The psychological strategy of the homosexual lobby BY DR Leahcim Semaj

(a note, the day before he appeared on CVM TV’s Live @ 7 where he postured the long held point on paedophilia becoming the next rights push item he produced this piece via his FACEBOOK pageand website, the supposed strategy by the us the gay lobby is to move to paedophilia after legalizing buggery as he tries to put forward here) 

ALSO SEE:  CVM TV’s Live @ 7 – Gay Brain Drain … on my sister blog which also had as guest from overseas now asylee and former advocate Maurice Tomlinson who left Jamaica under very dubious and cloudy circumstances and married a man in Canada although both do not reside there now.

Now here is Mr Semaj’s piece:

The psychological strategy of the homosexual lobby

BY DR Leahcim Semaj Sunday, Jan

Feburary 8, 2012

I take issue with the recent discussion describing Jamaican people who see homosexuality as dysfunctional or deviant as being sick people. This is what is done when one subscribes to the concept of “homophobia”.

Once persons refuse to accept the agenda that homosexuality is normal and healthy behaviour, they are labelled as sick, they have a phobia. How did we get into this mess?

Psychosexual Disorders can be grouped into two main categories: The first is sexual dysfunction: when physiologically normal functions fail, eg inability to respond to erotic stimulation with arousal, erection or orgasm, or when interest in sex is diminished or absent.

The second is sexual deviance: when a sexual behaviour violates the laws, or social norms of a social group or society. Prior to 1973, Psychosexual Disorders were defined in the following categories:

. Homosexuality, . Paedophilia (children), . Incest, . Voyeurism, . Zoophilia (animals), . Frotteurism (rubbing on strangers), . Necrophilia, . Transvestism (cross-dressing), . Urophilia (urine), . Mysophilia (filthy surroundings), . Coprophilia (filth, brown shower), . Klismaphilia (enema), . Troilism (sharing your partner and watching), . Masochism, . Sadism, and . Various fetishes.

Most of these have been retained in the psychological literature, but in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders.

Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting the removal. For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health and other professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that many people still associate with homosexual orientation.

Yet all the other psychosexual disorders and perversions have been retained. Why?

Since 1976, the APA has divided homosexuality into two categories, Egosystonic and Egodystonic. This distinction proposes that people who are sexually attracted to their own gender and happy with that situation are normal, while those who are unhappy need help. Why this one disorder? Why not any of the others?

In 1994, the American Psychiatric Association, in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV, removed paedophilia as a sexual perversion. This event was followed in 1999 when the American Psychological Association released an APA Bulletin report, A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples.

In this report, Bruce Rind, et al, claimed child sexual abuse could be harmless and beneficial. This led to a situation in which Illinois State Representative Bob Biggins introduced House Resolution 325 damning the APA Rind study.

Later that year, the US Family Research Council held a press conference in Washington, DC. Here a coalition of members of Congress, child protection advocates, child abuse victims and public policy groups charged the APA to renounce the Rind study. This conference was largely ignored by mainstream media in the USA.

Concern is being expressed that the American psychological and psychiatric establishment are now setting us up to engineer a cultural endorsement of incest in the same way that the endorsement of homosexuality was orchestrated.

On July 28, 2004, the American Psychological Association finally showed its hand and announced its support for legalisation of same-sex civil marriages and opposition of discrimination against homosexual parents.

They concluded that denying same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage is discriminatory and can adversely affect the psychological, physical, social and economic well-being of homosexual individuals.

The report stated that prohibiting civil marriage for same-sex couples is discriminatory and unfairly denies such couples, their children and other members of their families the legal, financial and social advantages of civil marriage.

We now understand the full agenda: It begins with tolerance, then acceptance, then endorsement, then finally that we recognise same-sex marriages. This is inconsistent with my understanding of the order of the universe.

Years ago, Suzanne Dodd proposed that: “The Western World is quickly adopting the concept that homosexuality is a viable alternative lifestyle. If your son decides to marry another man, you are supposed to smile and say, ‘That’s nice’.

