Singularity

REEDUCATION AND REASSIGNMENT OF ACCEPTABLE SEXUAL ORIENTATION ACCORDING TO RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY IS ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL.

I spent this past week evaluating your post and your references. Let me first state that, as a fully trained medical doctor with a specialty in psychiatry, I am quite able to adequately evaluate you, your claims of scientific orthodoxy and your reported activity.

Your
1. obvious religious bias,
2. your preferential use of junk p***********e, discredited sources and authors,
3. your bigoted conclusions and
4. Your call to illegal action,

all demand condemnation of the highest sort.

Your humble manner, long-suffering attitude and pseudoscientific approach are a pose! You are promoting h**e speech and a call for mind control. You are not mistaken or ignorant or deluded. You understand the exact nature of what you persist at promoting and insist you are doing and continue to do in direct violation of the laws of the land and all laws of decency. That you are aware that you are doing this is obvious and evident in your efforts to misdirect and deceive and cloak yourself in victimhood.

You wrap yourself in false piety to disguise yourself and your agenda of REEDUCATION AND REASSIGNMENT OF ACCEPTABLE SEXUAL ORIENTATION ACCORDING TO RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY in order to gain sympathy and support from good hearted people with less sophisticated backgrounds and ability to discern the good from the bad, true from false, in scientific exploration, study and reporting.

You inflame religious passions by decrying the sin and your "love" for the "sinner." You further inflame by falsely presenting yourself as a properly educated, credentialed and principled but much maligned caregiver. You do not describe your own (lack of?) education, training, expertise, experience and CREDENTIALS. In fact, I believe you are a bigot! You offer snake oil! You sing your own praises at your criminal disregard for well-known legal and ethical practices. You are a charletan.

Change your own wording only slightly and your equaually rapacious desire becomes obvious:
"But the kids were left to fend for themselves and were therefore very needy and thought that the nice (Christian) men wanted to be their friend when all they wanted was to "befriend " them so they could (convert) them. One of the problems we dealt with was the mantra "I was just showing you that (Christianity) is nice and if you were not really (a good person inside) you wouldn't have (emotionally) responded!"

Blacksheep

----------------------------------------------

Well now, I'm not sure here how to comment on this. Should I talk about the reassignment of sexual orientation or your severe trouncing of No Propaganda Please?

Oh what the Hell, I'll do both. Title first. A q***r is a q***r is a q***r, and it doesn't matter if any q***r has a religion or not, if they're q***r, well, their still q***r. I hope that clarifies the subject for everybody. Do I think that trying to change someone's sexual orientation is good or bad? I think bad UNLESS it's some q***r trying to turn a little kid q***r, which happens a lot. Also, if a kid hits puberty and opts to be q***r on his or her own, there it is there. Where I object is if some q***r is messing with the kid. When it comes to sex, leave the children alone and let them work out for themselves what they like.

As for No Propaganda, I never paid that much attention, to be honest. However, regardless of the verity or lack of it in your denunciation of No P, I gotta say, you did a fine job. That was a brilliant attack, I applaud. We need an emoticon for clapping.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Singularity

Totally agree. The attempt to change another's sexual orientation against their will or at a point when they cannot give consent is morally wrong, regardless of whomever makes the attempt.

Singularity

To keep from stopping and posting portions of this next mountain of info in pieces, here is a summary of some things we do know.

FROM WIKIPEDIA:

Homosexual agenda
Homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term introduced by some conservative Christians in the United States, often used disparagingly to describe the advocacy of cultural acceptance and normalization of non-heterosexual orientations and relationships. The term refers to efforts to change government policies and laws on L**T rights related issues. The term has also been used by some social conservatives and others to describe alleged goals of L**T rights activists, such as recruiting heterosexuals into what they term a 'homosexual lifestyle'.[1]

Homosexual recruitment
Homosexual recruitment and similar terms are used to describe the false accusation[1][2][3] that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and t*********r (L**T) people attempt to convert otherwise heterosexual people into a "gay lifestyle". Allegations of recruitment in this fashion have been used in opposition to institutionalized HIV prevention programs, anti-bullying legislation, anti-discrimination laws, in-school discussions of feminism and L**T rights, and against the establishment of Gay-Straight Alliance school programs.

