In another post we will publish Prof. Rob Gagnon’s response to Richard Cohen’s new and curiously “gay”-affirmative approach to the homosexual issue.  – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Warren,

I certainly don’t think Richard Cohen or anyone needs to apologize for stating the obvious truth that “Change [away from and rejecting homosexuality] is possible.” If we were to apologize for everything that “offends” hardened LGBT activists, we’d be apologizing 24/7.

The question is, when will YOU apologize for affirming homosexuality as an acceptable (or innocuous) identity — while claiming (falsely) to uphold biblical orthodoxy? When will YOU repent for working hand-in-hand with “gay” activists who are diametrically opposed to the Christian worldview on homosexuality as an overcomable sexual sin (and an abomination) — by actively discrediting the need AND potential for wholesome change away from same-sex behavior and indulging same-sex desires?

You should either publicly apologize for undermining Scriptural (and observable) Truth — or renounce your claims to be faithful to historic Christian sexual teachings. This request is made more urgent by your employment with an evangelical institution, Grove City College, which purports to be “authentically Christian” — something few biblically-faithful observers of your recent flirtation with pro-”gay” advocacy would accuse you of being. 

I can document all the above statements concerning your conduct and “gay”-affirming advocacy, which has caused widespread consternation and confusion in Christian circles, and within the pro-family movement. You (or anyone) may publish this if you wish. 

Sincerely,

Peter LaBarbera 

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
www.aftah.org 

Cc: pro-family leaders

Following is Warren Throckmorton’s daily e-mail for today (or view online HERE)::

From: Warren Throckmorton <ewthrockmorton@gcc.edu>

Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 13:08:35 +0000

To: <americansfortruth@gmail.com>

Subject: Warren Throckmorton

International Healing Foundation Comes Out?

Posted on www.wthrockmorton.com  Oct. 31, 2011

Or something.

Richard Cohen’s International Healing Foundation has re-invented itself as a LGBTQU (U for unwanted) organization on a new website called Coming Out Loved.

On Coming Out Loved, gay affirming people can find a page full of LGB resources as well as an apology from Cohen:

We at IHF wish to offer a sincere, heartfelt apology to everyone in the LGBTQ community who may have been hurt by our message of “change.” As the director of IHF, I apologize and ask your forgiveness. I did not realize that by stating, “Change is Possible,” some would be offended. That was the furthest thing from my heart and mind. To think that our message of “change” would cause further pain to LGBTQ youth and adults is painful to imagine … I am deeply and profoundly sorry.

Really? Is this a sign of the apocalypse?

Whatever it is, I doubt it is going very far. The website also has the old references to same-sex attraction being caused by environment and family background, and to treatment to resolve “unwanted same-sex attraction.” NARTH’s protocol for change therapy is there along with the old list of reparative therapists for referral. Cohen is still offering his book Coming Out Straight, one of the most direct promotions of the change paradigm ever. Moreover, Chris Doyle is speaking this weekend at the NARTH conference, along with a speaker who promotes criminalization of homosexuality.

Perhaps I am cynical, but the changes just look like business as usual along with a parody of gay affirming therapy.

This is photo from Warren Throckmorton's blog taken from Ricard Cohen's online video. To watch the actual video with Richard Cohen, go to Intenational Healing Foundation's website at www.gaytostraight.org.

But then again, in the promo video for the new attitude, there is a rainbow flag. (Note [in photo of video at left] the flag circled in the screen cap to the left).

I am looking forward to seeing reaction from AFTAH, PFOX, Liberty Counsel, JONAH and the like.

Seriously, if the IHF crew want to be taken seriously, they need to explain more about how and why they are expecting people to trust them. Also, if the same touch therapy and pillow beating protocols are on the table, then taking a neutral stance is still not enough to address concerns about their work.

Jennifer Keeton

Here’s the latest victim of the Pro-Gay Thought Police (PGTP): Jennifer Keeton. Her predicament is further evidence of the “zero-sum game” in the Culture War between pro-”gay” policies/laws and religious liberty. It’s incredible that this public institution, Augusta State U,, is requiring this principled young woman to alter her beliefs and even attend a “gay pride” parade as a condition for completing the program. (Imagine the outcry if a public university required a committed, secular ”gay” student to go to a Bible-believing church as part of a remediation plan.)