Be aware that soon enough we will be expected to see two men get married, and unless we smile and say, ‘That’s nice’ we might lose all our foreign aid.” (Money Index #366; page 46) Are we now there?

Alice in Wonderland approach to sexual behaviour

The use of the word “gay” is an attempt to remove the negative connotation inherent in the concept of homosexuality. The word “homophobia” implies that anyone who does not endorse and ‘big-up’ homosexual acts is sick.

The objective is for us to be on the defensive.

1. Why is it a “phobia” to not love homosexual acts and other perversions and to resist the pressures to give private perversions the status of public acceptance?
2. If we accept homosexuality as “normal” behaviour, why not accept all the other perversions and dysfunctions also?
3. If we believe that persons with the other perversions and dysfunctions are in need of help, why are not the homosexuals?

The poet Haki Madhubuti reminds us

That which is normal for us Will never be normal for us As long as the abnormal defines what normality is

Are there historical precedent and consequences for these actions? I believe that it is time for Jamaican psychologists to be straight with the people of Jamaica as to what our position is.

Are we following the dictates of the American Psychological Association? Or do our experiences, history, culture and heritage tell us otherwise? Mine do. I do not accept that homosexuality or any of the other perversions or psychosexual dysfunctions be endorsed as being part of what we identify as normal and healthy behaviours.

I would like the homosexual lobby to provide me with some answers to the following questions.

1. As we try to understand order versus disorder, I realize that two central components can guide us. The first is THE MODEL OF PERFECTION. This tells me that in any society there are certain values which are passed on from parent to child. These help us to understand what the ultimate values are. For example, we will hear parents say “I would love for my son to be happily married and have a family” or “I would love for my son to get a good job.” Have you ever heard someone say or will you yourself say “I would love for my son or daughter to grow up to be a homosexual”?

2. The second component we can refer to as THE MODEL OF NATURAL ORDER, i.e. any behaviour which facilitates our collective survival is automatically good. It may be pleasurable for the individuals to engage in behaviours which do not fit this profile but we cannot give the behaviour endorsement or public acceptance because to do so could pose a threat to our collective survival. If everyone started to do so, the consequence would be quite disastrous. Does homosexuality fit within the model of natural order?

3. One a writer raised the issue of homosexuality being about love, “how can we be against love”? Well, why do we not also endorse those who are in love with donkeys, sheep, goats, and dogs? We refer to these behaviours as zoophilia or beastiality. What about those who are in love with dead bodies? Should we also publicly accept these private perversions?

4. The DSM III defines homosexuality into two categories, egosystonic and egodystonic – this says that people who are homosexual and happy with it are normal, while those who are, and are unhappy need help. Can we expand on this? What about those who are into zoophilia (animals), transvestism (cross dressing), pedophilia (children), incest, voyeurism, frotteurism (rubbing on strangers), necrophilia, urophilia (urine), mysophilia (filth), coprophilia (filth), klismaphilia (enema) and various fetishes; As long as they are happy with themselves, should we not consider them normal?

SEXUALITY AND THE BIOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE

This term I teach the Physiological Psychology at the University of the West Indies. As expected, the North American text has a section dealing with homosexuality and the biological causes. They explore a range of data and a number of findings but interestingly, the conclusion is as follows;

“There remain also the possibility that a person’s lifestyle may affect the structure of parts of his or her brain; thus, the difference as mentioned… could be the result of people’s sexual orientation rather than the cause.” Foundations of Physiological Psychology, page 278

I wonder why we are motivated to look for biological causes of same sex preference. Why don’t we also look for biological causes for fetishes, animal preference, dead body preference, stranger preferences while we are at it? The evidence points in the direction of a group of individuals wishing for public acceptance for their private perversions.

Leahcim Semaj is a consulting Psychologist:

LTSemaj@Gmail.com