(Prolifer)ations 4-17-09
by Kelli
According to OneNewsNow, Warren claimed on CNN‘s Larry King Live this week…
During the whole Prop. 8 thing, I never once went to a meeting, never once issued a statement, never — never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop. 8 was going… I sent a note to my own members that said, I actually believe that marriage is — really should be defined, that that definition should be — say between a man and a woman.”
However, Warren did, in fact, comment weeks before the election:
“Now let me say this really clearly: we support Prop. 8 — and if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Prop. 8….
Now here’s an interesting thing. There are about 2% of Americans [who] are homosexual or gay/lesbian people. We should not let 2% of the population determine to change a definition of marriage that has been supported by every single culture and every single religion for 5,000 years.
This is not even just a Christian issue — it’s a humanitarian and human issue that God created marriage for the purpose of family, love, and procreation.
Some are troubled by Pastor Warren’s latest comments, questioning his motives. Pastor Jim Garlow of CA states:
Historically when institutions and individuals back away from convictional biblical truth, it is driven primarily by one single factor — and that is the respectability of other people. In other words, …caring [more] about what other people think about them than what God thinks about them.
Why is Juno-style adoption — an unwed mother places her newborn with an unrelated couple — so rare? Legal abortion is part of the answer… [a]doption, meanwhile, has become unthinkable.
Infant adoption is a “barbaric” practice, said one of many anti-adoption web sites. “With abortion, grief has closure. With adoption, the grief intensifies over time,” is a common warning.
She continues:
It is not my intention to deny the full range of emotions associated with adoption. Rather, I’d like to shout… that there is no closure involved in the act of abortion….
There are anti-adoption organizations out there that preach [that] [a]doption…is “an industry” in which “young, unwed… parents are persuaded, through force, coercion or outright lies, to transfer parental rights of their children to older, more affluent couples.”
You know, feminist abortion advocates swear to us up and down that abortion is empowering, and that the idea of coercion is ferociously exaggerated. But when faced with the option of adoption, suddenly women are weak, powerless victims [whose] babies are being ripped from their arms.
For our culture terminal narcissism, this is a big deal, since it conceives of marriage, like everything else, as a tool for self-fulfillment and instant gratification. That’s why it bothers to undertake studies like this.
Of course, there is another way of seeing it: kids force adolescent narcissists to grow up and realize it’s not all about Me. Those who submit to this process of “growing up” discover newer and deeper forms of satisfaction than the pleasure of being a newlywed. Part of that whole “lose your life and you will find it” paradox that is soooooo out of step with our consumer culture.
Jansen adds:
I’m going out on a limb and guessing that maybe, just maybe, decades of increasingly ubiquitous contraception — and the anti-child ethos from whence contraception cometh — might have something to do with couples’ attitudes toward having children.
The LiveScience article also notes that:
Couples who lived together before marriage experienced more problems after the birth of a child than those who lived separately before marriage, as did those whose parents fought or divorced.
Interesting. Perhaps if a marriage is already strained due to “unresolved baggage” brought into it by both parties, children can add to the stress of the situation by the sheer demand of their parents’ time and attention. A strong, healthy, communicative marriage should be the foundation for children, not the other way around.
[Image courtesy of Ape2Zebra.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Being new in the Pro Life movement it nagged me why Pro Choice women wouldn’t want to help other women that couldn’t have babies, obtain children through adoption. I kept thinking there should be adoption agencies in the Family Planning Clinics if they are truly Pro Choice. Once again, I see how terrible they twist things, like letting your child live and giving them life through adoption, to something ugly and selfish, that leads to lies and death for the unborn child. Being a post abortive woman I agree with the reporter. There is no closure to abortion. Thank goodness for Jesus.
Ultimately, women should be empowered to keep their children, period. They are gifts from God.
Both industries are profit driven and underegulated.
Hi Pam. I’m glad that you’ve found healing in Jesus. Welcome!
