection of the children and families of the society, is the signs of a healthy unselfish government. America hasn't been showing many signs of health lately. Maybe as you say, we will be getting a needed shot in the arm come election day. It could be the start toward the recovery of a very sick patient, who will be needing much care.

  66. OvercameSSA
    Posted June 9, 2012 at 7:53 am | Permalink

    The fact that heterosexual couples engage in non-reproductive acts is not indicative of a mental disorder, since those acts occur between the two reproducing sexes. Non-reproductive sexual acts between the opposite sexes typically leads to reproductive acts or at the very least reinforces the sexual attraction between the opposite sexes, the natural order of things.

    Masturbation, which is seemingly a one-person act, typically involves the mental engagement of a sexual partner; thus, the fact that a heterosexual masturbates alone (and is thus not involved in a reproductive act, per se) is not evidence of a mental disorder, unless, of course, the imagined partner is of the same sex..

  67. Randy E King
    Posted June 9, 2012 at 8:52 am | Permalink

    Scrounger,

    The groups that support your agenda are coming apart at the seams. You folks got a seat at the table of these once reputable organizations and spread like cancer. The judiciary is another example of this with these lunatics taking over the asylum looking to legislate the absolution of their sins from the bench.

    Google "sociopath diagnosis" and it see for yourself how your pathology has become more important to you than life itself.

    And so it is with all addicts.

  68. 14th Amend
    Posted June 9, 2012 at 10:21 am | Permalink

    M. Jones, I know YOU know this but I'm posting for others. The deceptively named American College of Pediatricians is NOT a mainstream organization. It was formed a decade ago specifically to promote an anti-gay agenda and has less than 200 members. It was named similarly the legitimately mainstream American Academy of Pediatrics, an 80 year old, 60,000 member organization, in order to cause confusion and give anti-gay activists like yourself a legitimate-sounding organization to push their agenda. Tony Perkins tried this trick on MSNBC with Chris Matthews in 2010 when he quoted a phony ACPeds statistic about gay men and ped-----lia. Fortunately Matthews fact checked and called him out on this the next day in air. The 60,000 member AAP rejects the anti-gay propaganda pushed by Cummings and are supportive of gay and lesbian parenting. 

  69. 14th Amend
    Posted June 9, 2012 at 10:24 am | Permalink

    Overcame,

    Denial is the refusal to acknowledge the existence or severity of unpleasant external realities or internal thoughts and feelings.

    Read more: Denial - children, therapy, adults, examples, person, people, used, personality, theory http://www.minddisorders.com/Del-Fi/Denial.html#b#ixzz1xJ2ctCpC

  70. OvercameSSA
    Posted June 9, 2012 at 10:43 am | Permalink

    14th - You can't support a biased field's opinions with more opinions from people in the same field. Psychology has veered from pseudo-science into the realm of politics; nothing can be trusted.

    Denial is the mere contradiction of what is being said, nothing more, despite the psychobabble you cite.

  71. OvercameSSA
    Posted June 9, 2012 at 10:46 am | Permalink

    14th - So you deny that homosexual couples do not have an instinctive desire to use their reproductive organs in a reproductive manner with the complementary reproductive sex?

  72. Bruce
    Posted June 9, 2012 at 11:17 am | Permalink

    M. Jones:
    "Finally the APA president comes out and joins with other main stream organizations like the American College of Pediatrics in disavowing the homosexual agenda within the psychiatric community."

    Actually, he doesn't. If you actually read the article, you see that Cummings supports LGBT equality, including same sex marriage.

  73. Posted June 9, 2012 at 11:29 am | Permalink

    Science is not in a position to file a lawsuit against biology for constituting the human race in two complementary genders, Bruce.

    This is, indeed, a source of tremendous frustration for the politically correct and the sexually disoriented.

  74. Randy E King
    Posted June 9, 2012 at 11:45 am | Permalink

    14th,

    (Meriam Webster)

    Denial:
    [B/]5: negation in logic[B/]

    6 : a psychological defense mechanism in which confrontation with a personal problem or with reality is avoided by denying the existence of the problem or reality.

    (Encarta)

    [B/]4. Refusal to face an unpleasant fact[B/]
    psychology a state of mind marked by a refusal or an inability to recognize and deal with a serious personal problem

    Denial is a ket component of the "homosexual" agenda.