Will authentic Bible-believing Christians (as opposed to the compromised, homosexuality-affirming variety) be boxed out of the counseling profession? If so, faithful Christians will have to support alternative counseling institutions, because unrepentant homosexuality will never be compatible with Christianity. And there are way too many happy ex-gays and ex-lesbians out there for sexually struggling people not to be given this healthy option.

Modern “diversity” is to genuine diversity as Marxist-Leninist “People’s Democratic Republics” are to true democracy. Wouldn’t true “diversity” allow people to exercise their own choice to see either a pro-homosexual counselor or one that adheres to traditional moral views? I guess that’s asking too much of left-wing academics and the pro-”GLBTQ” movement.  – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org 

P.S. Check out this Queety blog post on the Keeton case. It contains a video of Keeton giving her side of the story. Note the nasty and irrational pro-homosexual comments that follow the Queerty post, including this one:

Imagine if a KKK member became a firefighter and said “If a black person is in a fire I’m not going to save their life. It’s against my beliefs.” Rubbish.

_______________________________________

LifeSiteNews reports [Click HERE to subscribe to LifeSite's daily e-mails.]:

Augusta State Univ. to Counseling Student: Change Beliefs or Get Out

AUGUSTA, Georgia, July 22, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) filed suit against Augusta State University Wednesday on behalf of a counseling student who was allegedly told that her Christian beliefs are unethical and incompatible with the prevailing views of the counseling profession. The student, Jennifer Keeton, says she has been told to stop communicating her beliefs and that she must undergo “training” to accept homosexuality in order to graduate from the counseling program.

Augusta State ordered Keeton to undergo a re-education plan, in which she must attend “diversity sensitivity training,” complete additional remedial reading, and write papers to describe their impact on her beliefs. If she does not change her beliefs or agree to the plan, the university says it will expel her from the Counselor Education Program.

“A public university student shouldn’t be threatened with expulsion for being a Christian and refusing to publicly renounce her faith, but that’s exactly what’s happening here. Simply put, the university is imposing thought reform,” said ADF Senior Counsel David French.

“Abandoning one’s own religious beliefs should not be a precondition at a public university for obtaining a degree. This type of leftist zero-tolerance policy is in place at far too many universities, and it must stop.”

Keeton, 24, is pursuing her master’s degree in counseling at Augusta State. Lawyers say that after her professors learned of her biblical beliefs, specifically her views on homosexual conduct, the school imposed the re-education plan. Keeton says she never denigrated anyone in communicating her beliefs but merely stated factually what they were in appropriate contexts.

The plan, according to ADF lawyers, assails Keeton’s beliefs as inconsistent with the counseling profession and expresses suspicion over “Jen’s ability to be a multiculturally competent counselor, particularly with regard to working with gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (GLBTQ) populations.” They say the plan requires her to take steps to change her beliefs through additional assignments and additional “diversity sensitivity training” and to “work to increase exposure and interactions with gay populations. One such activity could be attending the Gay Pride Parade in Augusta.”

Each month, Keeton is allegedly required to complete a report on how the “remediation” assignments have influenced her beliefs so that faculty can “decide the appropriateness of her continuation in the counseling program.” Lawyers say the plan concludes by noting that “failure to complete all elements of the remediation plan will result in dismissal from the Counselor Education Program.”

In an ADF video, Keeton said that, “While I want to stay in the school counseling program, I know that I can’t honestly complete the remediation plan knowing that I would have to alter my beliefs.” “I’m not willing to, and I know I can’t, change my Biblical views,” she said.

ADF attorneys filed the complaint and a motion for preliminary injunction in Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley with the U.S. District Court for the District of Georgia.

ADF is currently litigating a similar case involving a counseling student at Eastern Michigan University and successfully resolved a case at Missouri State University. Also in litigation is a case involving a Georgia counselor fired by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention because she would not agree to affirm homosexual behavior as morally acceptable.

Southern Poverty Law Center director Mark Potok sent AFTAH a snide message to point out a small factual error, yet for years the SPLC has confused AFTAH's Peter LaBarbera with Family Research Institute founder Paul Cameron on its website.

EDTIORS NOTE: After the publication of our article, the SPLC fixed the major error described below of (twice) confusing AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera for Family Research Institute founder Paul Cameron. However, the leftist group’s website retains one error, claiming that LaBarbera called for closing down all homosexual “establishments.” In actuality, LaBarbera called for closing down all “gay” sex clubs and bathhouses (where men go to have anonymous sexual encounters with other men) in the interest of protecting the public’s health.

