Tuesday
Mar 16th
| LGBT Lies About Sexual Orientation And Gender Identity |
 |
 |
| Written by TVC |
| Thursday, 21 May 2009 07:04 |
|
May 20, 2009 TraditionalValues.org - LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) groups are clearly upset about TVC's aggressive opposition to the passage of hate crime legislation and the inclusion of undefined "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" in the so-called hate crime bills, H.R. 1913 and S. 909.
The publication of our report on the 30 Sexual Orientations listed by the American Psychiatric Association as Paraphilias, has the LGBT crowd going crazy. They're scrambling to craft responses and muddy the waters over what is or is not a "sexual orientation."
During the debate over passage of H.R. 1913, lesbian activist Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) was repeatedly asked by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) to define "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" in the bill. She refused to do so. She refused because the LGBT crowd wants the flexibility to add whatever "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" they wish in the future. Their ever-expanding definitions will protect a whole range of serious mental disorders in the future. In fact, there is a growing battle looming involving LGBT activists and those who will be updating the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association. A group of LGBT psychiatrists and psychologists want the APA to remove a wide range of paraphilias (sexual orientations/disordered desires) from the DSM when the new version is published in 2012. These activists want pedophilia, exhibitionism, fetishism, tranvestism, voyeurism, and sadomasochism removed from the DSM! LGBT activists claim the American Psychiatric Association has a "very precise definition" of sexual orientation - which includes four sexual orientations: sexual attraction to males; sexual attraction to females; sexual attraction to both; and sexual attraction to neither. The American Psychological Association, not the American Psychiatric Association has posted a definition of "sexual orientation" on its site. The psychological association says that "sexual orientation" "exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality." The psychological association also claims that "sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors." This "continuum" concept explains why LGBT activists do not want "sexual orientation" defined in any federal law. They want the option of adding any new deviant behavior to a federally-protected class under the law. Rep. Steve King discussed the blurry definitions of sexual orientation and gender identity during his debates and speeches on H.R. 1913. He pointed out that there are numerous definitions of sexual orientation and gender identity - and all are confusing. According to King, "Sexual orientation as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary (medical dictionary), we have sexual orientation by Merriam-Webster as one's attraction to a preference in sex partners. Here is another definition from American Heritage Stedman's medical dictionary: Sexual orientation would be sexual activity with people of the opposite sex, the same-sex or both. So, one says it is the attraction, it is in the head. The other says it is the activity. ... And, we have two polar opposite definitions coming from the Democrats, neither of which is in the bill. One definition says homosexual, heterosexual, nothing else, not even bisexual. The other [Hastings] says every kind of proclivity, paraphilia, all philias, whatsoever, [from] Mr. Hastings from Florida." The bottom line is that the Democrats refuse to clearly define sexual orientation or gender identity in the legislation - and various sources have conflicting definitions of what these terms mean. LGBT activists claim that a "sexual orientation" is not the same as a paraphilia. Yet, a sexual attraction toward an object or person - however bizarre - is still a sexual orientation. The person is clearly "oriented" sexually toward that person (or thing) or gains sexual satisfaction by engaging in deviant behaviors. A sexual orientation can be normal or abnormal. Paraphilias are abnormal sexual orientations. The American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association claim that heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality are "normal." The paraphilias listed in the DSM are abnormal sexual orientations toward non-human objects or individuals and include the category of fetishes - or bizarre sexual orientations or attractions that can involve inflicting pain on themselves, animals, or other people. These fetishes include Transvestic Fetishism, which