Dear Editor,
Kissoon's letter (SN 5 20 08) is remarkable in its avoidance of the issues, and perpetuates a pattern of activist deception. The Christian and Biblical position is clear: It is the truth that sets persons free, so the initial effort towards this end was found in the article "Guyana's 1998 policy statement on people living with HIVAIDS adequately addresses nondiscrimination in the health sector" at http://www.stabroeknews.com/?p=14601 [July 2009 update: note that, for some strange reason, many past anti-gay-rights and pro-Christian.Israel articles are becoming unavailable at their original permalinks on the Stabroek News website, so this story can be located here].
As in an abortive attempt a few years ago, Kissoon's arguments now come down to justifying the homosexual condition and gay militancy on the basis of a "letter" by a noted psychiatrist, at age 79, written in freehand in an obviously reassuring tone to a frantic mother ...and without any repeat any reference to the clinical position that Freud himself advocated (we will address this later).
If this deception sounds familiar, it is. We remember a similar "letter" written by an American president to a group of churchmen illustrating that the government had no business interfering with their worship because of a constitutional "wall of separation". This letter was thereafter hijacked to undermine the same constitution altogether. This is the way with hoaxes. The latter from Freud, we may add, was only published 12 years after his death.
So, secondly, we should ask Kissoon why he chose to end Freud's “letter” (see the handwritten copy at http://www.truthtree.com/freud.shtml ) at that precise point in his own letter. He leaves out the last sentence, and the implications are enormous. Freud, as everywhere in his letter, hints at the possibility of change, and is also clear in his certainty that, like SASOD's and Kissoon's denial and desperation, the offer of psychological evaluation would be refused: "If you make up your mind that he should have analysis with me (I don't expect you will!!) he has to come over to Vienna. I have no intention of leaving here. However, don't neglect to give me your answer."
Implicit everywhere in that sentence is the possibility of change, and so Kissoon is dishonest to advocate that the "letter" shows that "Freud did not advocate homosexuality as disordered". This is poor reasoning and worse scholarship, and Kissoon and sasod must do the hard work and turn to Freud’s solid clinical and research evidence that is available. He also ignores Jung, Adler and the Bible. This is irresponsible.
But where does the average citizen begin to find this, and other, reliable information?
Kissoon's letter (SN 5 20 08) is remarkable in its avoidance of the issues, and perpetuates a pattern of activist deception. The Christian and Biblical position is clear: It is the truth that sets persons free, so the initial effort towards this end was found in the article "Guyana's 1998 policy statement on people living with HIVAIDS adequately addresses nondiscrimination in the health sector" at http://www.stabroeknews.com/?p=14601 [July 2009 update: note that, for some strange reason, many past anti-gay-rights and pro-Christian.Israel articles are becoming unavailable at their original permalinks on the Stabroek News website, so this story can be located here].
As in an abortive attempt a few years ago, Kissoon's arguments now come down to justifying the homosexual condition and gay militancy on the basis of a "letter" by a noted psychiatrist, at age 79, written in freehand in an obviously reassuring tone to a frantic mother ...and without any repeat any reference to the clinical position that Freud himself advocated (we will address this later).
If this deception sounds familiar, it is. We remember a similar "letter" written by an American president to a group of churchmen illustrating that the government had no business interfering with their worship because of a constitutional "wall of separation". This letter was thereafter hijacked to undermine the same constitution altogether. This is the way with hoaxes. The latter from Freud, we may add, was only published 12 years after his death.
So, secondly, we should ask Kissoon why he chose to end Freud's “letter” (see the handwritten copy at http://www.truthtree.com/freud.shtml ) at that precise point in his own letter. He leaves out the last sentence, and the implications are enormous. Freud, as everywhere in his letter, hints at the possibility of change, and is also clear in his certainty that, like SASOD's and Kissoon's denial and desperation, the offer of psychological evaluation would be refused: "If you make up your mind that he should have analysis with me (I don't expect you will!!) he has to come over to Vienna. I have no intention of leaving here. However, don't neglect to give me your answer."
Implicit everywhere in that sentence is the possibility of change, and so Kissoon is dishonest to advocate that the "letter" shows that "Freud did not advocate homosexuality as disordered". This is poor reasoning and worse scholarship, and Kissoon and sasod must do the hard work and turn to Freud’s solid clinical and research evidence that is available. He also ignores Jung, Adler and the Bible. This is irresponsible.