By AFTAH Staff

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a left-wing organization under fire for expanding its “hate” designations beyond racist fringe groups to pro-family organizations like Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) and the conservative Tea Party movement — has mistaken AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera for Family Research Institute researcher Paul Cameron in two longstanding “Intelligence Report” posts on its website.

The sophomoric error first appeared in a Spring 2005 SPLC “Intelligence Report,” “A Mighty Army,” about pro-family organizations opposed to homosexuality (see the section on Page 3 of Concerned Women for America). It was repeated in a Summer 2006 SPLC “Intelligence Report” article, “Passive Aggressive,” by Heidi Beirich. Both fallacious reports have been posted on the Southern Poverty Law Center website for years and have been repeated by sympathetic liberal activists on the web. The SPLC, which raises and spends millions of dollars annually for its “anti-hate” political and research activities, works with government and law enforcement authorities to provide research on alleged “hate” groups.

The above excerpt from the 2005 Southern Poverty Law Center report "A Mighty Army" mistakes Peter LaBarbera, founder of Americans For Truth, with Paul Cameron, founder of Family Research Institute. The typo in the first sentence (should be "In") appears in the original report.

Ironically, after the Southern Poverty Law Center outrageously designated Americans For Truth as a “hate” website — urged on by the pro-communist “Gay Liberation Network” — SPLC director Mark Potok sent Americans For Truth the following snide e-mail message to correct an inadvertent error in a column by (AFTAH Board Member) Matt Barber:

I know you all value accuracy above all things — I can tell that from the fine and incisive quality of your writing and research. Therefore, I\’m sure you\’ll want to let Matt know that we\’re based in Montgomery, Ala., not Atlanta, Ga. I know these places all seem the same to you — kind of like the unspeakable horrors of homosexuality — but hey, they\’re not. Of course, Matt does appear incapable of doing any actual reporting — his little attack piece is a compendium of ancient quotes he dredges from a 10-year-old Harper\’s magazine article.

Said AFTAH’s LaBarbera: “Perhaps Mr. Potok should redirect his derision toward his own staffers and writers, who appear to ‘value’ smearing Christian conservatives above accuracy. The SPLC’s credibility as a research organization is rapidly diminishing. Obviously, it is so consumed with its own animus toward religious conservatives that it cannot be trusted as an objective arbiter of ‘hate.’”

The above excerpt is reprinted from a 2006 SPLC "Intelligence Report" "Passive Aggressive," which repeats the confusion of LaBarbera with Cameron found in the 2005 SPLC report.

It should be noted that the confusion of two conservative, pro-family advocates is only the most blatant error found in the SPLC documents. We will let Paul Cameron and his Family Research Institute provide a full correction of the SPLC’s misinformation about him (see this FRI post on the APA expulsion claim). As to the descriptions about LaBarbera in the two reprinted SPLC excerpts above, here are the mischaracterizations:

• The Lambda Report on Homosexual Activism, the precursor and flagship print publication of Americans For Truth, was not “inflammatory” but reported using firsthand information gathered from homosexual activist groups and “gay” events. Besides, the SPLC, with its reckless and preposterous linkage of demented, racist fringe groups like the KKK to mainstream pro-family conservative groups such as AFTAH and pro-Constitution Tea Partiers — all under the rubric of alleged “hate” — is in no place to lecture anyone about being “inflammatory”;
• LaBarbera was never a member of the American Psychological Association and is not a scientist, hence he was never expelled; here the SPLC mistakes him with Cameron [Editor's Note: for years the Left has distorted the facts surrounding Cameron's association with the APA; see this PhD dissertation apology to Cameron];
• LaBarbera’s work has not been “denounced by the American Psychological Association”; again, here the SPLC writer, relying on the 2005 erroneous SPLC report, mistakes LaBarbera for Cameron.
• At the 2006 Vision America conference in question, “The War on Christians,” LaBarbera did not call homosexuality “disgusting” but referred to specific homosexual acts and their unhealthy consequences as such. He continues to believe that shame, not pride, should be associated with all homosexual conduct because it is immoral.
• At the same Vision America conference, LaBarbera did not call for the closing of all homosexual “establishments,” but for shutting down homosexual sex clubs and bathhouses as public health hazards. These sex businesses — which helped AIDS explode nationally in the eighties — facilitate anonymous homosexual sexual encounters and hyper-promiscuity, which spreads disease and harms both men who have sex with men and and the women who are in relationships with these men. (The latter often are unaware of their partners’ secret promiscuity.)