  75. Ms. Broker
    Posted June 9, 2012 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

    What a lot of people don't seem to know is that the APA did not change their diagnosis of Homosexuality as a mental illness based on research. They did it because of a violent hate campaign against them by the homosexuals and they became afraid. Their diagnosis of homosexuality was that it was a "deviant" sexual disorder This was based on years of clinical studies, patient interaction and observation of homosexuals. If you have ever seen a gay pride parade in NY, I defy anyone to tell me these men are "normal". Wigs, makeup, heels, feather boas, griding up against each other in front of children, some wearing diapers and underwear. America needs to stand up and get smart about this and stop being afraid of the gay community. They have no Heaven or Hell to put you in. God does.

  76. DavidKCMO
    Posted June 9, 2012 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

    If we "have no heaven or hell to put you in," how can we be such a threat to......anything regarding people who believe in an ancient Hebrew magic sky-daddy who raped a 16 year old girl in her sleep and then killed the resultant offspring 33 years later? Doesn't sound very loving now, does it? I dare any Christian to do the same. HAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAA!!!!!!

  77. Posted June 9, 2012 at 4:16 pm | Permalink

    Moderator:

    Please.

    We can be inundated with blasphemous filth on the pseudo-marriage websites.

    Whatever the moderation policy in effect here might be, may I say that it is useless, if it allows blasphemy like that above free access to the site, while cutting off the posts of marriage defenders.

    Please, this is getting ridiculous.

  78. OvercameSSA
    Posted June 9, 2012 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

    There it is again: "Magic sky daddy" - Mocking religious belief is not a counterargument to its claimed validity; it only makes you sound elitist and ignorant.

    DavidK - Over 85% of the country believes in a magic sky daddy; what do you know that they don't? Nothing; you know nothing.

    Mock away, but it doesn't change the fact that we are all born with reproductive organs for the purpose of perpetuating our species, whether you believe they come from a magic sky daddy or not. The vast majority of people have figured this out and form couples with those who possess the complementary anatomy that lead to children. The rest haven't figured it out despite the magic sky daddy making it so obvious to the rest of us, and seek to change our minds or, as DavidK prefers, to deny the existence of the magic skydaddy, thinking that will change matters.

  79. Victoria Richardson (Vicky)
    Posted June 9, 2012 at 5:56 pm | Permalink

    For those whom are gay or lesbian, etc. that feel they are following a "normal" life by having a family, dog, job, "love", etc....May I ask, how is it normal to make love to another man in the anus ? Have oral sex w/ another man or woman (lesbianism), for goodness sakes - even kiss deeply another man or woman (if lesbian ?) How is this not a mental illness ? To subject selfishly a child or children you have adopted or gained by other practices to this life that unfairly shows a child this abnormal lifestyle ?

  80. AW
    Posted June 9, 2012 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

    To those gay activists here who claim that Dr. Nicholas Cummings is an "anti-gay wacko": Cummings is the same guy who actually led the push to remove homosexuality from the APA's list of mental disorders in the 1970s. He also supports gay marriage. What he does NOT support is the politicization of a field which is supposed to be based on science. But of course that makes him a "homophobe" in the caustic, vacuous rhetoric of gay activism. This is why the term "homophobe" has become a laugh line.

  81. D
    Posted June 9, 2012 at 6:46 pm | Permalink

    Ya I agree the LGBT? people sit by the NOM blog waiting to monpolize it with there manure. Here a fact that makes em all mad...Normal, yes i said NORMAL people in 32 states have voted down supposed ssm in favor of marriage between 1 man and 1 woman, as it was designed to be. This really sticks in their craw, because they thought they had alot more people that were willing to sell out there morality to a deviant lifestyle.The voting isn't over yet and everytime it comes before the people, it gets voted down by a WIDE majority. I here iraq and Iran is beautiful this time of year, HOT, but beautiful....check it out!

  82. Ash
    Posted June 9, 2012 at 7:38 pm | Permalink

    I thought my long post from yesterday would have come through by now.

    But anyway....

    Great points, AW.

    Like Randy said some days ago, there is no middle ground with the LGBT lobby. You can push to get homosexuality removed from the mental illness nomenclature, and even support ssm. But unless you submit to every last tenet of the LGBT agenda--such as the belief that homosexuality is unchangeable--then you are a "bigot," "homophobe," or "wacko."

