Kevin :
I cannot comment on family therapy since  that is a profession about which
my knowledge is close to non-existent.  However, in terms of psychotherapy
( in any legitimate form ), it seems to me  that homosexuals should receive
therapy upon request. They certainly need it  --desperately.
 
I would imagine that in family therapy the situation is very different.  
That is
another world, and as I understand it, children may be included.
 
But about homosexuality, there is an entire ( fairly large and well  
organized )
group called NARTH, National Association for Research and Therapy
of Homosexuality, which specifically deals with homosexual treatments
that reverse the "orientation" of those with this pathology.
 
The main problem with NARTH is that ,as a guess, about 1/4th are
religious hard cases, like Jeffrey Satinover, MD. He sure knows the
physiological side of the issue but cannot refrain in his writings  from
what I will uncharitably call "Bible thumping."
 
The obvious majority in NARTH consists of non-religious or
not-very-religious professionals, mostly psychoanalysts. I have
some of their publications and they are all first rate.
 
These are the kinds of people who ought to be reachable in terms
of actually mobilizing for political action. Not easily, not at all,
psychoanalysts, by their nature, usually  stay out of politics,
but their wealth of knowledge on relevant issues is 
extremely valuable.
 
Billy
 
-----------------------------------------------------------
 
 
 
dated 11/13/2011  [email protected]  writes:
 
Hello Billy:
 
I'm new to this forum and doing a lot of  reading and catching up.  I may 
not have received the list of Amendments  before.  I just finished reading 
the brief on Homosexuality.  Quite  clear indeed.  
 
The issue is heating up in Family  Therapy right now because our ethical 
guidelines prohibit discriminating  against any person who seeks therapy. Some 
religious MFT's believe they should  not be required to treat a gay or 
lesbian client. As a libertarian-inspired  therapist I believe no independent 
professional should be required to treat  anyone against his will.  The 
American Psychological Association recently  passed a pro-gay marriage ethical 
statement.  AAMFT remains neutral but  the handwriting seems to be on the wall.
 
By the way I did not tell anyone they  should read my book.  I don't speak 
in those terms.  I'm pleased to  have the opportunity to offer ideas for 
consideration and to read others'  thoughts in an exchange of opinions.
 
Kevin

 

Kevin :
What is my rationale ?  I  would have thought that the Amendment spelled it 
all out.
What part of the Amendment is unclear  ?
 
Or did you read it ?
 
I guess not. We should read you  book, and I have already read parts of it,
but no need to read anyone else's  writings ?  
 
Anyway, the following, below,  is  from the "truth Amendment," and makes 
the point that, to re-use the  Confucian adage, "a lie told 1000 times is 
easier 
to believe than the truth told  once."  For  pedophilia occurs at 
astronomical  rates
among homosexuals compared with  heterosexuals regardless of pro-homosexual
propaganda to the contrary. Best stats  I know about put the number of
boy rapes at between 40 % and 50 % as  many as rapes of girls. That is,
roughly 2 % of the population, male  homosexuals, commit about 
half as many sex crimes as 48 % of the  population, male heterosexuals.
The incidence level is close  to 15 times that of heterosexuals,
in any case a magnitude  greater.
 
Yes, not all male homosexuals are  pedophiles, but no-one who is informed
puts the figure are less than 20 % or  25 %.  What if one out of four or 
five
heterosexual males raped young girls ?  But since this is about
young boys, well, who cares...   

Until all hell breaks  loose.
 
I'd say that with this level of  incidence it is fair enough to characterize
homosexuality among males as linked to  pedophilia. Not to even count
the fact that the rate is probably  higher and the related fact that
pedophilia plays a major role in  homosexual 'culture.'
 
We have  --about this and about  MANY other matters on the subject
of homosexuality--  been lied to  year in and year out by the media,
by homosexuals or their supporters,  and by dupes of homosexuals
in business and government. Guess what  ?  I will take my one truth any day
before I believe even one of  their 1000 lies.
 
I am also dismayed beyond belief at  the ineffectiveness and bad judgement
of Evangelicals on this issue, who do  oppose homosexuality but who seem
to have willfully chosen the stupidest  strategy available, who make
little effort to become informed, and  who in any case put this
at or near the bottom on their list of  priorities.
 
And then they wonder why their  children are raped.
 
After all, everything else is more  important, especially money.
 
Besides, it would mean the necessity  to have a backbone when
the popular culture has been mostly  won over to the homosexual viewpoint,
and that is out of the question if you  want to get ahead in life.
 
Much better to put bank accounts  first, waaay first.
 