is cross-dressing. Transgender activists want "gender identity" included as a protected class in the so-called hate crime bills, H.R. 1913 or S. 909 because they want their Gender Identity Disorder as a protected class under federal law. This would include protecting Transvestic Fetishists, transsexuals, and she-males (individuals who undergo only half of a so-called sex change operation). As Rep. Steve King has pointed out, "Gender identity can be whatever you think you are. I don't know about the physical component of this, and sexual orientation can be what you think you are, what you act upon, or let's just say the composite of the two. And the thought, the act and the physiology are the three categories we are trying to define here and blending and blurring them all together. So it is no wonder that when I try to explain this law, it sounds like gibberish, Mr. Speaker, because it is gibberish." LGBT radicals claim that the APA does not consider homosexuality to be a mental disorder. This is true, but they fail to reveal why. The fact is that gays bullied the APA into removing homosexuality from the DSM in the early 1970s. It was not removed for scientific reasons, but due to political pressure. Had it not been for political pressure and bullying, the APA would never have removed homosexuality from the DSM. TVC's report, "Exposed: The Myth That Psychiatry Has Proven That Homosexual Behavior Is Normal," details the shameful history of the APA caving to gay radicals. Dr. Jeffrey Satinover has also chronicled the tragic history of the APA's duplicity in aiding the LGBT agenda through mental health organizations: "The Trojan Couch' - How The Mental Health Associations Misrepresent Science." Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) would not put a definition of gender identity into H.R. 1913. This is by design. She knows that this is still considered a mental disorder - not a fixed identity - in the DSM. Yet, the gay, lesbian and bisexual movement is now working with transgender activists to make every one of these sexual behaviors into a federally protected minority group. Playing Word Games Gay propagandists have largely controlled the language in the discussion of sexual orientation, and gender identity during the past decades. When you control the language, you control the debate as well. They are clearly losing control of the language now - due in large measure to the work that TVC has done - during the past several years. LGBT activists are making a false distinction between "sexual orientation" and "paraphilias" and they are losing the battle over these words. There are supposedly "normal" sexual orientations and there are "abnormal" sexual orientations known as paraphilias (sexual deviations). LGBT activists can claim that "sexual orientation" is limited to just four allegedly "normal" sexual orientations - but why limit the definition to just four? Clearly, there are many other sexual orientations. A person can be sexually oriented to have sex with infants, pre-teens, dead people and animals. Just because the APA lists four supposedly "normal" sexual orientations doesn't mean that this definition will continue to be limited to four. The LGBT lobby is constantly pushing to expand the numbers of sexual orientations that it seeks to have protected under federal law. This is why they do not wish "sexual orientation" to be clearly defined in federal legislation. And, the LGBT lobby is pushing the APA to remove numerous paraphilias that it considers to be normal - including pedophilia and sadomasochism. It is clear from the DSM that the APA considers these four sexual orientations to be "normal." The sexual orientations listed as paraphilias are considered abnormal. But, for how long? The APA was pressured to remove homosexuality as a paraphilia from the DSM. When will it remove pedophilia as a paraphilia? When it will remove the sexual orientation of sadomasochism from the DSM? It is only a matter of time. A new version of the DSM is scheduled for publication in 2010. LGBT activists are working right now to influence the revision. In fact, a gay named Dr. Jack Drescher is a member of the APA's DSM-V Workgroup on Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders. Drescher has actually claimed that "Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation." Imagine the damage this radical gay will do to the DSM-V. Trackback(0)
Comments (4)
  written by Anne Moyer, May 25, 2009
Those who have taken the Moral High Ground on this issue are the ones who asked “what is meant by sexual orientationâ€, and when no one would define it, they asked if it could or would include all the philias because they were included in the section referenced by the bill authors.