    That rigid hostility will help their cause to lose even more so with the public.

  83. Dave
    Posted June 9, 2012 at 8:45 pm | Permalink

    I'm curious -- why do homosexualist so often speak of "love" between two men and so rarely speak of promiscuous lust, a far more common phenomenon?

  84. Byrd
    Posted June 9, 2012 at 10:40 pm | Permalink

    David, your delusions have been noted.
    The truth unites, your anti-Christian bigotry and hatred divides.

  85. Chairm
    Posted June 10, 2012 at 2:12 am | Permalink

    Ash, I agree but I would add that the agenda is designed to be implemented as a ratchet; and its "goals" amount to a single ever-moving horizon of further demands. There will be no end to it because it is premised on the notion that society does not "love" the gay identity group enough and never will/can satiated the need for more and more validation of what is essentially an immoral behavior entwined with a serious but tolerable arrestment in psycho-sexual development.

    The science does not decide the moral issue. The moral issue does not decide the scientific issues. Nonetheless, the convergence of anti-moral and anti-scientific thinking that has pressed the agenda is astonishingly self-refuting.

    That ought to cause the soft supporters of the agenda -- who by default may simply be fearful of being anything but indiscriminate -- to recalibrate their degree of tolerance-come-approval of that agenda. It ought to cause the hardliners great shame to press for something that even their own thinking cannot actually support with reason -- moral reason and scientific reason.

    How this will play out and how long it will take is an open question, of course, however human history is replete with examples of this sort of thing; modern history has some horrible examples of what we today call identity politics -- being pressed as the all-encompassing system for organizing (i.e. reorganizing) society. Note that the gay identity politics being asserted today makes many claims stemming from the naturalist fallacy but dresses itself up as superior in reason and in scientific assuredness.

    Like the gay identity itself, this is a case of a socio-political force demanding of society what it does not expect of itself; and of accusing society of the very stuff it engages in with vehemence and unrelenting hostility toward first principles. It is not what it says it is; it is what it supposedly is designed to fight against.

    When such a movement, especially in modern times, is confronted with firm and persisent resistence, well, things generally get worse before they get better. Millions of people pay the cost. The members of the identity group eventually form a circle and start firing upon each other -- whether in vitcory or in defeat. History repeats itself, sadly, and we are here to show what we are made of in response to this kind of trial and tragedy in human lifes.

    As a great philosophy and great theologian and truly holy individual once said: do not be afraid.

    Blessings.

  86. FR
    Posted June 10, 2012 at 11:33 am | Permalink

    What really has always pushed me away from the side of 'gay rights' is the intellectual dishonesty. Sure some exists on the right but what I see on the left is the desire to intimidate and to lift up activist positions in the place of science. There is little doubt that a sizable percentage of same sex attractions as well as other negative behavior are a result of abuse whether it be incestuous or not. I have a friend who lives a gay lifestyle and get along with but it is because I know him so well that I also know that his same sex attractions began with molestation by an uncle. This certainly not the case for every gay person but it is enough that the activist position becomes a hindrance to helping individuals like my friend. He is left with one option according to the activists which is affirming the behavior of his abuser and accepting the unwanted desires that were forced on him as a child. Some decry theocracy but what we are seeing in the culture now is a gayocracy where truth is of no importance to the goals of a political cause.

  87. Jan Ginn
    Posted June 10, 2012 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

    I work with boys who have been molested by homosexuals, and I can tell you first hand, Its a messy situation. Aside from this issue, I know its not good for a child to grow up without a mommy, just so two homosexuals can feel "normal"

    I am a Psychiatrist and member of the APA.

  88. Lefty
    Posted June 10, 2012 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for the excellent info, Ash! I'm definitely saving that link.

  89. maggie gallagher
    Posted June 10, 2012 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

    Jan Ginn, I'd be interested in learning more about you and your work. You can email me at [email protected].

  90. Craig Hundelt
    Posted June 10, 2012 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

    There is a long history from the Bible and Ecclesiastical tradition that condemns the homosexual act as grevious sin and severely disordered to the natural law.

  91. Posted June 11, 2012 at 2:31 am | Permalink

    A civilization which cannot distinguish between a husband and a wife, between a mother and a father, will shortly believe any absurdity at all with ease.

