Mental Health Organizations: Political Slaves of the Homosexual Movement

James R. Aist

(Note: the numbers in parentheses refer to specific references listed at the end of the article)

 “It was never a medical decision — and that’s why I think the action came so fast… It was a political move.” “That’s how far we’ve come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.” — Barbara Gittings, Pro-homosexual Activist

Introduction

Homosexuality advocates like to appeal to position statements published by American mental health organizations to fortify their bogus claims concerning homosexuality issues. One would expect such professional groups to be a reliable source of unbiased information on such matters and that their official positions would be based on the most up-to-date and scientifically sound and objective research available. Unfortunately, where matters of homosexuality are concerned, this is not the case. Let’s take a look at how our mental health organizations have become political slaves of the homosexual movement.

The Take-over of the American Psychiatric Association (APA)

Beginning in the 1960s and continuing through the 1980s, radical homosexual activists (including both gays and straights sympathetic to the “gay agenda”), from within the organization and from without, conducted an organized campaign to transform the APA from a relatively open-minded, objective professional organization to a demonstrably biased, political mouthpiece for the homosexual movement (3, 7, 10). The most comprehensive and heavily documented record of these events — including numerous first-hand, published accounts — is a book (11) written by Ronald Bayer, a psychiatrist who is sympathetic with everything the homosexual activists did and applauded the ultimate outcome of their activities (3); these are published, historical facts. I will mention here a few of the most important developments in this campaign.

Using verbal bullying, physical violence, disruption and commandeering of meetings, and vicious verbal threats, they forced the APA to form a special committee to represent their radical political agenda and populated the committee with only like-minded, pro-homosexual members (3, 7, 8, 10, 11). They then proceeded to get homosexuality removed from the APA’s list of mental disorders, even though most of the APA members did not agree with that change. There were no new, scientific or clinical findings that precipitated this change; rather, it was predicated solely on the political agenda of the homosexuality activists. Witness, for example, the quote at the beginning of this article by Barbara Gittings, a pro-homosexual activist who was involved in the process: “It was never a medical decision — and that’s why I think the action came so fast… It was a political move.” “That’s how far we’ve come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.” (10). This campaign was an essential element of their scheme to remove the stigma that was associated with the designation of homosexuality as a mental disorder (3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11). Despite the mounds of published, historical documentation to the contrary, the APA still claims that the decision to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders was based solely on the results of scientific studies showing that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. This is nothing short of a transparent attempt to re-write the history of that decision-making process in order to make it appear that the decision was scientifically objective and medically appropriate. Homosexuality advocates, and the APA itself, most often cite a research article published by Evelyn Hooker in 1957 as proof that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, but that article has been exposed as a blatant example of pseudo-science at its worst (9); the research breaks almost every standard of proper scientific process and inquiry that can produce reliable and valid conclusions. This is a good example of the disregard that the APA has for properly conducted, objective scientific research where homosexuality is concerned.

The Campaign Mushrooms

Having accomplished this first major milestone in their campaign, the homosexual activists then proceeded to other objectives within the APA. They began to develop pro-homosexual position statements that they forced the APA to endorse and publish over the succeeding years, without regard to published scientific and clinical studies to the contrary (1, 2, 3, 7, 8). They developed and carried out a related campaign to threaten, intimidate, disenfranchise and even bring lawsuits against APA members and their institutions who provided therapy and counseling treatment to dissatisfied homosexual people who came to them seeking help to change their sexual preference (6). Eventually, they managed to limit officially approved professional therapy for homosexuals to only those approaches that affirm the homosexual orientation of their clients and help them to feel good about it. And, using overt threats to repeat their treatment of the APA, they forced other mental health organizations, such as the American Psychological Association, to give in to their demands and follow the political path taken by the APA (3, 5, 7, 8, 10). Needless to say, it didn’t take long for our other medical and health organizations to fall into line and adopt similar positions regarding homosexuality (7, 8, 10).

The End Result

Now let’s fast-forward to 2013. Where matters of homosexuality are concerned, both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association are controlled and dominated by radical, extremely biased, homosexual activists, many, if not most, of whom are openly practicing homosexuals themselves. Objectivity, scientific principles, factual evidence and honesty have taken a back seat to pro-homosexual political objectives (3, 4, 5, 9).

My point

It is fair to say that, at this point in time, one cannot rely on either of these professional societies to provide objective, scientifically sound and up-to-date viewpoints concerning many aspects of homosexuality. So, don’t be fooled when homosexuality advocates appeal to position statements of either of these organizations to support their pro-homosexual arguments; their sources are politically motivated, radical homosexual activists who simply cannot be trusted to be either objective or truthful.

(For more of my articles on HOMOSEXUALITY, click HERE)

References Cited

1. Aist, J.R. 2012. Are Homosexual People Really “Born Gay”?  (click HERE)

2. Aist, J.R. 2012. Homosexuality: Good News!  (click HERE)

3. Dannemeyer, W. 1989. Shadow in the Land, Homosexuality in America. Ignatius Press, San Francisco. Pp. 21-39.

4. Hale, M. 2012. CORRECTED: APA considers eliminating gender identity disorder, replace with ‘gender dysphoria’.  (click HERE)

5. Hoffman, M.C. 2012. Former President of APA Says Organization Controlled by ‘Gay Rights’ Movement. (click HERE)

6. Sorba, R. 2007. The Born Gay Hoax. Chapter 13. Intimidating Reparative Therapists. Pp. 80-87. (click HERE)

7. Sorba, R. 2012. Homosexuality and Mental Health. (click HERE)

8. Whitehead, N.E. and B.K. Whitehead. 2012. My Genes Made Me Do It. Introduction. (click HERE)

9. Landess, T. The Evelyn Hooker Study and the Normalization of Homosexuality. (click HERE)

10. Sorba, R. 2007. The Intimidation of the American Psychiatric Association. The “Born Gay” Hoax. Chapter 7. Pp. 20-27.  (click HERE)

11. Bayer, R. 1981. Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis.  Basic Books, Inc., New York. Pp. 101-154.