I second Lauren’s post, Pam! God bless you.
angele, I agree with your second statement but not necessarily your first. I am an adoptive mother and I am so grateful that my child’s biological mother had the courage and self-sacrifice to do what was best for her baby. Her child now has a stable home with a mom and dad who love her and love each other.
Now here’s an interesting thing. There are about 2% of Americans [who] are homosexual or gay/lesbian people. We should not let 2% of the population determine to change a definition of marriage that has been supported by every single culture and every single religion for 5,000 years.
There are probably about 2% of Americans who want to marry someone of another race. People used to think that they shouldn’t be allowed to “change the definition” of marriage that was supported by every single religion for 5,000 years, either.
Like it or not, you anti-gay marriage folks are going to go down in history as bigots just like the anti-miscegenation folks. “Gay couples are a minority” is not a valid reason to discriminate against them.
Why is Juno-style adoption — an unwed mother places her newborn with a unrelated couple — so rare?
Actually, in Juno, the unwed mother places her newborn with a divorcing/divorced woman, not a couple.
And the reason it’s so rare is because single motherhood is so accepted now. The vast majority of single pregnant women choose to give birth and keep their babies.
reality,
it isn’t about people with same-sex attraction wanting to me “married” — it is about people with same sex attraction, acting upon their disorder and wanting society to accept their (disordered) lifestyle. Society could be forced to accept it but those people will never be truly happy because it is a psychological disorder.
Hello Eileen #2,
Thank you for agreeing with the second statement.
Out of curiosity, do you have an open adoption?
I ask because, I spent 16 months working on an adoption gone wrong case. During that time, I attended many classes on adoption… with 2 agencies (for the pro adoption side of my training) and went to many post adoption grief counseling sites and seminars for mothers and adoptees.
I found that with the exception of no physical deaths, that adoption was frought (sp) with grief for natural parents (including extended family, ie, grandparents, siblings, etc)and the losses felt much like death to all parties, with the exception of the adoptive parents.
I also learned that later on, during a time commonly called “reunion” the adoptive parents experienced higher levels of grief and depression.
Ultimately in 30 year studies done by various universities, mental health professionals, etc., the highest levels of mental health for all parties, seemed to be obtained in “fully open” adoptions.
It was quite an eye opener.
I could see so many parallels between abortion adoption, miscarriage and grief…
A great book about some of this is called “The Magical Child”
A poignant but uber insightful book on the subject is titled, “The Primal Wound”
I apologize for the abundance of questions.
I am still in touch with several of the natural and adoptive parents that I met during that time… so it’s brings about a natural curiosity. : )
I’m not sure about all pro-choice clinics, but the one I actually go to HAS adoption information right alongside it’s information about help for unplanned pregnancies, birth control, health information, and abortion, as well as counseling for anything related to any of these things. I don’t think that a blanket statement on ALL clinics/pro-choice people is really the best way to argue your case. I am pro-choice: and I mean it precisely that way…I am for a woman choosing the right thing for her, whether that’s adoption, abortion, or continuing the pregnancy. I’m getting rather tired of the blanket statements regarding pro-choice people – just like I hear that many of you are tired of the blanket statements and stereotypes regarding conservatives. Just a thought, but perhaps both sides are reacting to the others’ portrayal? Perhaps it’s best for all of us to avoid them blanket stereotypes?
It was an open adoption.
I am not trying to minimize the pain that a woman goes through,(as well as the extended family) when a baby is given up for adoption, but ultimately it must be the welfare of the child that should be considered. Adoption could never be an entirely pain-free situation. It is only God’s grace that can help anyone through it.
Sorry! That post should have been addressed to angele.