10 H**eful Anti-Gay Myths Debunked: Exploring 10 key myths propagated by the anti-gay movement, along with the t***h behind the propaganda.
CIVIL LIBERTIES
SPLC Intelligence Report / By Evelyn Schlatter, Robert Steinback
December 9, 2010

Ever since born-again singer and orange juice pitchwoman Anita Bryant helped kick off the contemporary anti-gay movement more than 30 years ago, hard-line elements of the religious right have been searching for ways to demonize homosexuals — or, at a minimum, to find arguments that will prevent their normalization in society. For the former Florida beauty queen and her Save Our Children group, it was the alleged plans of gays and lesbians to “recruit” in schools that provided the fodder for their crusade. But in addition to hawking that myth, the legions of anti-gay activists who followed have added a panoply of others, ranging from the extremely doubtful claim that homosexuality is a choice, to unalloyed lies like the claims that gays molest children far more than heterosexuals or that h**e crime laws will lead to the legalization of bestiality and necrophilia. These fairy tales are important to the anti-gay right because they form the basis of its claim that homosexuality is a social evil that must be suppressed — an opinion rejected by virtually all relevant medical and scientific authorities. They also almost certainly contribute to h**e crime violence directed at homosexuals, who are more targeted for such attacks than any other minority in America. What follows are 10 key myths propagated by the anti-gay movement, along with the t***h behind the propaganda.

MYTH #1: Homosexuals molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals.

THE ARGUMENT: Depicting gay men as a threat to children may be the single most potent weapon for stoking public fears about homosexuality — and for winning e******ns and referenda, as Anita Bryant found out during her successful 1977 campaign to overturn a Dade County, Fla., ordinance barring discrimination against gay people. Discredited psychologist Paul Cameron, the most ubiquitous purveyor of anti-gay junk science, has been a major promoter of this myth. Despite having been debunked repeatedly and very publicly, Cameron’s work is still widely relied upon by anti-gay organizations, although many no longer quote him by name.
THE FACTS: According to the American Psychological Association, “homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are.” Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation’s leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men.
Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical p*******e — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because “he often finds adults of either sex repulsive” and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may “regress” to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.
The Child Molestation Research and Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right rhetoric suggests.

MYTH #2: Same-sex parents harm children.

THE ARGUMENT: Most hard-line anti-gay organizations are heavily invested, from both a religious and a political standpoint, in promoting the traditional nuclear family as the sole framework for the healthy upbringing of children. They maintain a reflexive belief that same-sex parenting must be harmful to children — although the exact nature of that supposed harm varies widely.
THE FACTS: No legitimate research has demonstrated that same-sex couples are any more or any less harmful to children than heterosexual couples.
The American Academy of Pediatrics in a 2002 policy statement declared: “A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual.” That policy statement was reaffirmed in 2009.
The American Psychological Association found that “same-sex couples are remarkably similar to heterosexual couples, and that parenting effectiveness and the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation.”
Similarly, the Child Welfare League of America’s official position with regard to same-sex parents is that “lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents are as well-suited to raise children as their heterosexual counterparts.”

MYTH #3: People become homosexual because they were sexually abused as children or there was a deficiency in sex-role modeling by their parents.

