TinMan
Well-Known Member
Wow that is an amazingly bad lie. Does the Catholic league know that people can actually go find out the truth for themselves?
![]()
APA IS HAVING A MENTAL BREAKDOWN - Catholic League
It is becoming ever more clear that those who run the American Psychological Association (APA) are suffering from a mental breakdown. It is now promotingwww.catholicleague.org
Its descent is traceable to 1975 when it decided to support the position of the American Psychiatric Association declaring that homosexuality was not a mental illness. That determination, which was reached in 1973, was not based on any new scientific empirical evidence; rather, it was made following years of bullying by radical gay activists.
The hearings and review of empirical evidence conducted by the APA in 1973 were open to the public and are matters of public record. People can also read about the process from people who were actually there.
Ref:
American Psychiatry and Homosexuality: An Oral History by Jack Dresher and Joseph Merlino
Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis by Ronald Bayer
Changing American Psychiatry A Personal Perspective Melvin Sabshin
Out of the DSM: Depathologizing Homosexuality by Jack Drescher
The 1972 meeting of the APA was a controversial one. One of the members, Judd Marmor, issued a strong condemnation of Charles Socarides for having written a "monstrous attack on homosexuality" for JAMA and for some traditional psychoanalytical societies. Dr. Marmor additionally spoke about intense anti-homosexual bias within the profession. "The cruelty, the thoughtlessness, the lack of common humanity, in the attitudes of many conservative psychiatrists is I think a disgrace to our profession." (Bayer, pp. 110-111)
Shortly after the 1972 APA meeting, Dr. Richard Green, wrote a lengthy summary of the issues in the dispute over the classification of homosexuality in the DSM. His article, "Homosexuality as a Mental Illness," published in the International Journal of Psychiatry, charged that there was no existing data to support the claim that homosexuality is a disease or that sexual relations between opposite sex partners are preferable to those between same sex partners. Dr. Green's article included formal invitations for response, four of them designed to highlight the extent of the division between the traditional theory and the newer theories based on work of Evelyn Hooker and others. Two of the invitees were Judd Marmor and Charles Socarides. (Bayer, pp. 112-113)
In early 1973 several petitions for the removal of homosexuality from the DSM were presented to the nomenclature committee.
the APA's Nomenclature Committee met in February of 1973. Among those present at the meeting, Dr. Seymour Halleck stressed that there was no scientific evidence supporting the theory that homosexuality was a developmental disorder. Numerous scientists presented research on homosexuality presenting evidence that homosexuality was not a disorder but rather a normal variation of human sexuality.
Charles Silverstein presented the work of many scientists showing that the DSM classification was not consistent with a scientific perspective. Indicating that homosexuality does not even meet the base definition of a mental disorder.
The APA's Nomenclature Committee went through an 11-month process by preparing a report recommending the change in DSM-II. This process was open to any APA member and in the course of the 11 months 78 different experts were called on to present evidence and research. The committee specifically invited the most vocal opponents of the change, Charles Socarides, Irving Bieber, and Robert McDevitt, to present research and evidence. While all three attended meetings they presented no research. Instead they chose to complain how the this was a political move not a scientific one.
At the end of this process the APA's Council on Research and Development unanimously recommended deletion of homosexuality from DSM-II. Next, it was taken to the Assembly of District Branches, where it was again approved. The next step was the APA Reference Committee, composed of the heads of the various APA councils and the president-elect. The Reference Committee endorsed the proposal, leaving the approval of the board of trustees at the December meeting as the final step. (Bayer, pp. 132-138)
The APA's Nomenclature Committee went through an 11-month process by preparing a report recommending the change in DSM-II. This process was open to any APA member and in the course of the 11 months 78 different experts were called on to present evidence and research. The committee specifically invited most vocal opponents of the change, Charles Socarides, Irving Bieber, and Robert McDevitt, to present research and evidence. While all three attended meetings they presented no research. Instead they chose to complain how the this was a political move not a scientific one.
At the end of this process the APA's Council on Research and Development unanimously recommended deletion of homosexuality from DSM-II. Next, it was taken to the Assembly of District Branches, where it was again approved. The next step was the APA Reference Committee, composed of the heads of the various APA councils and the president-elect. The Reference Committee endorsed the proposal, leaving the approval of the board of trustees at the December meeting as the final step. (Bayer, pp. 132-138)
Then the APA Board of Trustees again invited , Charles Socarides, Irving Bieber, and Robert McDevitt, to present their case a third time on December 10, 1973. Bieber restated the old theories without presenting data to support them. Socarides and McDevitt complained that the change in classification was motivated by politics, not by scientific studies. Socarides and McDevitt were asked once again to present scientific studies supporting their view of homosexuality as a pathology. They could not produce any. Following those presentations, the Board of Trustees met in executive session and voted to approve the removal of homosexuality from DSM-II. (Bayer, pp. 135-138)
Socarides and Bieber poured over the associations by-laws and found a provision designed to provide some democratic control over the association's corporate life, and then forced a petition demanding a referendum of the Association's membership. Amazingly, those who accused the APA of capitulating to political pressure were now themselves forcing a political maneuver and using a loophole in a provision for non-scientific matters to accomplish their end. (Bayer, pp. 141-144)