I know Planned Parenthood states it has adoption referrals like other clinics. However, if you look at their reports, the adoption referrals are a very low percentage compared to how many abortions they do. Common sense tells me if they are truly promoting adoption as much as abortion the percentages of women putting their babies up for adoption would be higher. The consequences of abortion are huge. Every woman pays the price. I grew up in the women’s movement of the 70’s and had abortions. I never dealt with them because of being told my babies were blobs of tissue and the abortions would not effect me. My life was hell. I couldn’t bond with my children, nor could I stay in a relationship for very long. I turned to alcohol and drugs, even attempting suicide. I suffered in silence for all these years wondering what was wrong with me. Why I couldn’t be like other mothers. Why something just wasn’t right in me. I thought I was the only woman who felt this way, and lived in a hell of my own. I knew nothing about what was going on in the Pro Life or Pro Choice movements because I stayed away from them. Three months ago the door to my abortions was thrown wide open and I realized for the first time I had killed my three children and what it had done to me. I don’t care what anybody says, I know what those abortions did to me and to every person involved in my life. My 3 living children suffered because of my abortions. I take full responsibility for my decisions, but let me state again, I was lied to. The women out there are being lied to. They will pay the price, regardless of if they ignore it, or lock it down. We reap the consequences of all our decisions, and thank goodness for Jesus Christ, His love and His forgiveness is able to restore and set us free. I don’t want to see other women go through what I did. I don’t want women to hurt like I did. Giving your baby up for adoption will be the best thing you could ever do. Because later on, you will understand that it was the best thing you could have ever done. Love, Pam
reality there is one problem with the same sex marriage push.
Polls have repeatedly demonstrated that the American public is against homosexual “marriage”.
To circumvent this situation, gay activists have targeted certain judiciaries and succeeded in pushing through gay marriage via the courts having sympathetic judges. The people have not voted for these laws, the judges have put them on the books against the will of the people. This is not democracy it is totalitarianism.
Every time this is done, it weakens further, the democratic process in America and it weakens America as a country.
“Like it or not, you anti-gay marriage folks are going to go down in history as bigots just like the anti-miscegenation folks. “Gay couples are a minority” is not a valid reason to discriminate against them.”
You cannot compare gay sex with being black or brown. There is nothing immoral about being a black person. The motives against inter-racial marriage were ones of culture – a case of true discrimination.
The motives against gay marriage however are that this legalizes an immoral and unhealthy lifestyle. Unfortunately, the case against gay “marriage” has been considerably weakened with lax divorce laws and the recognition of cohabitation as another legitimate lifestyle.
Three months ago the door to my abortions was thrown wide open and I realized for the first time I had killed my three children and what it had done to me. I don’t care what anybody says, I know what those abortions did to me and to every person involved in my life. My 3 living children suffered because of my abortions. I take full responsibility for my decisions, but let me state again, I was lied to. The women out there are being lied to. They will pay the price, regardless of if they ignore it, or lock it down. We reap the consequences of all our decisions, and thank goodness for Jesus Christ, His love and His forgiveness is able to restore and set us free. I don’t want to see other women go through what I did. I don’t want women to hurt like I did. Giving your baby up for adoption will be the best thing you could ever do. Because later on, you will understand that it was the best thing you could have ever done. Love, Pam
Posted by: Pam at April 17, 2009 11:00 PM
what a powerful witness you are Pam!
God is good! You are a woman of great courage. It takes a tremendous amount of courage to face down abortion. I hope you continue to heal and find peace.
I have read the posts on adoption and I haven’t been involved in the process of adoption. This is my opinion on adoption.
I know several single moms who each have taken a different path. One adopted out her baby and it was the best decision. She would not have the life she has today if she had not given away her baby. Although she rarely speaks about it, I know this caused her great pain. But she also knew that she could not give her child a decent life at that time in her life. The father offered to marry her but she felt he was not the one for her.
Another kept her baby and the father was faithful to her and they married and have a great life together (very unusual – this scenario). The third kept her baby and has a difficult life.