THE ARGUMENT: Many anti-gay rights proponents claim that homosexuality is a mental disorder caused by some psychological trauma or aberration in childhood. This argument is used to counter the common observation that no one, gay or straight, consciously chooses his or her sexual orientation. Joseph Nicolosi, a founder of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, said in 2009 that “if you traumatize a child in a particular way, you will create a homosexual condition.” He also has repeatedly said, “Fathers, if you don’t hug your sons, some other man will.” A side effect of this argument is the demonization of parents of homosexuals, who are led to wonder if they failed to protect a child against sexual abuse or failed as role models in some important way. In October 2010, Kansas State University family studies professor Walter Schumm said he was about to release a related study arguing that homosexual couples are more likely than heterosexuals to raise gay or lesbian children.
THE FACTS: No scientifically sound study has linked sexual orientation or identity with parental role-modeling or childhood sexual abuse.
The American Psychiatric Association noted in a 2000 fact sheet on gay, lesbian and bisexual issues that “no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse.” The fact sheet goes on to say that sexual abuse does not appear to be any more prevalent among children who grow up and identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual than in children who grow up and identify as heterosexual.
Similarly, the National Organization on Male Sexual Victimization notes on its website that “experts in the human sexuality field do not believe that premature sexual experiences play a significant role in late adolescent or adult sexual orientation” and added that it’s unlikely that someone can make another person a homosexual or heterosexual.
With regard to Schumm’s study, critics have already said that he appears to have merely aggregated anecdotal data, a biased sample that invalidates his findings.

MYTH #4: Homosexuals don’t live nearly as long as heterosexuals.

THE ARGUMENT: Anti-gay organizations want to promote heterosexuality as the healthier “choice.” Furthermore, the purportedly shorter life spans and poorer physical and mental health of homosexuals are often offered as reasons why gays and lesbians shouldn’t be allowed to adopt or foster children.
THE FACTS: This falsehood can be traced directly to the discredited research of Paul Cameron and his Family Research Institute, specifically a 1994 paper he co-wrote entitled, “The Lifespan of Homosexuals.” Using obituaries collected from gay newspapers, he and his two co-authors concluded that gay men died, on average, at 43, compared to an average life expectancy at the time of around 73 for all U.S. men. On the basis of the same obituaries, Cameron also claimed that gay men are 18 times more likely to die in car accidents than heterosexuals, 22 times more likely to die of heart attacks than w****s, and 11 times more likely than b****s to die of the same cause. He also concluded that lesbians are 487 times more likely to die of murder, suicide, or accidents than straight women.
Remarkably, these claims have become staples of the anti-gay right and have frequently made their way into far more mainstream venues. For example, William Bennett, education secretary under President Reagan, used Cameron’s statistics in a 1997 interview he gave to ABC News’ “This Week.”
However, like virtually all of his “research,” Cameron’s methodology is egregiously flawed — most obviously because the sample he selected (the data from the obits) was not remotely statistically representative of the homosexual population as a whole. Even Nicholas Eberstadt, a demographer at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, has called Cameron’s methods “just ridiculous.”

MYTH #5: Homosexuals controlled the N**i Party and helped to orchestrate the Holocaust.

THE ARGUMENT: This claim comes directly from a 1995 book titled The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the N**i Party, by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams. Lively is the virulently anti-gay founder of Abiding T***h Ministries and Abrams is an organizer of a group called the International Committee for Holocaust T***h, which came together in 1994 and included Lively as a member.
The primary argument Lively and Abrams make is that gay people were not victimized by the Holocaust. Rather, Hitler deliberately sought gay men for his inner circle because their “unusual brutality” would help him run the party and mastermind the Holocaust. In fact, “the N**i party was entirely controlled by militaristic male homosexuals throughout its short history,” the book claims. “While we cannot say that homosexuals caused the Holocaust, we must not ignore their central role in N**ism,” Lively and Abrams add. “To the myth of the ‘pink triangle’ — the notion that all homosexuals in N**i Germany were persecuted — we must respond with the reality of the ‘pink swastika.’”
These claims have been picked up by a number of anti-gay groups and individuals, including Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, as proof that homosexuals are violent and sick. The book has also attracted an audience among anti-gay church leaders in Eastern Europe and among Russian-speaking anti-gay activists in America.
THE FACTS: The Pink Swastika has been roundly discredited by legitimate historians and other scholars. Christine Mueller, professor of history at Reed College, did a line-by-line refutation of an earlier (1994) Abrams article on the topic and of the broader claim that the N**i Party was “entirely controlled” by gay men. Historian Jon David Wynecken at Grove City College also refuted the book, pointing out that Lively and Abrams did no primary research of their own, instead using out-of-context citations of some legitimate sources while ignoring information from those same sources that ran counter to their thesis.
The myth that the N**is condoned homosexuality sprang up in the 1930s, started by socialist opponents of the N**is as a slander against N**i leaders. Credible historians believe that only one of the half-dozen leaders in Hitler’s inner circle, Ernst Röhm, was gay. (Röhm was murdered on Hitler’s orders in 1934.) The N**is considered homosexuality one aspect of the “degeneracy” they were trying to eradicate.
When the National Socialist Party came to power in 1933, it quickly strengthened Germany’s existing penalties against homosexuality. Heinrich Himmler, Hitler’s security chief, announced that homosexuality was to be “eliminated” in Germany, along with miscegenation among the races. Historians estimate that between 50,000 and 100,000 men were arrested for homosexuality (or suspicion of it) under the N**i regime. These men were routinely sent to concentration camps and many thousands died there.
In 1942, the N**is instituted the death penalty for homosexuals. Offenders in the German military were routinely shot. Himmler put it like this: “We must exterminate these people root and branch. … We can’t permit such danger to the country; the homosexual must be completely eliminated.”