In your next sentence you insinuate that the Religious Right “could be†some of those perverted folks, why? Because they are loudly protesting it? Hmmm that makes sense, oh wait, I get it, reverse psychology? Pffft. And by saying “far too many cases on record of Baptist Ministers being convicted of sexual abuse of children.†I suggest that you, ma’am are either 1) an alarmist who uses trumped up accusations to cloud the issue or 2) you are someone who feels the need to stifle others right to have their own opinion through veiled threat (intimidation “You’re on very dangerous ground . . . should tread carefullyâ€) or 3) are simply a moron who can’t count - - you say – “far too many – on record – convictedâ€? Really? How many is “too manyâ€? Cite 10 for me. And remember YOU set the criteria, so all 10 need to be Baptist Ministers, and convicted, and ON record, and of sexual abuse, and of childrenâ€. You see Zoe, in this country it doesn’t make it “so†just because you include a lot of rhetorical, hyperbolic, emotional catch phrases. Just like it wasn’t an “obvious conclusion†you tried to make earlier. Consequently, just because someone "now" says that pedophilia is not really a "sexual orientation" means little, because those [noted in the article] refuse to actually define what the terms they want/have included in the bill will be. Remember, homosexuality wasn’t a “sexual orientation†until 1973 and only then politically, not scientifically recla*sified. They do not want to be specific now, because later they may have a vested interest in including some of these other philias and getting them special protection too. I understand that while it is NOW being argued that those 30 or so "philias" were mistakenly a*sociated with the bill, that they aren't really there, and that it is only the sexual orientations of homosexuality, heterosexuality, bi-sexuality and a-sexuality that are listed. That begs the question - why won't the sponsors/authors of the bill DEFINE the terms? Give some specific definitions and move on? Also, if the 4 that are listed in the manual are the "basic 4" then where is the "special protection" for heterosexuals? Why aren’t they included in the “sexual orientation†definition of things to be “protectedâ€? Only the other 3 are included in the bill. Or don't you believe that heterosexuals are or would ever be discriminated against?  Actually by NOT including them in this special protection legislation, by EXCLUDING them from the bill, THAT is exactly what you are doing. In this country EVERYONE is supposed to be equal under the law. Hmmm interesting scenario - Let’s say, a homosexual and a heterosexual are having a discussion. During the discussion a third person comes into the discussion, listens for a bit and hears the homosexual tell the heterosexual that they (the heterosexual) are so stupid that someone should beat some sense into them (maybe what the homosexual said was “slap you sillyâ€). Now the third person standing there, listening to the homosexual, is “incited†to violence and proceeds to beat the crap out of the heterosexual. Ok, got the picture? Well, the way THIS bill is written the heterosexual can NOT sue for anything except possibly aggravated a*sault, because HIS sexual orientation is not listed in the “Hate Crimes†bill. Although, obviously he was beaten because he is heterosexual. But according to this bill, it was not a Hate Crime to do the same thing to the heterosexual that is protected and special status for the homosexual. How fair is that? And YET, had it been the other way around, with the third party beating up the homosexual because of statements of the heterosexual, the heterosexual can be sued for a*sault AND in addition can be sued a second time for Federal Hate Crimes. Now THAT is discrimination. THAT is not “equal under the lawâ€. THAT is Un-Constitutional. You see, that is what makes this proposed legislation very BAD, because it gives special status to a small group, while denying the same (equal) rights to others. But that is another topic of discussion entirely. And you are not paying me to educate you on Juris Prudence, Constitutional Law or even Common Sense, although if you are interested I would be happy to quote you my tutoring fees.
written by Anne Moyer, May 25, 2009
Are you aware that until 1973 homosexuality was considered abnormal and a psychological "disorder"? That Dr. Ronald Bayer, himself a pro-homosexual psychiatrist, stated quite specifically that the removal of homosexuality as a "disorder" was not based on any scientific evidence or research, but was the result of significant political and special interest group pressure. He was on the board of directors and present at the 1973 conference when it was all going down (sorry, again no pun intended) and was quite specific in his remarks.