AFTAH repeats its challenge to Mark Potok, Southern Poverty Law Center’s director, to a public “Debate on Hate” regarding the SPLC’s politically-motivated “hate” designations.

________________________________

Two SPLC reports with errors (unfixed as of May 6, 2010):

• “‘A Mighty Army’: A dozen major groups help drive the religious right’s anti-gay crusade” (2005; see section on CWA, p. 3);
• “Passive Aggressive” (2006)

________________________________

Related AFTAH articles:

• SPLC Plays Politics with Hate, Smears Americans For Truth as ‘Hate Site’
• AFTAH’s LaBarbera Challenges SPLC’s Potok to a ‘Debate on Hate,’ Asks to Reverse ‘Hate’ Designation
• Barber: Southern Poverty Law Center Officially Declared ‘Left-Wing Hate Group’
• LISTEN – CWA: SPLC Takes ‘Hate Group’ Definition Too Far

Folks, Americans give far more credit to professional institutions like the American Psychological Society (APA) than they deserve. We forget the strong liberal, anti-faith bias of academia and especially the soft sciences — and the enormous cultural subversion that PC-driven professional organizations have engaged in over the years. (Groundbreaking “sexologist” Alfred Kinsey himself was a notorious pervert.) This includes, in the APA’s case, forays into the “study” of adult-child sex (pedophilia). Remarkably, as Lifesite’s Matthew Hoffman reports below, the APA continues its affiliation with known pedophilia advocate Theo Sandfort. Regardless of what it puts out on the (in)ability of people to change their “orientation” (translation: sexual practices, thoughts and habits), the APA has no moral authority on these matters given its documented conflict-of-interest stemming from an overwhelming pro-homosexualist bias. Conservatives should resist the temptation to cite the APA as authoritative when it happens to bend a degree or two in their direction. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

_______________________________

LifeSiteNews reports:

The Psychological Profession and Homosexuality: Lunatics Running the Asylum?

Special LifesiteNews Report Commentary by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman [click HERE to sign up for LifeSiteNews e-mail updates]

WASHINGTON, August 14, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) — A man goes to a psychologist with a problem.  “Doctor,” he says, “I’m suffering terribly. I feel like a woman trapped inside the body of a man.  I want to become a woman.”

The psychologist responds: “No problem. We can discuss this idea for a couple of years, and if you’re still sure you want to be a woman, we can have a surgeon remove your penis, give you hormones for breast enlargement and make other changes to your body.  Problem solved.”

Gratified, the first patient leaves, followed by a second. “Doctor,” he says, “I feel terrible. I’m a man but I feel attracted to other men.  I want to change my sexual preference.  I want to become heterosexual.”  The psychologist responds: “Oh no, absolutely not!  That would be unethical.  Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic!”

The irony of this little tale is that, while reading like a joke, it is in reality an accurate description of the mental health professions today.  While dismissing and condemning reparative therapy for homosexual orientation, the majority of psychiatrists and psychologists in Anglophone North America have embraced the concept of “sex change,” a procedure that does nothing more than mutilate the patient to appease his confused mind.

The American Psychological Association Perpetuates the Madness

In its most recent statement on the topic, the American Psychological Association (APA) has softened its tone somewhat against psychologists who do reorientation therapy for homosexuals. However it maintains that, “Contrary to claims of sexual orientation change advocates and practitioners, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation.”

The refusal of the organization to accept the increasingly strong evidence against its position is another reminder of how entrenched the sophistry of sexual hedonism has become among the leaders of the organization.

In recent years, a number of studies have been published in peer-reviewed psychology journals, indicating that significant numbers of patients who voluntarily participate in therapy to change their sexual orientation are successful and happy with the results. Combined with numerous individual testimonies by former homosexuals, evidence in favor of the practice is overwhelming.

However, in its new report, “Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation,” the APA’s leadership declares that all of those studies can be dismissed because, in its words, “None of the recent research (1999-2007) meets methodological standards that permit conclusions regarding efficacy or safety.”

The report therefore conveniently disposes of the most recent studies on the topic — the ones that undermine the APA’s position.  The only studies that remain are ones done before the resurgence of the reparative therapy movement, in the 1970s, when the APA declared that homosexual orientation and sodomy really weren’t unhealthy after all.  New research is rejected in favor of research that is now over 30 years old, applied to therapeutic practices that may no longer be in use.

However, the authors of Essential Psychotherapy and its Treatment, a standard text in medical schools, disagree with the APA’s leadership, and say that the newer studies vindicate sexual reorientation therapy.

