no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

American Psychological Association
Endorses Gay Marriage And Adoption
In a press release issued on July 28, the American Psychological Association officially endorsed gay marriage and adoption, and condemned laws in the areas of marriage and adoption that treat heterosexuality and homosexuality differently. The APA issued a resolution favoring gay marriage, based upon the recommendation of the APA's "Working Group on Same-Sex Families and Relationships." The committee consists of gay activists. The resolution stated in part,

"... denial of access to marriage to same-sex couples may especially harm people who also experience discrimination based on age, race, ethnicity, disability, g****r and g****r identity, religion, and socioeconomic status... Therefore, be it resolved that the APA believes that it is unfair and discriminatory to deny same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage and to all its attendant benefits, rights, and privileges."

Members of the APA's Working Group on Same-Sex Families and Relationships are:

Dr. Armand Cerbone, who was inducted into the Chicago Gay and Lesbian Hall of Fame in 2003 and was awarded an award for distinguished service to the gay movement by the Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Issues, which is Division 44 of the APA.

Dr. Beverly Green, who served as editor of Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian and Gay Issues, published by Sage Publications in 2000.

Dr. Kristin Hancock, who developed the APA's "Guidelines for Psychotherapy with Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Clients," and is a founding member of APA's Division 44, a group focusing on gay issues.

Dr. Lawrence A. Kurdek, who serves on the editorial board of Contemporary Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Psychology.

Dr. Candace A. McCullough, a lesbian who was profiled with her partner, Sharon Duchesneau, by the Washington Post on March 31, 2002. McCullough and Duchesneau are both deaf; they chose to have Duchesneau artificially inseminated with sperm from a deaf donor who would make it highly likely that that they would have a deaf child.

At the time the article was written, they were unsure if they had succeeded in creating an infant with hearing loss. Both Duchesneu and McCullough do not consider deafness a medical condition, but a cultural identity. They wanted a child that would fit into their deaf community.


These 7 L***Q ACTIVISTS and their junk science background determined for the entire APA what the goals and recommendations would be for same sex marriages and child
rearing. In addition to recommending same sex marriage and child rearing they have also promoted adult child sex in their peer reviewed journal. In 1999 the APA published in their peer reviewed journal APA bulletin a report disputing the harmfulness of child molestation. Titled a "Meta-Analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples" the report by Bruce rind claimed that child sexual abuse could be harmless and beneficial . The controversial paper was based on the 1948 conclusions of Alfred Kinsey, who is now known to have presided over the mass sexual molestation of children and even infants in the course of his "research" which is still the bedrock of the field of sexuality.
Next time someone says that p********a will never be legalized you might want to point out the activists who have been in charge of the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association since the 1980's.


Two of the abstracts regarding intergenerational sexual behavior that have been researched and accepted by the APA should give you an idea.

Boy-lovers and their influence on boys: distorted research and anecdotal observations.
Brongersma E1.
Author information
Abstract

A wide experience with boy-lovers has convinced the author that one can often learn more about them from reading some excellent novels than from so-called scientific studies. All too often research is unreliable because (1) it assumes pedosexual activity is a positive indicator of p********a; (2) no distinction is drawn between pseudo-p*******es and real p*******es; (3) no difference is recognized between boys and girls as partners; and (4) it is highly distorted by bias. Representative samples for research cannot be drawn from members of boy-love organizations. The incidence of violence is very low in p*******e contacts with boys. The influence can be strong in lasting relationships; it can be either wholesome or unwholesome. Within a relationship, sex is usually only a secondary element, although it can be important in sexual instruction and education. The impact of the law, the hostility of parents and the problem of the partners' ine******y are discussed.
PM

-The Main Thing Is Being Wanted":
Some Case Studies on Adult Sexual Experiences with Children
PreviewDownload full text
Access options

DOI:
10.1300/J082v20n01_09

Chin-Keung Li PhDa

pages 129-143
Publishing models and article dates explained

Published online: 22 Mar 2012

Alert me
Abstract

P********a is always considered by mainstream society as one form of sexual abuse of children. However, analysis of the personal accounts provided by the p*******es suggests that these experiences could be understood differently. This paper attempts to document some aspects of the p*******es' construction of their sexuality, to provide illustrations of how these individuals understand themselves.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

And the left says we conservatives are over reacting. This last ruling for gay marriage is just the beginning.

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

Since this is a subject i have been involved with for years, the direction the country is going is frightening, and there seems to be no stopping it.