Next you say “You don’t have to be a genius to draw the obvious conclusions†Wow, you are correct there, you must not have to be a genius (apparently you are able to readily identify as one of the “notsâ€), because you have drawn 3 conclusions that are not only erroneous, and not obvious, but hardly even the ONLY 3 possible. Why are you working so hard to try and cast aspersions on anyone who seems to still have a functioning moral compa*s? Just because you don’t agree with them you insist on maligning them with a nasty, (some could say hateful) characterization that they are one of ONLY three things - saying they are all either a) illiterate (hasn’t read it) or b) are a perverted slime (a supporter of NAMBLA) or c) a liar (lying through their teeth) ? Gee, why so hostile? In your last full paragraph you actually try to suggest that it is the Religious Right who “persist in as serting that Pedophilia is a legitimate “sexual orientationâ€.†That is just ludicrous. They are NOT persisting in that, how silly. They are in fact railing against it as a sexual orientation because of the reference to a certain segment of a manual. They are simply trying to get the legislators to acknowledge that it IS a perversion, that it is NOT a sexual orientation and insisting they define it. However, the framers of this bill won’t do that. They want their “options†to remain open and giving no definitive answer leaves them a loophole big enough to drive an aircraft carrier through. What’s that you say? “Like THAT would ever happen, politicians would NEVER do that†hmmm you mean like Obama swearing he would never appoint Lobbyists to any position? And then appointing/nominating 17 lobbyists for positions in the first 2 weeks he was in office? Not like that hmm? Or like the Kennedy Amnesty bill for Illegal Aliens pa*sed in the 1990’s? Kennedy said it would be the “last Amnesty bill ever.†Hmmm
written by Anne Moyer, May 25, 2009
/sigh Zoe, in the first place to suggest that only people who aren't pedophiles understand that it is not a "legitimate" sexual orientation is just silly. I could suggest that with a comment like that, that you may possibly be a pedophile because you obviously don't "understand" what constitutes a "sexual orientation".
You see, any individual who has a sexual preference and establishes that preference as their habit, and their habit becomes their only behavior, it has now become their “orientation†(even a deviant one such as pedophilia or sadomasichism) and once established as their sexual orientation, then whatever the perversion, it now becomes A sexual orientation simply because it is THEIR orientation. And when enough people share the opinion that THEIR sexual orientation is normal (because after all LOOK at how many of us engage in it) then you end up with a special interest group who presses for legitimacy and it is politicized. Doesn't make it RIGHT, but it can easily become politically correct because, golly, they may be hara*sed (arrested maybe? That could be considered hara*sment) or abused (some parent of a child they molested beats the crap out of them?) or insulted (people call them perverts?) or worse - discriminated against (gasp)!! (sorry, even pegged MY sarcasm meter there) Look at ALL the "special" groups who claim those things all the time now, and guess what? The politically correct, "why can't we all just get along", let's be tolerant crowd will FORCE everyone else (by legislation or by ridiculing and marginalizing, like you are doing, anyone who disagrees with their position (no pun on position intended) by labeling those with morals or ethics or heck, even a reasonably well developed sense of right and wrong as bigots, haters, racist, intolerant, [fill in the blank]-Phobic) to accept what everyone should know is what it is, a perversion! You are aware that some things really ARE a perversion, right? You then say “The proposed bill only protects on the grounds of “sexual orientation†– you know, like heterosexuality†Well, gosh, yeah Zoe, I know that heterosexuality is a sexual orientation, but apparently you want people to believe that this bill includes heterosexuals just because it IS a sexual orientation. Truth is, Zoe, heterosexuals (you know, the majority of the way people in the US and the world, have sex, man-woman stuff, hence all the reproducing?) are the ONE sexual orientation that is EXCLUDED from this bill. Why? Ummm because of the FOUR listed, it is the ONE that really is (how do I say this without offending your sensibilities?) normal. (sorry, no way around it, truth can be that way sometimes). You see, just because some people do a thing, does NOT make it right. Just by saying it loud enough and long enough does not make it true. Homosexuals have been shouting how normal they are for a number of years. Interesting, but I don’t recall heterosexuals having to hold marches and rallies and become militant to force everyone else to accept their sexual orientation as “normalâ€. Things that make you go “hmmmâ€.
Write comment
|
| Last Updated on Thursday, 21 May 2009 07:18 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
You don’t have to be a genius to draw the obvious conclusions. Anyone who says the bill protects pedophiles either a) hasn’t read it or b) is a supporter of NAMBLA or c) is lying through their teeth.
I think there are definite negative consequences should the Religious Right persist in a*serting that Pedophila is a legitimate "sexual orientation" . People will start asking questions - and there are far too many cases on record of Baptist Ministers being convicted of the sexual abuse of children. I won't mention the Catholic priests.
You're on very dangerous ground here, and should tread carefully. Even I'm starting to wonder.