NO RIGHT EXISTS TO OBJECTIVELY DISORDERED BEHAVIOR
by Gary Morella
aking sexual orientation a cause for nondiscrimination says that orientation
to objectively disordered behavior is acceptable.
Psychologist Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, speaking for a professional psychological
organization, NARTH, says "homosexuality is not a natural alternative
lifestyle; rather
(1) it is a developmental disorder,
(2) its causes and predictors are very well documented,
(3) it is treatable in adulthood,
(4) it is highly associated with self-defeating and self
destructive behaviors, pathology, and maladaptation, and
(5) the four previous points have been politically buried or denied."
A majority of the world's religions recognize homosexual orientation as an
"objective disorder."
Per NARTH, homosexual attractions don't necessarily make one a homosexual.
Children encouraged to believe that they are gay may later find themselves
trapped in an unwanted and even life threatening sexual habit pattern.
It may not be a choice to have homosexual attractions; it most certainly IS a
choice on how to act on same. The AIDS quilt is proof that many choices have
been bad.
A difference exists between invidious discrimination against persons as opposed
to just discrimination against behavior. All are in opposition to the former
while the latter is a requirement for responsible parents and schools.
The introduction of public policy to protect an orientation to behavior to
which no one has any conceivable right leads to other distorted notions and
practices.
For example, the 1990 J. of Homosexuality produced a double issue devoted to
adult-child sex. One of the many disturbing quotes said, "parents should look
upon the pedophile who loves their son 'not as a rival or competitor, not as a
thief of their property, but as a partner in the boy's upbringing, someone to
be welcomed into their home...'" (p. 164). The Amer. Psych. Assoc. did NOT
denounce this position. Why? Why are these views being publicized in
"homosexual" journals? The answer is in J. Sex and Marital Therapy which shows
a strong correlation between homosexual males and pedophilia in proportion to
their numbers (about 1 out of 36 men).
The APA's prestigious Psychological Bulletin concludes that childhood sexual
abuse is on average, only slightly associated with psychological harm--and
that the harm may not be due to the sexual experience, but to the negative
family factors in the children's backgrounds. Incredible!
Much has been made of the APA's no longer including homosexuality on their
disorder list. They also no longer include sadism, masochism, and pedophilia
on this list. Does this mean that these "orientations" might eventually be
embraced as causes for nondiscrimination?
The diagnostic manual of the APA now says that there is no problem with
pedophilia unless it bothers the pedophiliac - so much for the concern of
the safety of children. Are we as a society obliged to follow the dictates
of an association whose surreal positions defy reason?
We're talking about protected zones of advocacy for orientation to objectively
disordered behavior which our public schools and society in general has no
business considering if it truly cares about the "safety" of our children
and the common good.