MYTH #6: H**e crime laws will lead to the jailing of pastors who criticize homosexuality and the legalization of practices like bestiality and necrophilia.

THE ARGUMENT: Anti-gay activists, who have long opposed adding L**T people to those protected by h**e crime legislation, have repeatedly claimed that such laws would lead to the jailing of religious figures who preach against homosexuality — part of a bid to gain the backing of the broader religious community for their position. Janet Porter of Faith2Action was one of many who asserted that the federal Matthew Shepard H**e Crimes Prevention Act — signed into law by President Obama in October 2009 — would “jail pastors” because it “criminalizes speech against the homosexual agenda.”
In a related assertion, anti-gay activists claimed the law would lead to the legalization of psychosexual disorders (paraphilias) like bestiality and p********a. Bob Unruh, a conservative Christian journalist who left The Associated Press in 2006 for the right-wing, conspir****t news site WorldNetDaily, said shortly before the federal law was passed that it would legalize “all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or ‘paraphilias’ listed by the American Psychiatric Association.” This claim was repeated by many anti-gay organizations, including the Illinois Family Institute.
THE FACTS: The claim that h**e crime laws could result in the imprisonment of those who “oppose the homosexual lifestyle” is false. The Constitution provides robust protections of free speech, and case law makes it clear that even a preacher who suggested that homosexuals should be k**led would be protected.
Neither do h**e crime laws — which provide for enhanced penalties when persons are victimized because of their “sexual orientation” (among other factors) — “protect p*******es,” as Janet Porter and many others have claimed. According to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation refers to heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality — not paraphilias such as p********a. Paraphilias, as defined by the American Psychiatric Assocation, are disorders characterized by sexual urges or behaviors directed at nonhuman objects or non-consenting persons like children, or that involve the suffering or humiliation of one’s partner.
Even if p*******es, for example, were protected under a h**e crime law — and such a law has not been suggested or contemplated anywhere — that would not legalize or “protect” p********a. P********a is illegal sexual activity, and a law that more severely punished people who attacked p*******es would not change that.

MYTH #7: Allowing homosexuals to serve openly would damage the armed forces.