I believe what is paramount in this situation is the interests of the child. A child deserves a mother and a father. This to me is the single most important factor. It’s true that one cannot guarantee the marriage of the adoptive parents but at least one can try to choose a good solid couple.
A single mother cannot offer a child the kind of stability that exists in a two parent marriage. Single mothers do not live well and often have numerous partners. Most child abuse occurs at the hands of the partners of single moms. I do not believe any amount of social services will change these basic facts. If you are a single mom it is harder to do everything connected with being a parent and holding down a full time job. It is also much more difficult to obtain the education required to get that full time job. Children of single parent homes have poorer outcomes all round compared with children from two parent families.
I have no doubt the sacrifice is tremendous for the parent in adoption. But I believe this sacrifice is well worth it in the end. The pain and sorrow in adoption reminds us why God in his infinite wisdom teaches that sex only within marriage is best. God loves us and knows human nature better than we will ever. His laws are there to help us lead a happy and good life.
angel, you explain things so succinctly and with charity.
angel,
“The pain and sorrow in adoption reminds us why God in his infinite wisdom teaches that sex only within marriage is best. God loves us and knows human nature better than we will ever. His laws are there to help us lead a happy and good life.”
Beautiful! As I read your post I was thinking what great reasons to stay chaste until marriage. Then you summed it up perfectly! :^)
thanks Janet and Eileen#2!
Hope you are both well. :)
In regard to Rick Warren, I don’t see that he changed his position. He still believes marriage is between a man and a woman only, which is what he said in the above quote from Larry King Live.
I think what is going on is that Warren does not want himself to be seen primarily as a political or ideological leader rather than as a pastor who is committed to spreading the gospel of Christ. It is a fairly traditional thing for Christian pastors not to get explicitly involved in politics–at least not in a leadership sense. The reason for this is not because politics is unimportant, but because there is an assumption that by becoming a political leader, one will turn away a large segment of your potential flock–especially those who are still perhaps not very committed Christians and who most need to become more open to the saving grace of Christ.
One might disagree as to whether this is a good operating principle for Christian ministers or not, but, I think it’s at least a respectable one.
I say this as a Catholic who admires aspects of Warren’s evangelical effectiveness. I think to be fair, there is no evidence in the above that Warren changed his position on marriage.
The day after Warren’s appearance on Larry King, he did a radio interview with conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt. Hugh asked him about this controversy. Here is a little bit:
Hugh Hewitt: “But you did take, and you’re taking anvils today. I got like 20 e-mails, ask him about Larry King last night and gay marriage, and that’s not what I’m about. But how do you put up with, I mean, you’re just trying to be a pastor.”
RW: “Well, here’s the thing. Part of that thing was my fault, and part of it was just the way culture reacts. First place, anybody who knows me knows I am not a political activist. I am not an anti-gay activist. When the Prop. 8 issue thing started a year and a half earlier before the thing, I never made a single statement, I never went to any meetings, never released an endorsement. It’s just not my agenda. Everybody has an agenda they’d like for me to promote, but my agenda is the Peace Plan, and the churches and the training, and all of the stuff we’re working on, and it just wasn’t my agenda. . . .”
To read the full transcript of this interview, go to Hugh Hewitt’s site: http://tinyurl.com/cm4u6v
Posted by: Scott Johnston at April 18, 2009 8:35 PM
Rick Warren speaking prior to the passage of proposition 8:
“Now let me say this really clearly: we support Prop. 8 — and if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Prop. 8….
Now here’s an interesting thing. There are about 2% of Americans [who] are homosexual or gay/lesbian people. We should not let 2% of the population determine to change a definition of marriage that has been supported by every single culture and every single religion for 5,000 years.
This is not even just a Christian issue — it’s a humanitarian and human issue that God created marriage for the purpose of family, love, and procreation.”
——————————————————-
Rick Warren’s recent interview on Hugh Hewitt:
RW:….When the Prop. 8 issue thing started a year and a half earlier before the thing, I never made a single statement,….”
