Monday, August 8, 2011

Maggie vs. the American Psychological Association!

Early this month the American Psychological Association released a policy statement opposing any attempts by state and federal legislators to impose marriage discrimination onto Gay and Lesbian citizens.  Among their findings were:
Marriage bestows substantial psychosocial and health benefits to individuals, due to the moral, economic, and social support to married couples. The denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples, therefore, adversely affects the health and well-being of the individuals involved, as well as their families and friends.
However, not to be out-done by a mere and vast group of Scientists, Maggie Gallagher was approached for a comment by CNN -- failing to note that she is the Chairperson of the SPLC-certified anti-Gay organization under the pretense of focusing on so-called marriage.  She said:
There is no evidence that gay teens are better off in Massachusetts, a state that has gay marriage, than they are in Wisconsin, a state which has passed a marriage amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman ...  The release of this statement is unfortunately going to undermine confidence in APA statements generally, I would predict.
Maggie's argument is utterly weak, as well as specious, and it presumes that Gay teens and their psychological outcome was the focus of the APA's study -- it wasn't!  Furthermore, Maggie relies on another weak motive, which is to criticize a national scientific body for supporting Gay civil rights in her specious analysis that most Americans would be opposed to such a policy statement.  However, this is not the case!  Confidence was not undermined when the American Anthropological Association (the largest such academic organization in the world) released a policy statement endorsing marriage equality based upon over 100 years of direct field work and over 4000 years of recorded history!  Psychologists have been studying the harmful effects of anti-Gay politics for some time, such as in the word by New York University Press, Voted Out: The Psychological Consequences of Anti-Gay Politics.  But, Ms. Gallagher, in her statement, in spite of what the authors of Voted Out and the APA's endorsement evince, has turned a blind eye to the physical, emotional, and ill-causing harm that her actions directly result in based upon peer-reviewed studies!  Some studies have drawn direct parallels between Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder!  To simply ignore this evidence certainly shows that Ms. Gallagher would seem to suffer from one form or another of sociopathology!  Morreover, the audacity of Gallagher is that she has written a book about marriage in which she insists that it is good for society -- just not Gay people!  Apparently the irony has not struck her, yet.

This data, of course, should come as no surprise to Ms. Gallagher considering the demonstrable fact that the APA supported full Marriage Equality over seven years ago -- their position is only more forthright, now.  Yet, she still insists that the APA's position is utterly superfluous.  Her behavior should be touted as utterly shameful, considering that the APA is the professional body charged with the task of policing the field of Psychology in the United States, unless she would want electroshock therapy once again endorsed by ignorant individual hospitals and practitioners as a method for impeding one's innate homosexuality.  A similar organization in the United Kingdom -- The British Association for Counseling and Psychotherapy -- unanimously concluded in May of this year that Lesley Pilkington, a Christian counselor (whose fraudulent behavior was exposed by Patrick Strudwick) promised to "cure" Gay men of their innate homosexuality was guilty of malpractice.  Among the charges that this esteemed body levied at her was that she was "reckless", "disrespectful", "dogmatic", "unprofessional" and that she showed "no empathy" for her client, even charging that she allowed her own "personal preconceived views about gay lifestyle and sexual orientation to affect her professional relationship in a way that was prejudicial."  In this landmark ruling, it is now seemingly a crime amid this profession to "treat" one for their homosexuality.  According to the BACP, Pilkington has had her professional and legal accreditation with the body suspended until she has filed satisfactory paperwork within the next six to twelve months alerting them that she has successfully completed extensive training and professional developmental courses; if not, than she will be permanently omitted from the bodies professional roster.  Only time will tell; according to Pilkington, she only got into the field of Psychotherapy because her own son, now 29, is Gay.  Or, as she describes him, he "is heterosexual.  he just has a homosexual problem."  Only two months later, in fact, the British Medical Association released a policy statement staunchly opposing anyone in the medical field for the conversion therapy of Gay or Bisexual persons.  But, I digress...

Why are professional bodies such as these important?  Because they endorse policy statements based upon sound peer-reviewed studies instead of personal religious ideology.  And, this is a threat to Ms. Gallagher.  Would Maggie publicly censure these esteemed British professional bodies for their actions and policy statements as superfluous and that they would "undermine confidence" in then general public's ability to take seriously their positions?  I, for one, can find no documents that Maggie has spoken out against these esteemed organizations.  In fact, her e-mail (quoted above) seems to be utterly reactionary and without substance, basing her statement entirely upon the latter Christofascist extremists who insisted that the Southern Poverty Law Center would be a meaningless group for labeling eighteen new organizations, last year, as official anti-Gay hate-groups!  Whenever they were in the media attempting to defend their anti-Gay rhetoric (the most polite of it), they kept insisting that mainstream American would lose confidence in the SPLC for this decree.  Maggie, it would seem, is drawing off of their reaction to defend her current positions.  Indeed, it is more than mere anti-Gay Christofascists who are attempting to devalue the SPLC as utterly meaningless, but various sects of racists have attempted to do so, as well, once they were highlighted for their vitriolic behavior in an attempt to label the SPLC as a liberal, or leftist conservative-hate group!

No comments:

Post a Comment