APA's 1973 decision cannot be cited as medial consensus.

[savedandhappy1]

Homosexuality: Fact and Fiction

by Joseph P. Gudel


IS HOMOSEXUALITY AN ILLNESS? IS IT "NORMAL"?
An even more important question, though, is if homosexuality constitutes pathological behavior. Is it an illness? Gay rights groups continually assert that homosexuals are as "normal" as heterosexuals, that homosexuality is not an illness or psychological disorder. For example, Peri Jude Radecic, a member of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), asserted on the ABC news show Nightline: "Homosexuality is not an illness, it is not something that needs to be cured. We are normal, natural and healthy people."[14]
Moreover, these groups universally contend that all competent psychiatrists and psychologists are in agreement on this. As proof of this, the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) 1973 declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder is always cited.
Before examining the contention that all competent psychiatrists and psychologists agree that homosexuality is normal and healthy, we need to look at the APA's 1973 decision for a moment. For 23 years homosexuality had been listed as a mental disorder by the APA. Why was it decided, at that particular point in time, that it was not pathological?
I do not have the space to go into a detailed analysis of the history leading up to the APA's decision.[15] Nonetheless, it is a misconception to think that this came about only after dispassionate and scholarly discussion, and only after listening equally to all sides of the issue. Also, it is important to note that the APA's vote was anything but unanimous.
In the three years leading up to the 1973 APA meeting, the previous national meetings had been repeatedly disrupted by gay activists. At the 1970 meeting in San Francisco certain sessions were broken up with shouts and jeers, prohibiting any rational discussion or debate.
At the APA's 1971 meeting in Washington, threats and intimidation accomplished what discussion could not. Ronald Bayer, in a work sympathetic toward homosexuality and the gay rights movement, recounts: "Using forged credentials, gay activists gained access to the exhibit area and, coming across a display marketing aversive conditioning [i.e., punishing an organism whenever it makes a particular response] techniques for the treatment of homosexuals, demanded its removal. Threats were made against the exhibitor, who was told that unless his booth was dismantled, it would be torn down. After frantic behind-the-scenes consultations, and in an effort to avoid violence, the convention leadership agreed to have the booth removed."[16]
These tactics continued in the same manner at the APA's 1972 national meeting. It was against this backdrop that the association's trustees finally made its controversial 1973 decision. When a referendum on this was sent out to all 25,000 APA members, only a quarter of them returned their ballots. The final tally was 58 percent favoring the removal of homosexuality from their list of disorders.
Four years later, Dr. Charles Socarides -- who was at the meetings and was an expert in the area of homosexuality, having treated homosexuals for more than twenty years -- described the political atmosphere leading up to the 1973 vote. He writes that during this time, "militant homosexual groups continued to attack any psychiatrist or psychoanalyst who dared to present his findings as to the psychopathology [i.e., the study of mental disorders from all aspects] of homosexuality before national or local meetings of psychiatrists or in public forums."[17] Elsewhere Socarides stated that the decision of the APA trustees was "the medical hoax of the century."[18]
Was this the end of the debate? Did the vast majority of "competent" psychiatrists agree with the APA's decision? In 1977 ten thousand members of the APA were polled at random, asking them their opinion on this. In an article entitled "Sick Again?" Time magazine summarized the results of the poll: "Of those answering, 69% said they believed 'homosexuality is usually a pathological adaptation, as opposed to a normal variation,' 18% disagreed and 13% were uncertain. Similarly, sizable majorities said that homosexuals are generally less happy than heterosexuals (73%) and less capable of mature, loving relationships (60%). A total of 70% said that homosexuals' problems have more to do with their own inner conflicts than with stigmatization by society at large."[19]
But what about today? Has this issue been resolved in current medical opinion and research? Concerning this, Dr. Stanton L. Jones, professor of psychology at Wheaton College, states that there is a "mixed scorecard" among professionals on this. He writes: "I would not regard homosexuality to be a psychopathology in the same sense as schizophrenia or phobic disorders. But neither can it be viewed as a normal 'lifestyle variation' on a par with being introverted versus extroverted."[20] One may debate whether or not homosexuality is a pathological disorder, but it is clear that the APA's 1973 decision cannot be cited as medical consensus that homosexuality is a "normal" condition. Later in this article I will examine in some detail the assertion that homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle.