Scott,
If both statements are accurate quotes, taken in context, then either Rick Warren mis-spoke or he is ‘weaseling’.
I do not believe Rick Warren mispoke in either of the referenced statements.
yor bro ken
We are all succeptible to ‘lust of the flesh, lust of the eye and the pride of life’ and the fear of man.
Men and women who have experienced success as man measures success, especially religious leaders, are particularly vulnerable to ‘respectability’.
Hopefully Rick Warren has some people around him who love him enough and are brave enough to confront him when they witness him being seduced by the ‘spirit of respectability’.
In three of the four gospels Jesus comments on men who love the place of honor above God’s will.
THEN JESUS said to the multitudes and to His disciples,
And they take pleasure in and [thus] love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues,
And to be greeted with honor in the marketplaces and to have people call them rabbi.
But you are not to be called rabbi (teacher), for you have one Teacher and you are all brothers. AMP
And in [the course of] His teaching, He said, Beware of the scribes, who like to go around in long robes and [to get] greetings in the marketplaces [public forums],
And [have] the front seats in the synagogues and the chief couches (places of honor) at feasts, AMP
Woe to you, Pharisees! For you love the best seats in the synagogues and [you love] to be greeted and bowed down to in the [public] marketplaces. AMP
Beware of the scribes, who like to walk about in long robes and love to be saluted [with honor] in places where people congregate and love the front and best seats in the synagogues and places of distinction at feasts, AMP
yor bro ken
Eileen, my better half has a degree in psychology and I have studdied it a great deal, and while you may not like Gay and Lesbian people (like my relatives) getting marriage rights, it is not accurate to say that being gay is a disorder. It is not, as much as conservatives say so frome ignroance or bigotry. Please refrain from writing such things in the future, as it is both inaccurate and unkind. Thank you.
I overlooked that there is a #2 (which I assume means there is an Eileen #1). I did not put it behind your name when I responded to your posts. My apologies for the mistake.
Kelly,
You and your husband may want to check out Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a Catholic psychiatrist who addresses same sex attraction. It may have been removed from the APA’s list of disorders back in the 70’s but it was done so under great pressure by gay activists within and outside of the APA. Psychiatrists are beginning to rethink the approach to same sex attraction and gender identity disorder.
Ken:
When did Warren issue his thoughts on the Prop 8 issue? To me the quote sounds like he didn’t get involved when the kerfuffle started, but it is possible that he issued a statement much later on. Or alternately, perhaps he meant that he did not issue a public opinion to the media/public, but did advise his followers (who may have been requesting guidance?) of the correct course of action.
I am not trying to defend or defame, I just see these as alternate explanations.
Angel/others with regard to adoption:
If the baby’s parents getting married is truly so rare, this is a terrible reflection on our society.
My nephew was conceived out of wedlock, and my brother-in-law did the right thing and married his mother. They are happily married and now have two beautiful daughters as well. I can’t imagine why this isn’t an option more often. If there’s enough attraction there to sleep with a person, there’s probably enough to sustain a marriage. All marriages take work, regardless of the circumstances of their beginning (or at least that’s what I hear; doesn’t feel like work to me :)
I agree that all children deserve a mommy and daddy; it is best when they are the biological mommy and daddy. The best isn’t always possible, but I don’t know that it is always better for a child to have an unrelated mommy and daddy as opposed to a related mommy and no (or an unrelated) daddy.
I think mommies shouldn’t have to work while their children are young. I think that the church should support single mothers financially so that they can stay with their children. Even if those mothers are single due to poor decisions or sin, it is not the fault of the children. I don’t think we have the data to prove that the poor outcomes are the same if single mothers can stay home and mother their children.