THE ARGUMENT: Anti-gay groups are adamantly opposed to allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the armed forces, not only because of their purported fear that combat readiness will be undermined, but because the military has long been considered the purest meritocracy in America (the armed forces were successfully racially integrated long before American civilian society, for example). If gays can serve honorably and effectively in this meritocracy, that would suggest that there is no rational basis for discriminating against them in any way.
THE FACTS: Homosexuals now serve in the U.S. armed forces, though under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy instituted in 1993, they cannot serve openly. At the same time, gays and lesbians serve openly in the armed forces of 25 countries, including Britain, Israel, South Africa, Canada and Australia, according to a report released by the Palm Center, a policy think tank at the University of California at Santa Barbara. The Palm Center report concluded that lifting bans against openly gay service personnel in these countries “ha[s] had no negative impact on morale, recruitment, retention, readiness or overall combat effectiveness.” Successful t***sitions to new policies were attributed to clear signals of leadership support and a focus on a uniform code of behavior without regard to sexual orientation.
A 2008 Military Times poll of active-duty military personnel, often cited by anti-gay activists, found that 10% of respondents said they would not re-enlist if the DADT policy were repealed. That would mean some 228,000 people might leave the military in that instance. But a 2009 review of that poll by the Palm Center suggested a wide disparity between what soldiers said they would do and their actual actions. It noted, for example, that far more than 10% of West Point officers in the 1970s said they would leave the service if women were admitted to the academy. “But when the integration became a reality,” the report said, “there was no mass exodus; the opinions turned out to be just opinions.” Similarly, a 1985 survey of 6,500 male Canadian service members and a 1996 survey of 13,500 British service members each revealed that nearly two-thirds expressed strong reservations about serving with gays. Yet when those countries lifted bans on gays serving openly, virtually no one left the service for that reason. “None of the dire predictions of doom came true,” the Palm Center report said.

MYTH #8: Homosexuals are more prone to be mentally ill and to abuse drugs and alcohol.

THE ARGUMENT: Anti-gay groups want not only to depict sexual orientation as something that can be changed but also to show that heterosexuality is the most desirable “choice” — even if religious arguments are set aside. The most frequently used secular argument made by anti-gay groups in that regard is that homosexuality is inherently unhealthy, both mentally and physically. As a result, most anti-gay rights groups reject the 1973 decision by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to remove homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses. Some of these groups, including the particularly hard-line Traditional Values Coalition, claim that “homosexual activists” managed to infiltrate the APA in order to sway its decision.
THE FACTS: All major professional mental health organizations are on record as stating that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.
It is true that L**T people suffer higher rates of anxiety, depression, and depression-related illnesses and behaviors like alcohol and drug abuse than the general population. But studies done during the past 15 years have determined that it is the stress of being a member of a minority group in an often-hostile society — and not L**T identity itself — that accounts for the higher levels of mental illness and drug use.
Richard J. Wolitski, an expert on minority status and public health issues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, put it like this in 2008: “Economic disadvantage, stigma, and discrimination … increase stress and diminish the ability of individuals [in minority groups] to cope with stress, which in turn contribute to poor physical and mental health.”

MYTH #9: No one is born a homosexual.

THE ARGUMENT: Anti-gay activists keenly oppose the granting of “special” civil rights protections to homosexuals similar to those afforded b***k A******ns and other minorities. But if people are born gay — in the same way people have no choice as to whether they are black or white — discrimination against homosexuals would be vastly more difficult to justify. Thus, anti-gay forces insist that sexual orientation is a behavior that can be changed, not an immutable characteristic.
THE FACTS: Modern science cannot state conclusively what causes sexual orientation, but a great many studies suggest that it is the result of biological and environmental forces, not a personal “choice.” One of the more recent is a 2008 Swedish study of twins (the world’s largest twin study) that appeared in The Archives of Sexual Behavior and concluded that “[h]omosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors.” Dr. Qazi Rahman, study co-author and a leading scientist on human sexual orientation, said: “This study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single ‘gay gene’ or a single environmental variable which could be used to ‘select out’ homosexuality — the factors which influence sexual orientation are complex. And we are not simply talking about homosexuality here — heterosexual behaviour is also influenced by a mixture of genetic and environmental factors.”
The American Psychological Association (APA) acknowledges that despite much research into the possible genetic, hormonal, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no evidence has emerged that would allow scientists to pinpoint the precise causes of sexual orientation. Still, the APA concludes that “most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”
In October 2010, Kansas State University family studies professor Walter Schumm said he was about to release a study showing that gay parents produced far more gay children than heterosexual parents. He told a reporter that he was “trying to prove [homosexuality is] not 100% genetic.” But critics suggested that his data did not prove that, and, in any event, virtually no scientists have suggested that homosexuality is caused only by genes.