The newest edition (2009) notes on page 488 that, “While many mental health care providers and professional associations have expressed considerable skepticism that sexual orientation could be changed with psychotherapy and also assumed that therapeutic attempts at reorientation would produce harm, recent empirical evidence demonstrates that homosexual orientation can indeed be therapeutically changed in motivated clients, and that reorientation therapies do not produce emotional harm when attempted (e.g., Byrd & Nicolosi, 2002; Byrd et al., 2008; Shaeffer et al., 1999; Spitzer, 2003).”

The APA’s latest report, done by a task force composed of psychologists with long records of homosexualist activism, also claims as “scientific facts” that “same-sex sexual attractions, behavior, and orientations per se are normal and positive variants of human sexuality — in other words, they are not indicators of mental or developmental disorders” — and “no empirical studies or peer-reviewed research supports theories attributing same-sex sexual orientation to family dysfunction or trauma.”

These unbelievable statements fly in the face of more than a century of scientific, peer-reviewed studies and clinical observation that indicate that much homosexual behavior originates in deficient family relationships and is associated with a wide range of diseases and pathological behaviors.

Studies have shown that homosexuals disproportionately come from families in which sons or daughters lack a healthy relationship with one or both of their parents, or in situations in which the homosexual was the victim of child sex abuse by a same-sex adult.

Homosexual behavior is also statistically associated with a host of diseases, disorders, and pathological behaviors, including venereal and other diseases, promiscuity and unstable relationships, anxiety disorders, depression and suicide, alcoholism and drug abuse, domestic violence, pederasty, and early death.

Even the homosexual Gay and Lesbian Medical Association admits that homosexuals suffer disproportionate rates of disease and self-destructive behavior.

Although the homosexualist leadership at the APA tries to rationalize these relationships by claiming that they are caused by social stigma or other factors, their claims ring hollow.  Many stigmatized groups exist in society that display none of the pathological tendencies of homosexuals, and these tendencies appear even in countries that are very tolerant of homosexual behavior, such as the Netherlands.

Homosexualism on the Defensive

The very existence of the report, however, is evidence that the homosexualist establishment currently in power at the APA is on the defensive, and seeking to preserve its ideology of sexual permissiveness as a paradigm in the psychology profession.

After surrendering itself to a hedonistic ethos in the 1970s and 80s, the American psychological practice has been transformed into a vehicle for patients to rationalize and reconcile themselves with self-destructive, irrational, and narcissistic behavior, paying an “expert” to soothe their consciences by assuring them that “science” is on their side.

However, an increasing number of mental health professionals whose institutions were stolen from them by political activists in the 1970s are now rising up to take back their profession in the name of true science, and patient health.

Former APA President Dr. Robert Perloff has publicly endorsed the National Organization for the Research and Treatment of Homosexuality (NARTH), the largest American organization devoted the treatment of unwanted homosexual attractions, and has denounced the APA’s campaign against such treatment.

“The ideology of those who oppose efforts to try to facilitate transfers from SSA, that is, Same Sex Attraction, to heterosexual attraction, must not, must not stand in the way of those homosexual persons who desire to live their lives heterosexually, a choice which is unarguably theirs to make,” he said in a videotaped statement played at NARTH’s 2008 annual meeting.

Dr. Robert Spitzer, who has been been called the “architect” of the American Psychiatric Association’s normalization of homosexuality in the 1970s, provoked outrage from the homosexualist establishment when he admitted in 2001 that his own investigations had convinced him that sexual reorientation therapy can work.

His study, published in the peer-reviewed Archives of Mental Health in 2003, found that a majority of his sample of 247 people had developed heterosexual urges or had ceased to be predominantly homosexual after only one year of therapy.  None of the subjects said that they had been harmed in the process.

After presenting his paper before the American Psychiatric Association in 2001, Spitzer said: “I’m convinced from people I have interviewed…many of them…have made substantial changes toward becoming heterosexual. I came to this study skeptical. I now claim that these changes can be sustained.”

Other prominent figures in psychiatry and psychology have also raised their voices in protest, including Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, a psychiatrist and physicist who has testified before Congress in favor of reparative therapy, and has denounced the hijacking of the mental health professions by homosexualist ideologues in his book, the “Trojan Couch.”

“Some of my psychiatric and psychological colleagues have woven for themselves their own set of illusory robes of authority, and for the past 35 years have been proclaiming doctrines in the public square that depend upon the authority that derives from the public’s belief that these robes exist,” Satinover said in a recent interview .