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0107a.html

 

[davedjy]

APA is only one of many that denounces ex-gay programs, and don't believe that homosexuality is an illness. All major health foundations are unanimously in agreement that it is not an illness. They all cite any type of conversion or therapy as a motivation is not a result of actual illness, but social or religious pressure at the root. If it was an illness, they would be endorsing these types of programs.

The American Academy of Pediatrics published a policy statement in 1993 entitled "Homosexuality and Adolescence" It was critical of any form of reparative therapy. They commented:

Some adolescents are uncertain about their sexual orientation; for them, a "counseling or phychotherapeutic initiative" aimed at clarification might be useful. "Therapy directed specifically at changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation."
"The psychosocial problems of gay and lesbian adolescents are primarily the result of societal stigma, hostility, hatred and isolation."
The statement mentioned that about 30% of "a surveyed group of gay and bisexual males have attempted suicide at least once." 1


1996:

The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) adopted a policy statement on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual issues. It states, in part: "Social stigmatization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people is widespread and is a primary motivating factor in leading some people to seek sexual orientation changes. Sexual orientation conversion therapies assume that homosexual orientation is both pathological and freely chosen. No data demonstrate that reparative or conversion therapies are effective, and in fact they may be harmful. NASW believes social workers have the responsibility to clients to explain the prevailing knowledge concerning sexual orientation and the lack of data reporting positive outcomes with reparative therapy. NASW discourages social workers from providing treatments designed to change sexual orientation or from referring practitioners or programs that claim to do so. 1

In 1998-MAR, the Governing Council of the American Counseling Association (ACA) approved a motion that the association, "opposes portrayals of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation; and supports the dissemination of accurate information about sexual orientation, mental health, and appropriate interventions in order to counteract bias that is based in ignorance or unfounded beliefs about same-gender orientation."







These Ex-Gay" programs have been denounced by every respected medical and mental health care organization and child welfare agency in America, including the:

American Association of School Administrators
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Counseling Association
American Federation of Teachers
American Medical Association
American Psychiatric Association
American Psychoanalytic Association
American Psychological Association
Council on Child and Adolescent Health
The Interfaith Alliance Foundation
National Academy of Social Workers
National Education Association
World Health Organization

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_expr.htm

 

[ChaliceThunder]

Homosexuality: Fact and Fiction

by Joseph P. Gudel


IS HOMOSEXUALITY AN ILLNESS? IS IT "NORMAL"?
An even more important question, though, is if homosexuality constitutes pathological behavior. Is it an illness? Gay rights groups continually assert that homosexuals are as "normal" as heterosexuals, that homosexuality is not an illness or psychological disorder. For example, Peri Jude Radecic, a member of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), asserted on the ABC news show Nightline: "Homosexuality is not an illness, it is not something that needs to be cured. We are normal, natural and healthy people."[14]
Moreover, these groups universally contend that all competent psychiatrists and psychologists are in agreement on this. As proof of this, the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) 1973 declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder is always cited.
Before examining the contention that all competent psychiatrists and psychologists agree that homosexuality is normal and healthy, we need to look at the APA's 1973 decision for a moment. For 23 years homosexuality had been listed as a mental disorder by the APA. Why was it decided, at that particular point in time, that it was not pathological?
I do not have the space to go into a detailed analysis of the history leading up to the APA's decision.[15] Nonetheless, it is a misconception to think that this came about only after dispassionate and scholarly discussion, and only after listening equally to all sides of the issue. Also, it is important to note that the APA's vote was anything but unanimous.
In the three years leading up to the 1973 APA meeting, the previous national meetings had been repeatedly disrupted by gay activists. At the 1970 meeting in San Francisco certain sessions were broken up with shouts and jeers, prohibiting any rational discussion or debate.
At the APA's 1971 meeting in Washington, threats and intimidation accomplished what discussion could not. Ronald Bayer, in a work sympathetic toward homosexuality and the gay rights movement, recounts: "Using forged credentials, gay activists gained access to the exhibit area and, coming across a display marketing aversive conditioning [i.e., punishing an organism whenever it makes a particular response] techniques for the treatment of homosexuals, demanded its removal. Threats were made against the exhibitor, who was told that unless his booth was dismantled, it would be torn down. After frantic behind-the-scenes consultations, and in an effort to avoid violence, the convention leadership agreed to have the booth removed."[16]
These tactics continued in the same manner at the APA's 1972 national meeting. It was against this backdrop that the association's trustees finally made its controversial 1973 decision. When a referendum on this was sent out to all 25,000 APA members, only a quarter of them returned their ballots. The final tally was 58 percent favoring the removal of homosexuality from their list of disorders.
Four years later, Dr. Charles Socarides -- who was at the meetings and was an expert in the area of homosexuality, having treated homosexuals for more than twenty years -- described the political atmosphere leading up to the 1973 vote. He writes that during this time, "militant homosexual groups continued to attack any psychiatrist or psychoanalyst who dared to present his findings as to the psychopathology [i.e., the study of mental disorders from all aspects] of homosexuality before national or local meetings of psychiatrists or in public forums."[17] Elsewhere Socarides stated that the decision of the APA trustees was "the medical hoax of the century."[18]
Was this the end of the debate? Did the vast majority of "competent" psychiatrists agree with the APA's decision? In 1977 ten thousand members of the APA were polled at random, asking them their opinion on this. In an article entitled "Sick Again?" Time magazine summarized the results of the poll: "Of those answering, 69% said they believed 'homosexuality is usually a pathological adaptation, as opposed to a normal variation,' 18% disagreed and 13% were uncertain. Similarly, sizable majorities said that homosexuals are generally less happy than heterosexuals (73%) and less capable of mature, loving relationships (60%). A total of 70% said that homosexuals' problems have more to do with their own inner conflicts than with stigmatization by society at large."[19]
But what about today? Has this issue been resolved in current medical opinion and research? Concerning this, Dr. Stanton L. Jones, professor of psychology at Wheaton College, states that there is a "mixed scorecard" among professionals on this. He writes: "I would not regard homosexuality to be a psychopathology in the same sense as schizophrenia or phobic disorders. But neither can it be viewed as a normal 'lifestyle variation' on a par with being introverted versus extroverted."[20] One may debate whether or not homosexuality is a pathological disorder, but it is clear that the APA's 1973 decision cannot be cited as medical consensus that homosexuality is a "normal" condition. Later in this article I will examine in some detail the assertion that homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle.

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0107a.html

It is obvious you have an agenda to justify your prejudice.

 

[davedjy]

It is obvious you have an agenda to justify your prejudice.

Say it aint so. You mean from the same person that posted the article about the Last Supper? LOL.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

Say it aint so. You mean from the same person that posted the article about the Last Supper? LOL.

 

[BigBadWlf]

APA is only one of many that denounces ex-gay programs, and don't believe that homosexuality is an illness. All major health foundations are unanimously in agreement that it is not an illness. They all cite any type of conversion or therapy as a motivation is not a result of actual illness, but social or religious pressure at the root. If it was an illness, they would be endorsing these types of programs.

The American Academy of Pediatrics published a policy statement in 1993 entitled "Homosexuality and Adolescence" It was critical of any form of reparative therapy. They commented:

Some adolescents are uncertain about their sexual orientation; for them, a "counseling or phychotherapeutic initiative" aimed at clarification might be useful. "Therapy directed specifically at changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation."
"The psychosocial problems of gay and lesbian adolescents are primarily the result of societal stigma, hostility, hatred and isolation."
The statement mentioned that about 30% of "a surveyed group of gay and bisexual males have attempted suicide at least once." 1


1996:

The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) adopted a policy statement on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual issues. It states, in part: "Social stigmatization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people is widespread and is a primary motivating factor in leading some people to seek sexual orientation changes. Sexual orientation conversion therapies assume that homosexual orientation is both pathological and freely chosen. No data demonstrate that reparative or conversion therapies are effective, and in fact they may be harmful. NASW believes social workers have the responsibility to clients to explain the prevailing knowledge concerning sexual orientation and the lack of data reporting positive outcomes with reparative therapy. NASW discourages social workers from providing treatments designed to change sexual orientation or from referring practitioners or programs that claim to do so. 1

In 1998-MAR, the Governing Council of the American Counseling Association (ACA) approved a motion that the association, "opposes portrayals of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation; and supports the dissemination of accurate information about sexual orientation, mental health, and appropriate interventions in order to counteract bias that is based in ignorance or unfounded beliefs about same-gender orientation."







These Ex-Gay" programs have been denounced by every respected medical and mental health care organization and child welfare agency in America, including the:

American Association of School Administrators
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Counseling Association
American Federation of Teachers
American Medical Association
American Psychiatric Association
American Psychoanalytic Association
American Psychological Association
Council on Child and Adolescent Health
The Interfaith Alliance Foundation
National Academy of Social Workers
National Education Association
World Health Organization

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_expr.htm

very well researched

 

[Cash80]

It is obvious you have an agenda to justify your prejudice.

Have you actually read the entire OP? It says there that even Ronald Bayer, a supporter of gay rights, stated that the decision to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders, was influenced by political activism, instead of valid scientific research. That tells us a whole lot.

It is obvious that you hear only what you WANT to hear, not what actually IS.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

Have you actually read the entire OP? It says there that even Ronald Bayer, a supporter of gay rights, stated that the decision to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders, was influenced by political activism, instead of valid scientific research. That tells us a whole lot.

It is obvious that you hear only what you WANT to hear, not what actually IS.

I stand by my post. There is no proof Bayer was a supporter of gay rights.

AND - Activism against abusive "reparative therapy" is both warranted and noble. You might not wish to speak out about abuse, but thank God some people had the cajones to do so.

 

[davedjy]

very well researched

Thank you.

Have you actually read the entire OP? It says there that even Ronald Bayer, a supporter of gay rights, stated that the decision to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders, was influenced by political activism, instead of valid scientific research. That tells us a whole lot.

It doesn't matter the motivation. Factor in what ALL major mental health foundation's stands are on this, and you see a much clearer picture.

It is obvious that you hear only what you WANT to hear, not what actually IS.

If you read what I posted, you would see that every credible mental health foundation, backs up the claim that it isn't an illness. Forget the APA, that is only ONE organization out of the many. Take the claims that EVERY credible mental health foundation opposes any type of ex-gay program.

Perhaps, maybe it is you that is only doing selective reading?

 

[MrPirate]

Homosexuality: Fact and Fiction

by Joseph P. Gudel

Lets pause for a moment and ask just who Joseph P. Gudel is and why he is qualified to speak as an authority on this topic.
Well it is an interesting question…once without a good answer. Mr. Gudel seems to have gone to great lengths to avoid having his biography published.
It took quite a while to track down that he attended the Concordia Theological Seminary-Fort Wayne Indiana but apparently did not complete the course. So lets start by asking why we should consider someone who flunked out of the seminary an authority on psychology and the history of psychiatric medicine?

IS HOMOSEXUALITY AN ILLNESS? IS IT "NORMAL"?
An even more important question, though, is if homosexuality constitutes pathological behavior.

A strange question considering it does not qualify as such.

Is it an illness? Gay rights groups continually assert that homosexuals are as "normal" as heterosexuals, that homosexuality is not an illness or psychological disorder. For example, Peri Jude Radecic, a member of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), asserted on the ABC news show Nightline: "Homosexuality is not an illness, it is not something that needs to be cured. We are normal, natural and healthy people."[14]

I can understand why Gudel wishes to challenge this notion. It is tough to justify bigotry in the first place but bigotry against just every day people is tougher. So taking a page from racists Gudel sets out to vilify an entire minority. Here he attempts to do so by trying to claim that homosexuality is interchangeable with mental illness. Of course everyone knows that homosexuality isn’t a mental illness, just as everyone knows blacks are not an inferior subset of true (white) humans. The point is not to get anyone to believe such a lie the point is to provide a form of justification for those who have chosen to hate gays and lesbians. However to achieve his justification for hatred Gudel has to lie and demonize not one but two minorities

Moreover, these groups universally contend that all competent psychiatrists and psychologists are in agreement on this. As proof of this, the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) 1973 declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder is always cited.

I am pretty sure this isn’t true. At the very least it is an unsupported and unsupportable claim.
One could note the fact that in 1973 those viewing homosexuality as a pathology were invited to provide evidence that it was a mental illness. No one could produce such evidence.
Then there is the fact that homosexuality does not fit the basic definition of mental illness.
And then there is the fact that thirty five years alter no one has been able to provide evidence that homosexuality is a pathology.

Before examining the contention that all competent psychiatrists and psychologists agree that homosexuality is normal and healthy, we need to look at the APA's 1973 decision for a moment. For 23 years homosexuality had been listed as a mental disorder by the APA. Why was it decided, at that particular point in time, that it was not pathological?

One might surmise that because in1973 when the diagnostic and statistical manual was being developed was the first time evidence was required to claim something was a mental illness

I do not have the space to go into a detailed analysis of the history leading up to the APA's decision.[15]

Gudle lists Ronald Bayer as a source for what happened…notice he didn’t actually say what happened at the meeting in 1973…he makes numerous hints…all of them false. but then Gudle’s purpose isn’t to inform rather it is to justify prejudice. If he honestly wrote about what went on 1973 and used the writings of individuals who were actually there…well his claims about illness and conspiracy would be shown for the shams they are.

Back to Ronald Bayer. Why would anyone ant to read a book by a chiropractor about a psychiatric meeting...a meeting he didn’t attend? Why not make use of the written materials of people who actually were there? Well I’m sure you can figure out why Gudle doesn’t’ use those sources.

Nonetheless, it is a misconception to think that this came about only after dispassionate and scholarly discussion, and only after listening equally to all sides of the issue. Also, it is important to note that the APA's vote was anything but unanimous.

In the three years leading up to the 1973 APA meeting, the previous national meetings had been repeatedly disrupted by gay activists. At the 1970 meeting in San Francisco certain sessions were broken up with shouts and jeers, prohibiting any rational discussion or debate.
At the APA's 1971 meeting in Washington, threats and intimidation accomplished what discussion could not. Ronald Bayer, in a work sympathetic toward homosexuality and the gay rights movement, recounts: "Using forged credentials, gay activists gained access to the exhibit area and, coming across a display marketing aversive conditioning [i.e., punishing an organism whenever it makes a particular response] techniques for the treatment of homosexuals, demanded its removal. Threats were made against the exhibitor, who was told that unless his booth was dismantled, it would be torn down. After frantic behind-the-scenes consultations, and in an effort to avoid violence, the convention leadership agreed to have the booth removed."[16]

What’s really interesting about this scene is that Bayer…someone who wasn’t there…ignores the people who were here in favor of his own story. The display of “aversion therapy” was in fact confronted by Dr. Franklin E. Kameny and Dr. Jack Nichols, two speakers at the convention and themselves APA members, not gay activists using forged credentials as Bayer falsely claims.

These tactics continued in the same manner at the APA's 1972 national meeting. It was against this backdrop that the association's trustees finally made its controversial 1973 decision. When a referendum on this was sent out to all 25,000 APA members, only a quarter of them returned their ballots. The final tally was 58 percent favoring the removal of homosexuality from their list of disorders.

Gudel is being remarkably dishonest here. The removal of homosexuality form the DSM was made by committee not by the general membership…just like all other insertions and deletions of the DSM. Opponents of the decision attempted to overturn it with a referendum of the APA membership…it was this attempt that less than one in four returned.
Since that time those wanting to pretend homosexuality is a mental illness have failed to provide any evidence that homosexuality is a mental illness.

Four years later, Dr. Charles Socarides -- who was at the meetings and was an expert in the area of homosexuality, having treated homosexuals for more than twenty years -- described the political atmosphere leading up to the 1973 vote. He writes that during this time, "militant homosexual groups continued to attack any psychiatrist or psychoanalyst who dared to present his findings as to the psychopathology [i.e., the study of mental disorders from all aspects] of homosexuality before national or local meetings of psychiatrists or in public forums."[17] Elsewhere Socarides stated that the decision of the APA trustees was "the medical hoax of the century."[18]

Gudel claims that “Prior to the 1973 vote Dr. Socarides led the APA's task force studying homosexuality” which is a strange statement considering the APA was under the impression that Dr. Robert Spitzer filled that position beginning in 1971.
But then should one really trust the claims of the co-founder and president of a known hate group?

Was this the end of the debate? Did the vast majority of "competent" psychiatrists agree with the APA's decision? In 1977 ten thousand members of the APA were polled at random, asking them their opinion on this. In an article entitled "Sick Again?" Time magazine summarized the results of the poll: "Of those answering, 69% said they believed 'homosexuality is usually a pathological adaptation, as opposed to a normal variation,' 18% disagreed and 13% were uncertain. Similarly, sizable majorities said that homosexuals are generally less happy than heterosexuals (73%) and less capable of mature, loving relationships (60%). A total of 70% said that homosexuals' problems have more to do with their own inner conflicts than with stigmatization by society at large."[19]

Sort of like a poll of college presidents of 1910 on their opinions of African Americans.

But aside from that I dare anyone to find a copy of this

But what about today? Has this issue been resolved in current medical opinion and research? Concerning this, Dr. Stanton L. Jones, professor of psychology at Wheaton College, states that there is a "mixed scorecard" among professionals on this. He writes: "I would not regard homosexuality to be a psychopathology in the same sense as schizophrenia or phobic disorders. But neither can it be viewed as a normal 'lifestyle variation' on a par with being introverted versus extroverted."[20]

How is it possible to consider something written 20 years ago to be about “today’?

One may debate whether or not homosexuality is a pathological disorder,

The debate is short considering the lack of evidence form those trying to claim such

but it is clear that the APA's 1973 decision cannot be cited as medical consensus that homosexuality is a "normal" condition.

I think it would be far more interesting to look into the pathology of those so consumed by prejudice that they feel they need to claim members of a minority are “sick”

Later in this article I will examine in some detail the assertion that homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle.

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0107a.html

Been here …read that…more of the same lies we see all the time form hate groups

 

[Brieuse]

Homosexuality: Fact and Fiction

by Joseph P. Gudel


IS HOMOSEXUALITY AN ILLNESS? IS IT "NORMAL"?
An even more important question, though, is if homosexuality constitutes pathological behavior. Is it an illness? Gay rights groups continually assert that homosexuals are as "normal" as heterosexuals, that homosexuality is not an illness or psychological disorder. For example, Peri Jude Radecic, a member of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), asserted on the ABC news show Nightline: "Homosexuality is not an illness, it is not something that needs to be cured. We are normal, natural and healthy people."[14]
Moreover, these groups universally contend that all competent psychiatrists and psychologists are in agreement on this. As proof of this, the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) 1973 declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder is always cited.
Before examining the contention that all competent psychiatrists and psychologists agree that homosexuality is normal and healthy, we need to look at the APA's 1973 decision for a moment. For 23 years homosexuality had been listed as a mental disorder by the APA. Why was it decided, at that particular point in time, that it was not pathological?
I do not have the space to go into a detailed analysis of the history leading up to the APA's decision.[15] Nonetheless, it is a misconception to think that this came about only after dispassionate and scholarly discussion, and only after listening equally to all sides of the issue. Also, it is important to note that the APA's vote was anything but unanimous.
In the three years leading up to the 1973 APA meeting, the previous national meetings had been repeatedly disrupted by gay activists. At the 1970 meeting in San Francisco certain sessions were broken up with shouts and jeers, prohibiting any rational discussion or debate.
At the APA's 1971 meeting in Washington, threats and intimidation accomplished what discussion could not. Ronald Bayer, in a work sympathetic toward homosexuality and the gay rights movement, recounts: "Using forged credentials, gay activists gained access to the exhibit area and, coming across a display marketing aversive conditioning [i.e., punishing an organism whenever it makes a particular response] techniques for the treatment of homosexuals, demanded its removal. Threats were made against the exhibitor, who was told that unless his booth was dismantled, it would be torn down. After frantic behind-the-scenes consultations, and in an effort to avoid violence, the convention leadership agreed to have the booth removed."[16]
These tactics continued in the same manner at the APA's 1972 national meeting. It was against this backdrop that the association's trustees finally made its controversial 1973 decision. When a referendum on this was sent out to all 25,000 APA members, only a quarter of them returned their ballots. The final tally was 58 percent favoring the removal of homosexuality from their list of disorders.
Four years later, Dr. Charles Socarides -- who was at the meetings and was an expert in the area of homosexuality, having treated homosexuals for more than twenty years -- described the political atmosphere leading up to the 1973 vote. He writes that during this time, "militant homosexual groups continued to attack any psychiatrist or psychoanalyst who dared to present his findings as to the psychopathology [i.e., the study of mental disorders from all aspects] of homosexuality before national or local meetings of psychiatrists or in public forums."[17] Elsewhere Socarides stated that the decision of the APA trustees was "the medical hoax of the century."[18]
Was this the end of the debate? Did the vast majority of "competent" psychiatrists agree with the APA's decision? In 1977 ten thousand members of the APA were polled at random, asking them their opinion on this. In an article entitled "Sick Again?" Time magazine summarized the results of the poll: "Of those answering, 69% said they believed 'homosexuality is usually a pathological adaptation, as opposed to a normal variation,' 18% disagreed and 13% were uncertain. Similarly, sizable majorities said that homosexuals are generally less happy than heterosexuals (73%) and less capable of mature, loving relationships (60%). A total of 70% said that homosexuals' problems have more to do with their own inner conflicts than with stigmatization by society at large."[19]
But what about today? Has this issue been resolved in current medical opinion and research? Concerning this, Dr. Stanton L. Jones, professor of psychology at Wheaton College, states that there is a "mixed scorecard" among professionals on this. He writes: "I would not regard homosexuality to be a psychopathology in the same sense as schizophrenia or phobic disorders. But neither can it be viewed as a normal 'lifestyle variation' on a par with being introverted versus extroverted."[20] One may debate whether or not homosexuality is a pathological disorder, but it is clear that the APA's 1973 decision cannot be cited as medical consensus that homosexuality is a "normal" condition. Later in this article I will examine in some detail the assertion that homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle.

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0107a.html

I've seen suggestions of this before, but from past experience of radical Christian forums misquoting the professionals, I feel it's of no value.

 

[MercyBurst]

It is obvious you have an agenda to justify your prejudice.

And you have an agenda to justify immorality.

 

[MercyBurst]

Homosexuality: Fact and Fiction

by Joseph P. Gudel


IS HOMOSEXUALITY AN ILLNESS? IS IT "NORMAL"?

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0107a.html

Sexual immutability obviously isn't a law of physics. If it were then you could tell a person's orientation at birth.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

And you have an agenda to justify immorality.

And you have an avatar of a potato playing a guitar

 

[davedjy]

And you have an agenda to justify immorality.

There isn't anything to "justify", but that is a big word you anti-gay debaters like to use. You can't make any credible debate point, so you like to come back with comments like "we are trying to justify our sin".

There isn't any justification needed, we are exactly the way God made us.

 

[MercyBurst]

There isn't anything to "justify", but that is a big word you anti-gay debaters like to use. You can't make any credible debate point, so you like to come back with comments like "we are trying to justify our sin".

There isn't any justification needed, we are exactly the way God made us.

Righteousness needs no justification, and you were born that way, so who needs to repent?

 

[MercyBurst]

And you have an avatar of a potato playing a guitar

It's something that gay sex can't produce -- a baby.

 

[davedjy]

It's something that gay sex can't produce -- a baby.

*yawns* he certainly can adopt...

 

[savedandhappy1]

It is obvious you have an agenda to justify your prejudice.

Really????????

I came across this while looking up something else, and after much prayer felt I should post it. You noticed that I didn't commit, so that I could see how things would go. We get alot of post from homosexual bible scholars, which we are to believe don't have an agenda. (pointing out here that I have never accused anyone of having an agenda as far as I can remember) Yet anything I have posted for the other side of this issue is either bias, has an agenda or I have an agenda.

Well since I don't believe that homosexuality is an illness, that could be hard to prove as a sign that I have an agenda/prejudice.

Since the APA has been used on, well almost all threads that come up as proof that homosexuaity isn't a sin, I thought I would just post this. Not sure what proving that it is or isn't a mental illness has to do with it being a sin or not, but it is used as an excuse and is somehow supposed to be logical and relevent.

I guess I should start trying to get the APA and all the others on the list, david posted above, to try and say that some of my sins aren't sins because it isn't a mental illness.

So tell me again who has an agenda and who has prejudice.

Oh david, Could you tell me how the Social Workers saying homosexiality is ok matters to God? Since when did they get the deciding hand on this? In fact what does all those groups you mention have to do with the sin or no sin factor? Last I knew God hasn't appointed them over Himself to speak on this.

Do you have some information you have found in the scriptures that tell us we should listen to these worldly/earthly associations over the Lord?


Chalice Thunder,
Yes I do have an agenda. My agenda is to work as hard as I can to increase the Kingdom of God, and to love like He does. Also, just like Him I don't want anyone to perish. It is an agenda that we are all called to by Jesus, and is one that I daily rise to try and do. I try to pick my cross up daily, and ask the Holy Spirit to please use me. To speak through me, and to help me sow the seeds that the Lord wants me to sow so that all those things will happen.

 

[davedjy]

Oh david, Could you tell me how the Social Workers saying homosexiality is ok matters to God? Since when did they get the deciding hand on this? In fact what does all those groups you mention have to do with the sin or no sin factor? Last I knew God hasn't appointed them over Himself to speak on this.

Do you have some information you have found in the scriptures that tell us we should listen to these worldly/earthly associations over the Lord?

What does that have to do with the thread? This thread is called "APA's 1973 decision cannot be cited as medical consensus". Sure, if we are talking about Scriptural interpretations, but that isn't what this thread is about. Since you don't really hold water in a credible secular psychological or psychiatric debate, you turn this back onto the Bible.

Aren't you more or less hijacking your own thread by bringing that point in here?

You bring secular opinion in here as the nature of the thread, not Biblical.