- WND - http://www.wnd.com -
I'm suing gayHarmony
Posted By Janet Porter On 06/05/2007 @ 1:00 am In Commentary | Comments Disabled
I’m suing gayHarmony for discrimination.
That’s right. Because without having checked, I’m certain there isn’t a single homosexual site or publication that offers what I’m looking for:
A heterosexual pro-life Christian who likes long walks on the beach and wants to help fight unequal justice mandated in the speech-restricting “hate crimes” bill.
Those bigoted heterophobes. Before you call the thought police, I don’t really think the homosexual publications should be forced to cater to me. But unfortunately, that tolerance is not reciprocated. Lesbian Linda Carlson of San Francisco is suing eHarmony because she can’t find a date. They don’t offer a category for “lesbian bullies seeking women,” so she wants to bully eHarmony until they do.
My advice to eHarmony: Stand strong for your freedom of conscience or you’ll invite a whole new batch of lawsuits from:
Our next category is attacking private business owners. That’s nothing new for the homosexual activists. Scott Brockie was fined because he didn’t want to print homosexual propaganda; he’s $170,000 in debt for his religious beliefs.
What of the two doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian woman? Her case was upheld by a California appeals court. Jennifer Pizer, the lesbian’s attorney, clarified the legal position on “Hannity and Colmes”: “When the doctor is in her church, she can do religion, but not in the medical office.” Let me translate: As long as you stay in your religious ghetto, you can believe and say what you want, but you better not try that “freedom of religion” thing in public.
How did we get here?
In 1963, the New York Academy of Medicine charged its Committee on Public Health to report on homosexuality because they feared it was on the increase. The Committee reported:
[H]omosexuality is indeed an illness. The homosexual is an emotionally disturbed individual who has not acquired the normal capacity to develop satisfying heterosexual relations.
But just 10 years later, everything changed. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association voted to strike homosexuality from the officially approved list of psychiatric illnesses. Why was this done?
As Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., details in his book, “Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth”:
Ronald Bayer, then a Fellow at the Hastings Institute in New York, reported that in 1970, homosexual activists within the APA planned a “systematic effort to disrupt the annual meetings of the American Psychiatric Association.”
Like bullies on the playground, homosexual activists didn’t want to play by the rules. You know, the rules that say if you want to influence a body of science, you should conduct properly designed studies and build scientific research that makes your case. No. There weren’t any scientific studies like that (still aren’t). No problem, just harass and intimidate those scientists who present properly designed studies that you don’t like. Like Dr. Irving Bieber, prominent psychoanalyst and psychiatrist, who presented a paper on “homosexuality and transsexualism” at the 1970 APA convention. Instead of challenging his findings by questioning the accuracy of his research methods, they just disrupted his presentation. Way easier. Especially when there isn’t any research to support your position.
Imagine the prestigious, scientific setting of the APA conference where Dr. Bieber presents his study – homosexual activists employ what has become their customary tactic: fear and intimidation. As Bieber begins to present his research, homosexual attendees loudly mock and laugh at him. They further disrupt his presentation by shouting and calling him names and making threats, suggesting he deserved to be “drawn and quartered.” If we said something like that about homosexuals, it’d be a “hate crime.”
On May 3, 1971, the psychiatrist protesters broke into a meeting of distinguished members of their profession and grabbed the microphone – giving it to one of their allied outside activists, who proclaimed:
Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you. … We’re rejecting you all as our owners.
“No one raised an objection,” recounts Dr. Satinover. Their disruption was met with more reconciliation and an appearance before the APA’s Committee on Nomenclature. Further bullying and lobbying delivered the committee vote that maybe, just maybe, homosexual behavior was not a sign of psychiatric disorder after all.
By the time of the 1973 APA convention, the group announced its new “finding” with only 15 minutes for dissenters to discuss 70 years of psychiatric research to the contrary. The hijacked vote was formally appealed to the full membership. But activists already had a letter drafted, in part by friends at the National Gay Taskforce, urging a vote to “retain the nomenclature change,” which was sent to the 30,000 APA members with the money the NGTF had raised.
Of course, no one let on to APA members that the letter came from homosexual activists, as Dr. Bayer revealed, “that would have been ‘the kiss of death.’” But the letter drafted and paid for by the NGTF was able to secure a majority response from a third of the members who responded. But the vast majority was not behind the change. How do I know? Four years later, the Medical Journal Aspects of Human Sexuality reported a survey showing “69 percent of psychiatrists disagreed with the vote and still considered homosexuality a disorder.”
But it didn’t stop there. The American Psychological Association recently published a study favorable to pedophilia – you know, child molestation. If you call it “Adult-child sex,” it doesn’t sound as bad.
But this trial balloon looked more like the Hindenburg after Dr. Laura Schlesinger got done with it. Thank you, Dr. Laura.
Caving to public pressure, APA executive director Raymond Fowler later denounced it as “reprehensible.” Really? For how long? Then why was this trash published in the APA journal in the first place? Oh yeah, because they thought they could get away with that, too.
It was shortly after that APA article appeared that I received my first hate letter for my stand against child molestation. I was called an “intolerant Nazi” for opposing child abuse because, after all, the APA said it was OK! I thought you might like a glimpse into what’s coming. The tactics of “threats over research” may take us there again soon.
Related special offer:
Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com
URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2007/06/41919/
© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.