    Same sex pseudo-marriage is one of those instant oatmeal-brain type premises which, once accepted, can easily lead one to believe anything.

    At all.

  92. 14th Amend
    Posted June 11, 2012 at 8:11 pm | Permalink

    "Jan Ginn, I'd be interested in learning more about you and your work. You can email me..."

    So now Maggie's interested in pushing the "gay men are pedophiles" myth. We're watching you Maggie / as you complete your decent into full blown anti-gay zealot.

  93. AW
    Posted June 11, 2012 at 10:08 pm | Permalink

    14th Amend: Are you really claiming that NO gay men commit pedophilia at all? Never? And you're threatening to "watch" anyone who says otherwise? That's downright neurotic.

  94. 14th Amend
    Posted June 11, 2012 at 10:44 pm | Permalink

    AW:

    1. This supposed psychiatrist is referring to men who molest boys as "homosexuals" and not pedophiles ad she should be. That's a dead giveaway that the commenter probably isn't legit. Does she refer to men who molest girls or women who molest boys ad "heterosexuals"? Doubt it.

    2. Is Maggie asking psychiatrists who work with girls who have been molested by men to email her? I doubt it.

    3. The myth that gay equals pedophile is on the level of black equals rapist. Maggie knows this but it won't stop her from trying to push it. It's a sign of her desperation and it shows that no tactic is too low for her.

  95. AW
    Posted June 12, 2012 at 5:16 am | Permalink

    14th: Ok, let's sort out your claims: Firstly, Jan Ginn didn't say that "all" homosexuals are pedophiles, but rather that those men who molest boys are homosexual - which by definition would have to be true since it's male-to-male sex. Secondly: I think Maggie Gallagher's interest in this is simply to document a real problem which gay activists like yourself try to sweep under the rug by claiming that the mere investigation of the problem indicates bigotry - which you have again done in this very conversation! I would add that some of the major gay rights groups such as ILGA have long openly included or supported pro-pedophile groups such as NAMBLA, so please don't tell me that no homosexual activists would ever support pedophilia. That simply isn't true.

  96. 14th Amend
    Posted June 12, 2012 at 8:37 am | Permalink

    AW- No surprise you'll rationalize any anti-gay activity.you conveniently ignore my valid points. Direct questuin: Do you refer to men who molest little girls as "heterosexuals" or "pedophiles"? Maggie's not simply trying "document" a problem, she's looking for "evidence" to support a nasty myth about gay men that has been debunked so she can further villify gays in her push to enshrine discrimination against them in the law. We will not allow her to get away with it. The overwhelming majority of men who molest boys (and girls) are heterosexual in their adult relationships if they even have them. Traditionally-married Jerry Sandusky goes on trial today. Where's Maggie's commentary on him? You know we'd be hearing it if he lived with a man. NAMBLA is a fringe group that does not have the support of gay activists. Do I try to tie you to Christian cults where 60 year old men marry 12 year old girls? I don't think you actuslly believe that Maggie's inquiry is not motivated by malice.

  97. AW
    Posted June 12, 2012 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

    14th - You know perfectly well that the reason people don't use the term "heterosexual" to refer to men who have sex with little girls, is because 97% of the population are heterosexual and therefore the term would be far too general to make a distinction between these guys and the vast majority of the population. It would be like saying that they engage in "human sex", which is true enough but hopelessly generalized. The term "homosexual" can also be imprecise of course, but not to nearly the same degree as "heterosexual", which is why people often use it to refer to a range of homosexual acts including sex between men and boys (which is technically "pederasty" rather than "pedophilia" if you really want to nitpick). In any event, you're accusing two people of bigotry based on nothing but their common usage of a word, just as you previously claimed that Dr. Nicholas Cummings is an "anti-gay wacko" for saying that psychiatry needs to be based on the scientific method. I'll cover the NAMBLA issue in the next note since long notes always seem to be held for moderation.