“The diagnostic change that in 1973 removed homosexuality as a formal disorder from the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), a change that many now accept as simply indisputable in spite of the fact that it was based wholly on fiction,” he added.

“The question isn’t just homosexuality, said Satinover, “but rather, freedom from all sexual constraint. This has been an issue for civilization for thousands of years…We now have so little of a moral compass that we’re really completely at sea. We’re awash in the tide of unconstrained instinctive behaviors which are all being labeled ‘okay’ because nobody really has a sense, any more, as to what’s right and what’s wrong.”

Whither Psychology?

The debate over reparative therapy for homosexuality runs deeper than the issue itself.  It is arguably a debate over the future of the psychological professions as a whole.

Although there are signs that an increasing number of mental health experts are taking an honest look at the facts regarding homosexual behavior and sexual orientation therapy, there are other signs that portend an even darker future for the profession.

In 1998, the APA released a study by three psychological researchers from Temple University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Michigan, claiming that the “negative potential” of adult sex with children was “overstated” and that “the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from their child sexual abuse experiences.”  It even claimed that large numbers of the victims reported that their experiences were “positive,” and suggested that the phrase “child sex abuse” be replaced with “adult-child sex.”

The APA not only passed the paper through its peer review process where it was approved by multiple psychologists associated with the organization, but actually published it in one of its journals, Psychological Bulletin.  Moreover, when objections were raised by radio talk show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger and various pro-family groups, the organization defended the article for an entire year.  It was also defended by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which chillingly stated that it “saw no clear evidence of improper application of methodology or other questionable practices on the part of the article’s authors.”

Although the sheer insanity and destructiveness of the content should have prevented the APA from publishing the article in the first place, the sexual libertines in charge of the organization only issued a muted retraction after the U.S. Congress joined the fray, passing an unprecedented resolution condemning the study.

The publication of the paper was only one example of such lunacy by mental health professionals in peer-reviewed journals.  One of the three authors of the study, Robert Bauserman, has a history of publishing pedophilia-advocacy “studies,” including one for the now-defunct journal Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia, whose editors admitted to being pedophiles.

Since the 1998 article, Bauserman and fellow author Bruce Rind have gone on to write more articles defending child sex abuse [adult-child sex], which have appeared in such mainstream journals as the Archives of Sexual Behavior (2001) and Clinical Psychology (2003).  Apparently, the psychology profession is comfortable with Bauserman and Rind’s work, and intends to continue publishing it.

Another apologist for child sex abuse who has received acceptance, affirmation, and recognition from the mental health professions is Dr. Theo Sandfort, who is currently an Associate Professor of Clinical Sociomedical Sciences (in Psychiatry) at Colombia University.  Sandfort published a study in 1981 that claimed that boys as young as 10 years old had “positive” experiences in their “sexual relationships” with adults.

While he was co-director of the research program of the Department of Gay and Lesbian Studies at the University of Utrecht, Netherlands, Sandfort interviewed 25 boys from between the ages of 10 and 16 who were in such “sexual relationships” — that is, they were being sexually abused by adults.  In fact, the abusers themselves took Sandfort to their victims so he could interview them.  When the victims gave Sandfort their “positive” responses, he duly recorded them.

“For virtually all the boys … the sexual contact itself was experienced positively,” Sandfort wrote, without a hint of irony.

The fact that Sandfort was promoting the sexual abuse of minors with the help of their victimizers didn’t seem to faze him.  Nor did it faze his then-employers at the University of Utrecht.  Nor did it faze the prestigious University of Colombia, which later gave him a professorship, even after he went on to write articles such as “Pedophile relationships in the Netherlands: Alternative Lifestyles for Children?” and books such as “Childhood Sexuality: Normal Sexual Behavior and Development” (2000).

It hasn’t fazed the APA either, which has named Sandfort a “fellow” of the organization since 2002.

The defense and even the promotion of mental health experts who defend child sex abuse is a terrifying, but not unexpected movement down the slippery slope of sexual hedonism embraced by the powers that be at the APA.  It not only threatens homosexuals, who are deceived by the seductive argument that their orientation is nothing to worry about, but psychology and psychiatry themselves.

The outcome of the current battle over the science of homosexuality may well determine the future of the mental health professions as a whole. Will they turn back from the brink, or plunge into the abyss? And what will become of the societies that heed their counsel?