1 - 10 Next
Not wrong. Reported on web-sites that her study was the reason for the change in the DSM, yet Spitzer, the patron saint of the homosexual movement, makes no reference to her or her study in 2013. He, Spitzer, said in 2013, why the change was made, as I have stated can be found in Book of Woe. Also, keep in mind that science, if true, has to answer the question of reproducable results. Her study, published in the 50's, was the only study cited beginning in the 70's and all the way through a 2003 court case concerning sodomy. No others? With that in mind: "While teaching at UCLA in the late 1940’s, Hooker fell in with a group of homosexuals and the newly formed activist organization, the Mattachine Society. Founded by leading thinker and member of the US communist party, Harry Hay, the Mattachine Society members convinced Hooker to embark on a research study of homosexuality on their behalf in order to advance the movement. The study’s subjects were selected entirely by the Mattachine Society, a group that Hooker herself admitted in the report had "as its stated purpose the development of a homosexual ethic…". In the same section she concedes the possibility that homosexuals are indeed pathological. The inadequacy of her methodology was acknowledged by the Journal of Projective Techniques that published it. In the study, "The adjustment of the male overt homosexual", Hooker administered three standard personality tests to two groups of 30 men, one homosexual and screened by the Mattachine Society and the other heterosexual. Despite the fact that the purpose of the study was ostensibly to examine the possibility of mental instability in homosexuals, individuals who showed signs of mental instability were removed from the groups, which further predetermined the study’s conclusion." You can believe this, or not.
He admitted he was instructed to bring DSM into harmony with the World Health Organization's stance. He says he was instructed to promote the bureaucratic reliability between DSM and WHO for the sake of psychiatrists. In fact, he says he was never instructed to address the validity of removing homosexuality from the DSM. That's the point! This watershed moment in the history of "normalizing" homosexuality was based not on science, but on bureaucracy.
His stance on reparative therapy has nothing to do with his stance on the validity of deleting homosexuality from the DSM. He goes so far to say that those who believe in an evolutionary viewpoint, you know, all atheist scientists, would argue that the human species is hardwired for heterosexual attraction. Homosexuality can't get a break. God abhors it, and evolution would undercut its supposed scientific, immutable cause.
Well, you better tell Andrew Sullivan to shut-up, then, as he boasts about the open sexual relationships in the homosexual community, and goes so far as to instruct married heterosexual couples to do the same.
Even Robert Spitzer, who crafted the deal to delete homosexuality in DSM III isn't sure, to this day, that homosexuality is not a valid disorder. Book of Woe, 2013.
In response to:

Religious Test

NotYetHome Wrote: Oct 29, 2013 6:24 PM
My employer doesn't know me by my NYH moniker. Though the hearing in this case is set for 11/5, places of employment already suppress freedom of speech. Just look at the DOJ, not a private company btw.
In response to:

Religious Test

NotYetHome Wrote: Oct 29, 2013 5:35 PM
So sorry. AFFECT. The effects of people like you affect people like me very badly(see story). Otherwise, nice argument.
In response to:

Religious Test

NotYetHome Wrote: Oct 29, 2013 3:33 AM
Forget asking me how homosexual marriage effects my marriage, ask me how it effects my free speech.
I'm not as big of a fan Krauthammer's as you may be; I find him elitist at times, this being one of those times. However, I couldn't agree with you more. Well said, charityseeker2, along with your 12:29 comment.
In response to:

Dave Says: It’s All About Perspective

NotYetHome Wrote: Oct 08, 2013 10:10 PM
Not a Ramsey fan. He touts his faithfulness to Christ, yet gives an idiotic "perspective" example. Hey, Dave, it may be perspective in your eyes, you're a financially wealthy man, and good for you. But as a Christophile, you should know about stewardship. 400 grand for 1 auto? I know you say it's a guy you know, who may not have your faith-claim, yet saying it's okay for those whom have been given much to blow that much on a car....come on Christian! Be known by your faith, not by your worldly economic theory. Hey how about this Dave, individuals do not buy the books you peddle, but instead visit their local libraries and utilize their copies? We can argue what the Word says about wealth and its proper uses, but usually what separates the factions is the amount one has, not what He says. Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. This means actions trump intentions and words. Peace.
1 - 10 Next