But where does the average citizen begin to find this, and other, reliable information?
Again, we point readers, the Commissioner of Police and the Minister of Health to Dr. Joseph Nicolosi’s introductory treatment in the article “The Removal of Homosexuality from the Psychiatric Manual” (http://www.catholicsocialscientists.org/Symposium2--Nicolosi--mss.htm ) and Ben Kaufman’s illuminating law review “Why NARTH? The American Psychiatric Association’s Destructive and Blind Pursuit of Political Correctness” (14 REGENT U. L. REV. 423 (2002) (http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2kaufman.doc ). Nicolosi is unchallenged in his contention that Freud, Jung and Adler all saw homosexuality as disordered. Today, homosexuality is not to be found in the psychiatric manual of mental disorders simply because of pandering to "political correctness". Research simply stopped, except for NARTH and very brave researchers. The truth cannot be avoided.
The astonishing outcome, says Nicolosi, is that homosexuals who seek treatment for their condition are often denied help by psychologists and psychiatrists. This is the cruel endgame of Kissoon’s duplicity.
Finally, therefore, a ray of hope for those so affected (see page 8 of 20 in Dr Ben Kaufman's law review noted above). Kaufman concludes: "Numerous therapists, among them Berger, Bieber, Bergler, Caprio, Capron, Hadden, Kaye, Kronemeyer, Nicolosi, Rogers, Siegle, and Socarides, using a number of different forms of therapy, have reported successful treatment of persons experiencing same-sex attraction". In a comprehensive review of the literature on change, Warren Throckmorton challenges those who oppose therapy: "Narrowly, the question to be addressed is: Do conversion therapy techniques work to change unwanted sexual arousal? I submit that the case against conversion therapy requires opponents to demonstrate that no clients have benefited from such procedures or that any benefits are too costly in some objective way to be pursued even if they work. The available evidence supports the observation of many counselors – that many individuals with same-gender sexual orientation have been able to change through a variety of counseling approaches."
It is clear that Kissoon and sasod have deeply entrenched positions reflecting the gay-militant agenda, and would rather see persons suffer than benefit from change.
In the meantime, the Centers for Disease Control advocates that, contrary to popular media reports, MSM’s and bisexuals as a group are the most effective vehicle for the spread of HIV (see the CDC report for 2004 on page 5 of the online article “An Initial Critique of the National Assessment” (www.guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com/national_assessment.pdf ). This evidence cannot be explained away.
We hope the body of evidence provided will correct perspectives on this issue.
Roger Williams
May 24th, 2008
The astonishing outcome, says Nicolosi, is that homosexuals who seek treatment for their condition are often denied help by psychologists and psychiatrists. This is the cruel endgame of Kissoon’s duplicity.
Finally, therefore, a ray of hope for those so affected (see page 8 of 20 in Dr Ben Kaufman's law review noted above). Kaufman concludes: "Numerous therapists, among them Berger, Bieber, Bergler, Caprio, Capron, Hadden, Kaye, Kronemeyer, Nicolosi, Rogers, Siegle, and Socarides, using a number of different forms of therapy, have reported successful treatment of persons experiencing same-sex attraction". In a comprehensive review of the literature on change, Warren Throckmorton challenges those who oppose therapy: "Narrowly, the question to be addressed is: Do conversion therapy techniques work to change unwanted sexual arousal? I submit that the case against conversion therapy requires opponents to demonstrate that no clients have benefited from such procedures or that any benefits are too costly in some objective way to be pursued even if they work. The available evidence supports the observation of many counselors – that many individuals with same-gender sexual orientation have been able to change through a variety of counseling approaches."
It is clear that Kissoon and sasod have deeply entrenched positions reflecting the gay-militant agenda, and would rather see persons suffer than benefit from change.
In the meantime, the Centers for Disease Control advocates that, contrary to popular media reports, MSM’s and bisexuals as a group are the most effective vehicle for the spread of HIV (see the CDC report for 2004 on page 5 of the online article “An Initial Critique of the National Assessment” (www.guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com/national_assessment.pdf ). This evidence cannot be explained away.
We hope the body of evidence provided will correct perspectives on this issue.
Roger Williams
May 24th, 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment