[asa] Catholic Insight: Homosexuality misrepresented by fabrication and bias

First, one of the comments on the article:

Here's a sidebar reference article. It's Dennis
Prager's review of why Judaism and Christianity rejected homosexuality.

WARNING: Contains GRAPHIC sexual description (in
context and necessary to the exposition)...
<http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0003.html>http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0003.html

<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1650730/posts?page=8#8>8
posted on 06/16/2006 4:43:48 PM EDT by VOA

~ Janice

Homosexuality misrepresented by fabrication and bias
Catholic Insight ^ | June 15, 2006 | Catholic Insight Staff
Posted on 06/16/2006 4:20:20 PM EDT by DBeers
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1650730/posts

Homosexuality used to be classified as a
psychiatric disorder but this was changed in
1973. The question is: why? In 2005 Dr. Jeffery
B. Satinover, M.D., published an investigative,
25-page article, tracing the motives and the behind-the-scenes maneuvering.

Dr. Satinover is a psychiatrist and also a
physicist. He is the Director of the
Durckheim-Gladstone International Center for
Quantitative Analysis (ICQA) in Washington, D.C.
In cooperation with the Heritage Foundation and
under the auspices of the ICQA, he is overseeing
the development of a fully cross-linked
international database of medical, social science
and legal citations with associated meta-analyses
and aggregated data tables. The purpose of the
database is to assist concerned scholars,
attorneys, social scientists, policy analysts and
citizens worldwide in addressing the
nearly-universal problem of embedding gross
distortions (or even wholesale inventions) of
social science conclusions in legal documents.
These distortions are ideologically driven to
make the public believe that these policies are
founded in science. The 1973 ruling of
de-classifying homosexuality as a psychiatric
disorder is one of these public policies.

Dr. Satinover has brilliantly used the expertise
and scientific data base of the ICQA in order to
expose the false claims, lack of scientific
expertise, lack of clinical experience,
fabrication of evidence, and obvious bias that
characterize the behaviour of the homosexual
activists who, in 1973, succeeded in pressuring
the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to
remove homosexuality from their official list of mental disorders.

He also shows how the mental health associations
misrepresented key scientific evidence in recent
court testimony. This authoritative and
devastating article was published in the
Conference Reports 2005, of the National
Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH).1

History: how did this get started?

In 1957 psychologist Evelyn Hooker wrote a paper
that claimed to show that homosexuality is
normal. Twelve years later, in 1969, the National
Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Task Force on
Homosexuality, of which Hooker was chairwoman,
claimed that sexuality was a continuum from
exclusive homosexuality to exclusive
heterosexuality.2 Hooker was handpicked by Judd
Marmor, an influential psychiatrist from the
University of California in Los Angeles.

The Task Force also claimed, without evidence,
that homosexual suffering was caused by societal
prejudice. Acceding to pressure, the APA in 1971,
sponsored a panel, not on the subject of
homosexuality, but a panel whose membership was
composed of homosexuals. The fact that these
panel members were homosexuals was the sole
factor that was purported to enable them to speak as professionals.

The role of that panel of activists was to put
pressure on the APA, by disrupting its activities
if necessary, to secure an appearance before the
APA’s crucial Committee on Nomenclature and
Statistics, responsible for publishing the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders. The APA caved in and created another
special task force made up almost entirely of the
same people from the Kinsey Institute who had
packed the previously mentioned NIMH task force
in 1971. Judd Marmor was now the APA
Vice-President, while the President-elect was a
homosexual who would keep this fact secret.

None of the members of the Nomenclature Committee
was expert on homosexuality. A group of outside
activists and gay psychiatrists and psychologists
presented the Committee with arguments made by
Evelyn Hooker and Alfred Kinsey that
homosexuality was not associated with
psychopathology and that all other studies on
homosexuality were intrinsically flawed, because
of sampling bias. Both arguments were outright
falsehoods, especially outrageous because the
Kinsey data were fraudulently skewed by blatant
population sampling biases and the badgering, and
even bribing, of its imprisoned and largely
otherwise institutionalized subjects.

In reporting to the APA, the Nomenclature
Committee failed to make any reference to studies
critical of the Hooker and Kinsey evidence.
Nonetheless, following the advice of these new
homosexual advisors, two-thirds of the APA’s
Board of Trustees, barely a quorum, voted to
remove homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder, with only two abstentions.

As mentioned before, the Committee was presented
with Hooker’s study. This study failed the most
basic tenets of the scientific method. The author
deliberately had her associates recruit
participants to obtain a pool of subjects who
understood what the “experiment” was about and
how it was to be used to achieve a political goal
in transforming society.3 She had no clinical
experience in the field or in the scientific
methods to be employed, had obvious bias, and
provided no details about her procedures. The
inadequacy of her research was acknowledged by the journal that published it.

Two years later, the other mental health guilds,
the American Psychological Association, and the
National Association of Social Workers, followed
suit. Every psychiatrist, and there were tens of
thousands, received a mailing urging them to
support the change that purported to come from
the APA, but was in fact financed by the National
Gay Task Force. Four years later, a survey showed
that 69% of psychiatrists disagreed with the APA Committee report.

The Judiciary

In the Romer brief (Roy Romer, Governor of
Colorado v. Richard G. Evans, 1996), the authors
claimed that there was no evidence that sexual
orientation, a tendency to experience erotic or
romantic responses to men, women, or both,
resulting in a sense of one’s self, can be
changed. They also claimed that homosexuality is
not a disorder. They failed, however, to refer to
modern research of high quality that contradicts
their claims. Moreover, they praised the Laumann
Report, that contradicts their claims, but they misrepresented its results.

In May, 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
against an amendment of the Colorado State
Constitution that would have allowed
discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation. Justice Scalia wrote, in dissent,
that the amendment was a “a modest attempt… to
preserve traditional mores against the efforts of
a politically powerful minority to revise those
mores through the use of the laws.”

In the Lawrence brief (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003),
the mental health guild held that “homosexuality
is a normal form of human sexuality,” that it is
fixed early in life, and that it does not change:
that it is a matter of “orientation” or
‘identity.’” They ignored the fact that studies
show a very strong intrinsic association between
homosexuality and psychological distress far
beyond that which could be attributed solely to
the genuine and additional distress caused by stigma and prejudice.

No literature has succeeded in demonstrating that
this excess psychological distress is in fact
attributable to stigma and prejudice. The mental
health guild took its position despite the fact
that the latest and best research done by Susan
Cochran, one of the authors of the brief,
directly and extensively asserted the opposite of
what the guild claimed. All of Cochran et al.’s
findings were published before the due-date for
submission of briefs in the Lawrence case. In
November 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down
a Texas State law banning private consensual sex
between adults of the same sex.

The Laumann study: the definitive study

This study, published in 1994, and repeatedly
confirmed by many large scale epidemiological
surveys involving hundreds of thousands of
people, conducted in all English-speaking and
many other industrialized nations, is universally
recognized as definitive.4,5 In summary, the
major findings of the Laumann Report are that
homosexuality is not a stable trait and that it
tends spontaneously to convert into
heterosexuality as an individual gets older; that
sexual identity is not fixed at adolescence but
continues to change over the course of life and
that there is no evidence for homosexuality being innate.

Satinover states that “The reality is that, since
1994, there has existed solid epidemiologic
evidence, now extensively confirmed and
reconfirmed that the most common natural course
for a young person who develops a ‘homosexual
identity’ is for it to spontaneously disappear
unless that person is discouraged or interfered
with by extraneous factors [our emphasis].

“We may say now with increasing confidence that
those ‘extraneous factors’ are primarily the
‘social milieu’… this ‘social milieu’ is the
family setting and culture created by, inter
alia, the decisions enforced by the Justices of
the Supreme Court of the United States acting in
coordination with the misrepresentation of the
scientific evidence provided to it by the
American Psychiatric Association, the American
Psychological Association, and the National Association of Social Workers.”

REFERENCES:

    * Jeffery B. Satinover, M.S. M.D. National
Association for Research and Therapy of
Homosexuality, Conference Reports, 2005. “The
Trojan couch: How the mental health guilds allow
medical diagnostics scientific research and
jurisprudence to be subverted in lockstep with
the political aims of their gay sub-components.”

    * Evelyn Hooker, “The adjustment of the male
overt homosexual,” Journal of Projective Techniques, 1957, 21, 18-31.
    * Bruce Shenitz, “The grand dame of gay
liberation,” Los Angeles Times, June 10, 1990. pp. 20-34.
    * Edward O. Laumann et al. The Social
organization of sexuality: sexual practices in
the United States: University of Chicago (1994).
    * Edward O. Laumann et al. “A political
history of the national sex survey of adults,”
Fam. Plann. Perspect. 1994, Jan-Feb; 26 (1): 34-8.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jun 16 17:22:53 2006