  98. AW
    Posted June 12, 2012 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

    14th - On the subject of gay activist support for NAMBLA and pederasty: 1) NAMBLA was allowed to march in gay pride parades until scandal forced organizers to cancel the group's participation (because of the scandal, not because they suddenly opposed NAMBLA); 2) Tom Reeves, an early gay activist, has said: “Almost every one of the early openly homosexual writers was a pederast. Pederasty was a constant theme of early gay literature, art, and pornography. ... Many of the leaders of early gay liberation and the founders of the major gay groups in the U.S. were boy-lovers.” 3) One of the largest international gay associations, ILGA, included NAMBLA and at least two other pederast/pedophile organizations within its membership for years until the UN repeatedly blocked its status as an NGO. There are many other examples of support within large organizations or among influential activists.
    I don't know what the percentages are in terms of gay/lesbian opinion, but certainly it's not minor if such large organizations have supported it.
    Also see my other new note above (about your accusations against Maggie Gallagher etc).

  99. LEO
    Posted June 12, 2012 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    James,

    You are referring to heathly sex habits, lets talk about that shell we?

    Can I ask you a question, do you feel that the anus was create to have sex with someone of the same sex? yes or no? Is AIDS a lesson in what not to do with your body? Do you know and accept healthy sex practices, and do you disagree with medical science that some sexal behavior( especially homosexuliy) is a health hazard? And, why isn't HIVAIDS ( amoung other associated health diseases) is not enough deterrent to avoid gay coupling or meaningless sex? Because?
    Last but not least, thoses who engage in the behavior knowing full well of what the outcome could be, do these people need help to break their dangerous, sexual bad habits, or should society embrace these people?

    Please, in your response, try hard to stay on topic.

  100. 14th Amend
    Posted June 12, 2012 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    "97% of the population are heterosexual and therefore the term would be far too general to make a distinction between these guys and the vast majority of the population."

    So it's important to you to make a distinction between heterosexual men and pedophiles but not between homosexual men and pedophiles. In fact, you'd prefer to blur the line, wouldn't you. Thanks for reinforcing exactly the point I was trying to make. Propagating the myth that all gay men are pedophiles is in itself an act of bigotry and no overly wordy attempt to justify it can change that.

  101. AW
    Posted June 12, 2012 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

    14th said: "So it's important to you to make a distinction between heterosexual men and pedophiles but not between homosexual men and pedophiles. In fact, you'd prefer to blur the line, wouldn't you."
    No, that's not what I said, as you know perfectly well. What I said is that if a term is so general that it would apply to most of the population, then the term isn't specific enough to serve any purpose. But you knew that, of course. You chose to make a deliberately dishonest characterization of my comments, just as you've been doing to other people throughout this entire thread. That reinforces the point I've been making.
    My post about the NAMBLA issue hasn't made it through yet.

  102. AW
    Posted June 12, 2012 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

    14th: (Hopefully this will get through) -- On the subject of gay activist support for NAMBLA and pederasty: 1) NAMBLA was allowed to march in gay pride parades until scandal forced organizers to cancel the group's participation (because of the scandal, not because they suddenly opposed NAMBLA); 2) Tom Reeves, an early gay activist, has said: “Almost every one of the early openly homosexual writers was a pederast. Pederasty was a constant theme of early gay literature, art, and pornography. ... Many of the leaders of early gay liberation and the founders of the major gay groups in the U.S. were boy-lovers.” 3) One of the largest international gay associations, ILGA, included NAMBLA and at least two other pederast/pedophile organizations within its membership for years until the UN repeatedly blocked its status as an NGO. There are many other examples of support within large organizations or among influential activists.
    I don't know what the percentages are in terms of gay/lesbian opinion, but certainly it's not minor if such large organizations have supported it.
    (Also see my other new post, on the terminology debate, above)

  103. 14th Amend
    Posted June 12, 2012 at 9:22 pm | Permalink

    AW: You're not going to backpedal out of your statement - you said that pedophile is used instead of heterosexual to make a distinction. But it's clear that you see no reason to make the same distinction between adult men who have sex with adult men and adult men who abuse boys.

  104. 14th Amend
    Posted June 12, 2012 at 9:37 pm | Permalink

    They wont even let a comment about Tim D-lan through.

  105. 14th Amend
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 7:51 am | Permalink

    The Catholic church continues to be a cess pool of child abuse. NOM's hero, Cardinal Dolan, paid off abusive priests and covered up the rapes of children to avoid a scandal that could put his cash flow and career in jeopardy. Not a word on that from NOM though. Surprised? I'm not!

  106. 14th Amend
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 7:53 am | Permalink

    Does that not anger you? Maggie will hold up a guy who allows child rape to go on unreported as a hero while trolling the comments section looking for someone who can back up the claim that gays are predators and shouldn't be parents. If that doesn't tell you what kind of person she is, I don't know what will.