MYTH #10: Gay people can choose to leave homosexuality.

THE ARGUMENT: If people are not born gay, as anti-gay activists claim, then it should be possible for individuals to abandon homosexuality. This view is buttressed among religiously motivated anti-gay activists by the idea that homosexual practice is a sin and humans have the free will needed to reject sinful urges.
A number of “ex-gay” religious ministries have sprung up in recent years with the aim of teaching homosexuals to become heterosexuals, and these have become prime purveyors of the claim that gays and lesbians, with the aid of mental therapy and Christian teachings, can “come out of homosexuality.” Exodus International, the largest of these ministries, plainly states, “You don’t have to be gay!” Another, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, describes itself as “a professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality.”
THE FACTS: “Reparative” or sexual reorientation therapy — the pseudo-scientific foundation of the ex-gay movement — has been rejected by all the established and reputable American medical, psychological, psychiatric, and professional counseling organizations. In 2009, for instance, the American Psychological Association adopted a resolution, accompanied by a 138-page report, that repudiated ex-gay therapy. The report concluded that compelling evidence suggested that cases of individuals going from gay to straight were “rare” and that “many individuals continued to experience same-sex sexual attractions” after reparative therapy. The APA resolution added that “there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation” and asked “mental health professionals to avoid misrepresenting the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts by promoting or promising change in sexual orientation.” The resolution also affirmed that same-sex sexual and romantic feelings are normal.
Some of the most striking, if anecdotal, evidence of the ineffectiveness of sexual reorientation therapy has been the numerous failures of some of its most ardent advocates. For example, the founder of Exodus International, Michael Bussee, left the organization in 1979 with a fellow male ex-gay counselor because the two had fallen in love. Alan Chambers, current president of Exodus, said in 2007 that with years of therapy, he’s mostly conquered his attraction to men, but then admitted, “By no means would we ever say that change can be sudden or complete."

Blacksheep

Sorry but that whole pile IS a pile. I had q***rs trying to suck my dick and get me to buttfuck them starting when I was 12 years old and looked younger. Q***rs of both sexes go after the kids.

To answer the obvious question, no, I didn't let them get away with it except once when I was pier fishing when I was 14 and a local high school gym teacher invited me over for a cup of coffee. It was summer vacation and late at night. So I trustingly went and ended up getting a blow job. The guy was BIG, and I was too scared to refuse.

Q***rs like kids and they want sex with kids. Anyone who says they don't is a fucking liar and probably a q***r.

Serenity54321

############
Yes, the rank of p********a reeks in this country. I was hit on at the age of ten by two different heterosexual married men (I'm female) and sexually molested at 8 by one teenage guy, although he might not have been 18 yet. At 8, I didn't even know what the hell he was doing.

The American Psychological Association has no clue what they are talking about when it comes to child sex, either homosexual or heterosexual. It is commonplace, but of course no one wants to admit that. In some states, it's legal to marry at 16. View nearly any pornography video and the girls look barely 18. No dude wants to check out a 30-yr-old woman. Pornography actresses are out of a career by then. You have child sex trade rampant in other countries, favored prostitutes are young, etc etc.

Anybody who states p********a is rare either in homosexuals OR heterosexuals is flat-out delusional.

IF HETEROSEXUAL men will recruit children for sex, drool over teenage girls, fantasize about the youngest virgin, HOMOSEXUAL men will too. It's not a stretch!

dennisimoto Loc: Washington State (West)

Well, so much for civility and decorum. "Swearing is the crutch of the conversational cripple."

Blacksheep

Are you q***r? You sound q***r, is why I ask. Just wondering.

dennisimoto Loc: Washington State (West)

That would all depend on what your definition of, "q***r," is.

Blacksheep

Uh huh.

RockKnutne Loc: Valhöll

Is this the pot calling the kettle black "as a fully trained medical doctor with a specialty in psychiatry"? I sure believe so!

http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-15907-1.html

F.Y.I. doc. Update your reading material,

"I was appalled when I discovered a prestigious professor at Johns Hopkins University was an open advocate of — apologist for — p*******es and pederasts (adults who have sexual relations with post-pubescent children)."