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

DOJ: Children Do Not Need—and Have No Right to--Mothers
By Terence P. Jeffrey | March 3, 2013 | 4:51 PM EST

Remember that the APA subcommittee is made up entirely of L***Q activists, and the concept that children have no right to mothers makes sense. From a logical standpoint of course it does not. However, it does fit in nicely with the Goals of C*******m, and from that standpoint makes perfect sense.

Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., speaks at Georgetown Law School. (AP Photo/Haraz Ghanbari)
(CNSNews.com) - The Obama Justice Department is arguing in the United States Supreme Court that children do not need mothers.

The Justice Department’s argument on the superfluity of motherhood is presented in a brief the Obama administration filed in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry, which challenges the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the California b****t initiative that amended California’s Constitution to say that marriage involves only one man and one woman.

The Justice Department presented its conclusions about parenthood in rebutting an argument made by proponents of Proposition 8 that the traditional two-parent family, led by both a mother and a father, was the ideal place, determined even by nature itself, to raise a child.

The Obama administration argues this is not true. It argues that children need neither a father nor a mother and that having two fathers or two mothers is just as good as having one of each.

“The [California] V**er Guide arguably offered a distinct but related child-rearing justification for Proposition 8: 'the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father,’” said the administration’s brief submitted to the court by Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr.

“As an initial matter, no sound basis exists for concluding that same-sex couples who have committed to marriage are anything other than fully capable of responsible parenting and child-rearing,” the Department of Justice told the court. “To the contrary, many leading medical, psychological, and social-welfare organizations have issued policy statements opposing restrictions on gay and lesbian parenting based on their conclusion, supported by numerous scientific studies, that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as likely to be well adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents.”

“The weight of the scientific literature strongly supports the view that same-sex parents are just as capable as opposite-sex parents,” says the administration.

To support this argument, one of the documents the administration cites is a “policy statement” by the American Psychological Association. This statement claims that some studies indicate same-sex parents might be “superior” to mother-and-father families, but then concedes there is little actual data on the results of raising children in two-father households.

“Members of gay and lesbian couples with children have been found to divide the work involved in childcare evenly, and to be satisfied with their relationships with their partners,” says this APA policy statement the administration cited to the court. “The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers' and gay fathers' parenting sk**ls may be superior to those of matched heterosexual parents. There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation.”

“Studies of other aspects of personal development (including personality, self-concept, and conduct) similarly reveal few differences between children of lesbian mothers and children of heterosexual parents,” says the APA policy statement. “However, few data regarding these concerns are available for children of gay fathers.”

The Obama administration further argues that because California law already permits domestic partnerships in which same-sex couples are allowed all the "incidents” of marriage--including the right to adopt children and be foster parents--that Proposition 8 only denies same-sex couples the use of the word "marriage" and does not change the status of child-rearing in the state.

“Moreover, as the court of appeals determined, ‘Proposition 8 had absolutely no effect on the ability of same-sex couples to become parents or the manner in which children are raised in California,’” says the administration. “As explained, California law, both before and after Proposition 8, grants registered domestic partners the same parental rights and benefits accorded to married couples. And Proposition 8 does not alter California’s adoption, fostering, or presumed-parentage laws, which 'continue to apply equally to same-sex couples.’

“In light of California’s conferral of full rights of parenting and child-rearing on same-sex couples, Proposition 8’s denial to same-sex couples of the right to marry bears no cognizable relation, let alone a substantial one, to any interest in responsible procreation and child-rearing (however defined),” says the administration. “Indeed, because a substantial number of California children are raised in households headed by same-sex couples.”

In effect, the administration is arguing that California had already conceded the administration’s point that children do not need a mother or a father when it enacted laws treating same-sex couples the same as married couples in its adoption, foster-parenting and other laws--which Proposition 8 did not seek to overturn.

So far in the history of the human race, no child has ever been born without a biological father and mother. Now, in the Supreme Court of the United States, the Executive Branch of the federal government is arguing that, regardless of the biological facts of parenthood, states have no legitimate and defenisble interest in ensuring that children conceived by a mother and a father are in fact raised by mothers and fathers.

The brief that the Justice Department presented to the Supreme Court discussed children only as items controlled by others, not as individual human beings who have God-given rights of their own. It simply assumes that a child has no inherent right to a mother or father and that the only right truly in question is whether two people of the same-sex have a right to marry one another and that that right encompasses a right to adopt and foster-raise children.

To take this view and be consistent with the principles of the Declaration of Independence—which recognizes the ultimate authority of the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” and says that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”—the Obama Justice Department must advance the assumption that natural law and Nature’s God give children no right to a mother and father and no right not to be legally handed over by the government to be raised by same-sex couples.