My view is that there is no  alternative but to completely forget about
Evangelicals on this issue, they are  not about to do one damned thing
that matters. I sincerely am disgusted  at their failures in this area.
Disgusted and angry.
 
Billy
 
------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Right to  Truth
 
 
Included in "outcome"  is the  principle that consensus is no substitute
for objective truth. That is,   even a "sea change" in opinion generally 
may mean
nothing if conclusions were reached  based on faulty "information," or on
one or another form of dishonesty.  This Amendment is intended to help make
truthfulness normative in American  society more than has often been the 
case in the past.
by penalizing falsehoods. Showing  indifference to public lying is 
dysfunctional
to all of society.
 
Honest errors shall be protected by  law in all cases where those concerned 
can show
that they have carried out serious  research or investigation to seek to 
verify their
contentions. 

 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
11/12/2011 3:57:17 P.M. Pacific  Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

Hi Billy:
 
Your beliefs about homosexuality are  new to me.  What is your rationale?  
I have a psychological  lens, having worked with many over the years in  
psychotherapy.
 
Most people make a distinction  between homosexuality and pedophelia.
 
Kevin



Here is the difficulty  :
In many cases "government  intervention" IS government.
 
In 1787 Madison advocated federal  legislative powers that would have 
allowed
the Congress to nullify laws  passed in the states. Reason ?  Among other 
things
because he wanted to see slavery  abolished and did not think there was any
other way to do so. Eventually the  14th Amendment did the job. That 
Amendment
was a case of Government  Intervention writ large.
 
Similarly, child labor laws  intervened in the market. It also is 
government  intervention
when Congress passes laws that  limit pollution, establish safety 
regulations, or
prohibit poll taxes. You can  almost ask, "what isn't government 
intervention"
when speaking of Acts of Congress.  For that matter, most Executive Orders
are also government interventions,  as are most Supreme Court decisions.
 
Thus we get a libertarian case  against government intervention and the 
phrase
is conveniently undefined. Or we  get an argument about a government 
intervention
that went bad, forgetting all  opposite effects for the good. Yet all laws 
and
Constitutional Amendments, or  almost all , consist of interventions. Which
the father of the Constitution  himself, James Madison favored on principle.
 
That is, as an Originalist, it is  impossible for me to ignore the main 
author of
the Constitution and his  intentions, which, while hardly about everything, 
 regardless
favored government intervention as  a Good.
 
Something happens and a lot of  people are upset. They demand that 
government
should act, viz,  intervene,
 
This is November 12, 2011. There  is one helluva scandal at Penn State 
University.
It seems as if a football coach  named Sandusky has been molesting and 
raping
young boys. Joe Paterno was  informed about this and did almost nothing 
about it
and retained the services of  Sandusky for 7 years after the first report 
came
to his attention.
 
What should government do ?   Nothing and simply let this play out in 
criminal court ?
How about eliminating the problem  ?  How about treating homosexuality for 
what it is,
a mental illness deserving legal  prohibition and mandatory treatment so 
that this
dysfunctional behavior in brought  under control ?
 
My project, "A Radical Centrist  Vision for the Future," consisting of 100 
suggested
constitutional Amendments,  includes several in the area of social values. 
The entire
project was sent to everyone on  this list, plus a good number of other 
people.
The Amendments concerning  social values are included in the following 
material,  
featuring an Amendment to  re-criminalize homosexuality . The argument is 
psychoanalytic,  
and generally based on science and  scholarly research findings. It is 
anything
but an argument from tradition or  religious authority.
 
What actions that are less than  this can possibly bring the criminality 
which is
intrinsic to homosexuality to a  halt ?  How many more Catholic Church type
scandals do we need ? Now we have  a big one in NCAA sports. Where
will it go next ?
 
But there are other social /  values issues which also cry out for 
government
intervention, such as child  pornography and the need to enforce 
anti-Communist
prohibitions in America.   

Sure, there is a new consensus on  issues such as homosexuality. So what ?
The only question that matters is  whether this consensus is for the good 
or whether the whole rationale  behind it is fallacious and has the effect 
of
destroying our society. It is as  obvious as anything gets that this new
consensus is a consensus from hell  and needs to be completely
discredited. It is unpopular to  make the effort ?  Yes it is. But it is 
immoral in the extreme not to make  the effort and seriously try to change 
the consensus and to oppose  everyone who now is in cahoots with it.
 
Just how does anyone think that  scandals like the Catholic Church
and Penn State come about ?   These scandals happen all over
the country every day, somewhere,  at lesser scale  --in local schools,
in the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts,  among Congressmen, and you name it--
precisely because of the nature of  homosexuality itself.
 
It is time to become actually  informed on the issue and do something about 
it.
 
Billy





-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

Reply via email to