"His name is Dr. Fred Berlin and he is involved with the group B4U-ACT. On their website B4U-ACT talk about p********a being a mental disorder and that these people need help."

"However, at their conference on August 17th in Baltimore, Maryland, where Dr. Berlin was the keynote speaker, it was a different story. The overall theme of the conference was p*******es are "unfairly stigmatized and demonized" by society and "the majority of p*******es are gentle and rational."

"According to child advocates who attended the conference, Matt Barber, Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action, and Dr. Judith Reisman, a visiting law professor at the Liberty University School of Law, about 50 people attended the conference including p*******es and pederasts. The group even has a politically correct euphemism for these practitioners of d*****t sex — Minor-Attracted Persons."

"Has Johns Hopkins forgotten about the Hippocratic Oath? "I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone." — Hippocratic Oath"


"On the group's web site, Dr. Berlin is quoted as saying: "Just as has been the case historically with homosexuality, society is currently addressing the matter of p********a with a balance that is far more heavily weighted on the side of criminal justice solutions than on the side of mental health solutions."

Barber and Reisman highlighted some of the statements made during the conference including those of Dr. Berlin.

Does Johns Hopkins Hospital support this agenda?


P*******es are "unfairly stigmatized and demonized" by society.


There was concern about "vice-laden diagnostic criteria" and "cultural baggage of wrongfulness."


"We are not required to interfere with or inhibit our child's sexuality."


"Children are not inherently unable to consent" to sex with an adult.


"In Western culture sex is taken too seriously."


"Anglo-American standard on age of consent is new [and 'Puritanical']. In Europe it was always set at 10 or 12. Ages of consent beyond that are relatively new and very strange, especially for boys. They've always been able to have sex at any age."


An adult's desire to have sex with children is "normative."


Our society should "maximize individual liberty. ... We have a highly moralistic society that is not consistent with liberty."


"Assuming children are unable to consent lends itself to criminalization and stigmatization."


"These things are not black and white; there are various shades of gray."


A consensus belief by both speakers and p*******es in attendance was that, because it vilifies MAPs, p********a should be removed as a mental disorder from the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), in the same manner homosexuality was removed in 1973.


***Dr. Fred Berlin acknowledged that it was political activism, similar to that witnessed at the conference, rather than scientific considerations that successfully led to the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder: The reason "homosexuality was taken out of DSM is that people didn't want the government in the bedroom," he said.***


Dr. Berlin appeared to endorse the politically maligned clinical practice of "reparative therapy" for homosexuals and p*******es alike, saying, "If someone, for their own reasons, doesn't want to live a homosexual lifestyle, I tell them that it's hard but I'll try to help them."


The DSM ignores those p*******es "have feelings of love and romance for children" in the same way adult heterosexuals and homosexuals have romantic feelings for one another.


"The majority of p*******es are gentle and rational."


The DSM should "focus on the needs" of the p*******e, and should have "a minimal focus on social control," rather than obsessing about the "need to protect children."


Self-described "gay activist" and speaker Jacob Breslow said that children can properly be "the object of our attraction." He further objectified children, suggesting that p*******es needn't gain consent from a child to have sex with "it" any more than we need consent from a shoe to wear it. He then used graphic, slang language to favorably describe the act of climaxing (ejaculating) "on or with" a child. No one in attendance objected to this explicit depiction of child sexual assault.

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/tabor/110825

Anyone who wishes to give Johns Hopkins University their opinion of Dr Berlin's support of p********a should contact his boss Dr. J. Raymond DePaulo, director of the Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences department at John's Hopkins:

J. Raymond DePaulo, Jr., M.D.
Henry Phipps Professor and Director
Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences
Phone: 410-955-3130
Psychchair@jhmi.edu

RockKnutne Loc: Valhöll

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

RockKnutne Loc: Valhöll

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

PhilosophyMan Loc: Washington state.

ooo ooo me next!

Singularity

OK! How may I assist you?