  107. leehawks
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 11:44 am | Permalink

    To 14th @101: Nobody said ALL homosexuals are pedophiles but your protestations implying that NONE are is ridiculous.
    Please remember that one of the tenets of the Homosexual Manifesto was to lower the age of consent. Now why would they want to do that if there wasn't a prurient interest in underage children among some homosexuals?

  108. AW
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

    14th - You said: "You're not going to backpedal out of your statement - you said that pedophile is used
    instead of heterosexual to make a distinction. But it's clear that you see no reason to make the same
    distinction between adult men who have sex with adult men and adult men who abuse boys."
    Are you even reading my comments, or are you deliberately and persistently distorting them? For the third time, here's what I actually said: if a term is so general that it would apply to most of the population (like "heterosexual"), then the term is too broad to be usable for a narrow category like pedophilia; but terms that apply to a much narrower group (like "homosexual") at least are much more specific. I'd prefer the use of the term "pederast" in such cases, but it's absurd to claim that Jan Ginn is a "bigot" just for using the term "homosexual" to describe a form of male-on-male sex act. Repeating your malicious accusations does not prove them.

  109. 14th Amend
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

    AW - Your words are there for anyone to read. I win't continue to debate this with you. The only reason to use the word homosexual to describe men who abuse boys instead of pedophile or pederast is to INTENTIONALLY tie gays to pedophiles. Period. End if discussion.

  110. AW
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

    14th - You dodged my request for proof, while also dodging my previous comments about NAMBLA, instead making an ironic statement about priests having sex with boys - ironic because most of the guilty clergy (Paul Shanley, John J. White, the monks at St. John's etc) were openly gay activists who publicly promoted sex with boys as well as men. Shanley was long regarded as a hero by the gay community, for crying out loud, even though he never concealed his support for pederasty. It took the media to declare it a scandal before gay activists began to distance themselves from guys like Shanley. Why is that?

  111. 14th Amend
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    LOL @ the "Homosexual Manifesto". Sure, leehawks, because every gay man has a framed copy of it hanging right next to his Judy Garland poster. I had never even heard of this thing until some other wingnut mentioned it in a debate about marriage. It seems to only exist excerpted on right wing blogs. I guarantee you that 99% of gays and lesbians have never heard of it either. It appears to be some rudiculous thing written by one guy decades ago. Joseph Smith married several women and some were underage. Marrying underage brides has been a custom in the Mormon church throughout its history. Those guys are straight and believe in Jesus Christ. So there, to whatever extent the "Manifesto" makes me unworthy or marriage or parenting, the practices of the Mormon do the same for you. Now we're even... next attempt at legitimizing your bigotry...

  112. Chairm
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 5:12 am | Permalink

    14th Amend do you denounce the teachers' unions in CA? Because the rate of child sexual abuse by public school teachers is very, very, very high. You might even charactertize public schools as cess pools. Do you denounce the support given to the SSM movement in CA by such organizations?

    If not, why not?

    The Catholic Church has done far, far, far more to protect children on this very matter than has the public school system. Again, are you blogging about that or just here to spout your anti-Catholic bigotry?

  113. Chairm
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 5:17 am | Permalink

    14th said, stupidly:

    "The only reason to use the word homosexual to describe men who abuse boys instead of pedophile or pederast is to INTENTIONALLY tie gays to pedophiles."

    The rate at which openly homosexual men report having been sexually preyed upon as children or young boys by homosexual adults is very significant.

    Why your gay identity politics gets in the way of dealing with that is your problem -- a problem of your own creation -- but do not pretend to be passing the buck to others. You are accountable for what you are saying in your comments.

  114. AW
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

    Chairm: Good point about the public school system. Some studies have shown that 15% of students have had sex with a teacher at least once, sometimes in exchange for grades. The numbers are vastly higher than anything in the Catholic Church, and the degree of cover-up is at least as bad if not worse: only about 1% of guilty teachers are reported to the police by the school system. But of course the media never covers this issue - just relentless coverage of the lesser problem in the Catholic Church, which is usually timed to embarrass the Church at crucial moments such as the allegations against Cardinal Dolan which coincidentally came right after he publicly opposed Obama's HHS mandate. Coincidence, or deliberate character assassination?