I think that all women who want to keep their children should have that opportunity, and if the situation is truly impossible (jail or abusive relationships) foster care should be possible until the mother can take over. Adoption would occur when the problem was semi-permanent (very long jail sentence, institutionalization), when the parents were proven unfit (in court, not by an overreaching DSS agent), or when a mother freely decided that she did not want to be a parent to the child. The last should have a decent revocation period and be determined by a neutral party (not the adoption agency/lawyer or adoptive parents or any family members). Adoption should be as open as possible and include all relatives who can safely interact with children.
Before my daughter, my husband and I were in the process of adoption (it is not permitted to adopt while pregnant in our state, and the agency wouldn’t permit adoption with a child under a year, so it is not an option at the moment). We may still adopt at some point in the future–my heart is still stopped when I see pictures of children for whom adoption is truly a need. So I am not an “outsider” to adoption, completely. But I know what it is to lose a child, and I could not take another woman’s child without her free, informed consent.
I think adoption is a truly difficult issue, unlike abortion, which is pretty clearly black and white: killing babies is wrong and evil.
eileen psychiatrists are not rethinking homosexuality is a disorder. What lalaland do you live in? You might think it is a disorder but don’t try to claim that respected authorities on the subject agree with you
“If there’s enough attraction there to sleep with a person, there’s probably enough to sustain a marriage.”Posted by: YCW at April 20, 2009 6:39 AM
In some cases, perhaps. But I don’t think this is generally true. It takes a lot to sustain a marriage, and certainly more than “attraction.”
Good point. If initial sexual attraction was enough to sustain a marriage we would not have so much divorce. Even lasting sexual attraction is rarely enough on it’s own!
ycw how do you feel about “mommies” who choose to work while their children are young? How about stay-at-home “daddies”.
minnow, read the article at the following link. Look up Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons also.
http://www.narth.com/docs/normalization.html
minnow,
I did the work for you.
The A.P.A. Normalization of Homosexuality, and the Research Study of Irving Bieber
To keep the record straight against the threat of psychological revisionism, from time to time, NARTH publishes important historical articles.
In our April 1999 NARTH Bulletin, we reprinted “On Arriving at the American Psychiatric Association Decision on Homosexuality,” by Irving Bieber, M.D. The full-length article is available by contacting NARTH and requesting our April back issue. We will summarize it here.
The article first appeared in Scientific Controversies: Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and Technology, edited by H. Tristam Engelhardt Jr., and Arthur Caplan, Cambridge U. Press, 1987.
Dr. Bieber was one of the key participants in the historical debate which culminated in the 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the psychiatric manual.
His paper describes psychiatry’s attempt to adopt a new “adaptational” perspective of normality. During this time, the profession was beginning to sever itself from established clinical theory–particularly psychoanalytic theories of unconscious motivation–claiming that if we do not readily see “distress, disability and disadvantage” in a particular psychological condition, then the condition is not disordered.
On first consideration, such a theory sounds plausible. However we see its startling consequences when we apply it to a condition such as pedophilia. Is the happy and otherwise well-functioning pedophile “normal”? As Dr. Bieber argues in this article, psychopathology can be ego-syntonic and not cause distress; and social effectiveness–that is, the ability to maintain positive social relations and perform work effectively–“may coexist with psychopathology, in some cases even of a psychotic order.”
NARTH President Charles Socarides argued the same point in a review he wrote of gender researcher Robert Stoller’s Pain And Passion: A Psychoanalyst Explores The World Of S & M. In that book, Dr. Stoller acknowledged the psychodynamic causes of sadomasochism, and then described practices, utensils, and bodily parts used in sadomasochistic performances. He offered a six-page listing of the various methods used to inflict pain and humiliation on willing victims, including the different hanging techniques used to achieve orgastic ecstasy. But then Stoller claimed sadomasochism was no more abnormal than “dislike of zucchini”–asserting that only our “deep prejudices” about perversion lead us to label it abnormal.
Indeed, as some prominent cultural observers have noted, the political drive toward ever-greater equality has turned Americans against any conclusion which entails values and consequences – resulting in our culture’s trend toward rejection of all evaluative conclusions as unkind and “undemocratic.” Legal scholar Robert Bork sees this as a natural consequence of democracy untethered from its Judeo-Christian roots of self-restraint and responsibility, after which it began to be dominated by the philosophy of radical egalitarianism.
Reading the account by the eminent Irving Bieber, the reader is reminded of the historic role played by both Dr. Bieber, and NARTH President Charles Socarides. Both influential and courageous men stood, we believe, for truth in a profession that has increasingly set itself adrift from its theoretical and philosophical roots.
Dr. Bieber describes the deletion of homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic and statistical manual as “the climax of a sociopolitical struggle involving what were deemed to be the rights of homosexuals.”
“It is my aim here,” he wrote, “to separate out the psychiatric and conceptual issues from the sociopolitical issues; to document my own theoretical and clinical position; and to describe the events that I participated in and observed–all of which I trust will bring into focus the elements that went into the American Psychiatric Association’s decision.”
What is Homosexuality?
He describes the difficulty of putting homosexuality in an appropriate category: Is it a developmental arrest, or an illness? Is it a constitutional disorder, a genetic misprint, a habit? Through his longterm research on the subject, Dr. Bieber concludes that homosexuality is not a normal sexual adaptation.
Gay activist groups believed that prejudice against homosexuals could be extinguished only if, as homosexuals, they were accepted as normal. “They claimed that homosexuality is a preference, an orientation, a propensity; that it is neither a defect, a disturbance, a sickness, nor a malfunction of any sort.” To promote this aim, Dr. Bieber reports, “Gay activists impugned the motives and ridiculed the work of those psychiatrists who asserted that homosexuality is other than normal.”
He describes in detail the well-known research study he conducted in 1962, involving a 500-item questionnaire and 106 male homosexuals, with a comparison group of 100 male heterosexuals.
Mother of Homosexuals
He found a close-binding, intimate mother who tended to interfere with her son’s assertiveness, and who tended to dislocate his relationship with the father, siblings, and peers. However, Dr. Bieber found that homosexuality can develop without the frequently occurring close-binding-intimate, mother-son bond.
Fathers
But the most significant finding was that of the detached father. “The father-son relationship was almost the diametrical opposite of that between mother and son. The paternal portrait was one of a father who was either detached or covertly or overtly hostile,” he reported. While there was some variance in the mother-son relationship, Dr. Bieber reported,
“The father-son relationship, however, revealed uniformly an absence of loving, warm, constructive paternal attitudes and behavior. In my long experience, I have not found a single case where, in the developing years, a father had a kind, affectionate, and constructive relationship with the son who becomes homosexual. This has been an unvarying finding. It is my view, and I have so stated and written, that if a father has a kind, affectionate, and constructive relationship with his son, he will not produce a homosexual son, no matter what the mother is like.”
Dr. Bieber’s study in fact found a continuity of poor relationships with males, beginning with the father, older brothers, and same-sex peers in childhood. He concludes,
“The consistent history of unremitting fear of and hostility to other males throughout childhood has led me to conclude that male homosexuality is basically an adaptation to a disorder of a man’s relationship with other men.”
Of the 106 homosexuals who started psychoanalytic therapy, 29 changed to exclusively heterosexuality, which represented 27 percent of the total sample.
Dr. Bieber discussed the issue of the definition of normality. Because homosexual fantasies and behavior are fear-based, he concluded, we cannot call them normal.
The New Diagnostic Criteria
The A.P.A. at that time had adopted a new set of criteria for defining psychological disorder. To be disordered, a condition must:
1. regularly cause distress, or
2. interfere with social effectiveness.
The Psychiatric Association pointed to the excellent occupational performance and good social adjustment of many homosexuals as evidence of the normalcy of homosexuality. But such factors do not, Dr. Bieber countered, exclude the presence of psychopathology. Psychopathology is not always accompanied by adjustment problems; therefore, the criteria are in reality, inadequate to identify a psychological disorder.
Dr. Bieber stated that psychopathology can be ego-syntonic and not cause distress; that social effectiveness–that is, the ability to maintain positive social relations and perform work effectively–may in fact coexist with psychopathology.
A task force was set up to study homosexuality, but the members chosen included not a single psychiatrist who held the view that homosexuality was not a normal adaptation. There followed riots at scientific meetings by gay activists who increased the pressure on the Psychiatric Association.
Will preventive therapy for homosexuality be prohibited, Dr. Bieber wondered, when homosexuality is normalized?
Furthermmore–is it the proper domain of psychiatry to remove diagnoses to eliminate prejudice?
Dr. Bieber pointed out that there were several other conditions in the DSM-II that did not fulfill the “distress and social disability” criteria: voyeurism, fetishism, sexual sadism, and masochism. A.P.A.’s Dr. Spitzer replied that these conditions should perhaps also be removed from the DSM-II — and that if the sadists and fetishists were to organize as did the gay activists, they, too, might find their conditions normalized.
Summary
The factors that determined the decision of the APA to delete homosexuality from DSM-II were summarized as follows:
1. Gay activists had a profound influence on psychiatric thinking.
2. A sincere belief was held by liberal-minded and compassionate psychiatrists that listing homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder supported and reinforced prejudice against homosexuals. Removal of the term from the diagnostic manual was viewed as a humane, progressive act.
3. There was an acceptance of new criteria to define psychiatric conditions. Only those disorders that caused a patient to suffer or that resulted in adjustment problems were thought to be appropriate for inclusion in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.
Minnow, you are a troll. You are here solely to stir up trouble. I don’t understand why you would want to do that. Did you know that if you accept Jesus, you could be free of your pain, fear, and anger, and he would forgive your sin?
Because you are a troll, I wouldn’t be bothered by ignoring your question, but I will answer it because I feel like it.
I think that children are best raised by their parents, who will be their parents forever, as opposed to a series of unrelated caregivers. Related caregivers who can have a permanent, ongoing relationship with the child are not as bad, but not as good as the parents either. You just can’t form as close a relationship with your child 5 hours a day as on 10-16.
That said, I have absolutely no problem with a daddy who stays home while the mommy works, if both parents find this acceptable. The only potential problem I see has to do with breastfeeding, which is only an issue with very young children.
Myself, I love staying home with my children, and my husband enjoys his job and takes pride in being able to provide for our family, though he does wish he could spend more time with us too.
Narth and its ilk such as “Dr.” Paul Cameron have been roundly discredited. Citing them is like citing World Net Daily some other tabloid trash as a paper of record.
YLT, Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons is also a reputable source. You didn’t even read my post I am willing to bet. You don’t know what you are talking about.
Posted by: Yo La Tengo at April 20, 2009 3:40 PM
Narth and its ilk such as “Dr.” Paul Cameron have been roundly discredited. Citing them is like citing World Net Daily some other tabloid trash as a paper of record.
——————————————————
ylt,
I was listening to radio interview with a man named Jeff who, after many years, had left the homosexual life style.
A self identified male homosexual caller challenged Jeff and said he was never ‘really’ gay.
Jeff responded by giving the number, in the 100’s of male lovers with whom he had been sexually active.
Jeff said, ‘How many male partners do I have to have before I am considered authentically gay?’
You are like the caller. You just do not like to hear anything that contradicts your preferred ‘conclusions.’
GAY [good as you]
GAY does equal happy. Just the opposite.
Spiritually, emotionally, mentally and phyically
ill.
Abused and used til you are used up and then discarded like soiled sanitary napkin.
It is not just the ‘good’ who die young.
yor bro ken
NARTH ? Are you kidding me? That’s your source?
YCW, I’m glad you can stay home if that’s what you want and it works well for your family. There’s more than one way to raise children well and with love!