by Standerinfamilycourt
That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun.
– Ecclesiastes 1:9
The American Psychological Association achieved the political coup of the century in 1973 when homosexuality was removed as a disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Homosexualist political activism had gained steam after the 1969 Stonewall bar raid and riot, and had established an extremely loud voice with the APA by 1971, coercing a questionable reliance on the since-discredited Kinsey Reports, and grossly downplaying the public health and self-destructive effects of sodomy in defining what constitutes a diagnosable emotional disorder.
In the wake of the 1969 Stonewall riots in New York City [49], gay and lesbian activists, believing psychiatric theories to be a major contributor to anti-homosexual social stigma, disrupted the 1970 and 1971 annual meetings of the APA….There was also an emerging generational changing of the guard within APA comprised of younger leaders urging the organization to greater social consciousness [2]. A very few psychoanalysts like Judd Marmor [5,52] were also taking issue with psychoanalytic orthodoxy regarding homosexuality. However, the most significant catalyst for diagnostic change was gay activism.
The opponents of the activist influence on the APA board’s 1973 recommendation forced a referendum vote of the membership:
“Psychiatrists from the psychoanalytic community, however, objected to the decision. They petitioned APA to hold a referendum asking the entire membership to vote either in support of or against the BOT decision. The decision to remove was upheld by a 58% majority of 10,000 voting members.
“It should be noted that psychiatrists did not vote, as is often reported in the popular press, on whether homosexuality should remain a diagnosis. What APA members voted on was to either “favor” or “oppose” the APA Board of Trustees decision and, by extension, the scientific process they had set up to make the determination.”
This travesty, as we all now know, laid the groundwork for much false “science” to develop that later conferred “born that way” (contrived) immutability to said emotional disorder, which in turn led to the societally-devastating ability to elevate a destructive behavior choice to a civil rights issue in many states and localities through SOGI (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) laws, and finally, a second layer of redefinition of what remained of God’s definition (per Matthew 19:4-6) of marriage, by judicial legislation that culminated in June, 2015 in the Obergefell SCOTUS decision. SOGI’s create a super-protected class of special rights that trump the fundamental constitutional protections of all other U.S. citizens. And, if only, the APA’s authoritarian, virtue-signaling quest had ceased with its efforts to normalize sodomy….
But, alas, the APA has continued to “evolve”, as more homosexual activists actually started to infiltrate its ranks to ensure that the faulty DSM removal decision is never reversed but instead, continuously enforced and reinforced. Per an article yesterday by Illinois Family Institute’s Laurie Higgins,
“Division 44 is also called “The Society for the Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity (SPSOGD).” Division 44 was founded “in 1985 by a group of pioneering LGB psychologists and their allies,” and one of its primary purposes is to “promote the development and delivery of affirmative psychological services to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender and gender nonconforming and queer people.” In the service of this purpose, last year Division 44
‘formed a task force on consensual non-monogamy (CNM), in recognition of relationship diversity, which intersects with sexual/gender identities in interesting ways. ‘
‘Consensual non-monogamy’ is a euphemism for adultery, sexual infidelity, or polyamory.”
It should be pointed out this idea was hardly new to the APA! Following shortly after the natural passing of the 16th century Reformers, (who also were notoriously discontented with biblical sexual ethics, specifically with God’s definition of marriage as regards lifelong indissolubility), were a group of 17th century clerics and Members of Parliament in England who where determined to gain a durable edict doing something about the “legalism” of Divinely-compelled monogamy, so in 1643 they convened the Westminster Assembly.
While it would be misleading to paint the assembly as not being concerned with an array of issues relating to the rule of King Charles I, a Catholic, there was also much humanistic animus against the indissolubility of holy matrimony, seen as a “Catholic” teaching, instead of more properly as Christ’s teaching. So what do you do when a government is in charge that won’t cooperate on liberalizing the sexual ethics of the day, but insists on biblical sexual ethics? Why, you form a committee of pseudo-experts (of only one persuasion), and you challenge that authority based on “social science” and “enlightment”, of course! After all, the house of the adulterous monarch founding the more “reasonable” Church of England had been put down, and royal descendants of his discarded covenant wife had been given the upper hand, promising to reverse all that Reformation “progress” after barely a century. In the name of nonconsensual serial monogamy, something had to be done!
Parliament finally passed an ordinance to hold the assembly on its own authority without Charles’s assent on 12 June 1643.[20] It named as many as 121 ministers[a] and thirty non-voting parliamentary observers: twenty from the Commons, and ten from the House of Lords.[22] The Assembly was almost entirely English; Parliament appointed Englishmen for the counties of Wales, but the French stranger churches (churches of Protestant refugees from Catholic France) sent two ministers in place of any from the Channel Islands.[14] Many of the divines were internationally recognized scholars of the Bible, ancient languages, patristics, and scholastic theology. Many were also famous preachers.[23] Most of these theologians had retained their positions in the Church during the tenure of William Laud. Some had been ejected from their churches or cited by ecclesiastical courts for their views. Some had fled to the Continent, and one to the American colonies.[24] Nonetheless, they all considered themselves members of the Church of England and had received episcopal ordination. Most were conformists, meaning they agreed to follow the Act of Uniformity 1558 and the Book of Common Prayer.[25]
The Assembly was strictly under the control of Parliament, and was only to debate topics which Parliament directed. Assembly members were not permitted to state their disagreements with majority opinions or share any information about the proceedings, except in writing to Parliament.
The result, four years later was a Calvinist triumph that became the staple for the harlot church, reinforcing its gross immorality in the 20th and 21st centuries, as if Jesus Himself handed it down. One of the most harmful doctrines in the Westminster Confession is found in Chapter 24, which abused numerous scriptures to fabricate “biblical grounds” for man’s divorce and ecclesiastical permission to defy Christ and marry again while our God-joined spouse is still living:
“V. Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract.l In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce,m and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.n
l Matt. 1:18-20.
m Matt. 5:31,32.
n Matt. 19:9; Rom. 7:2,3.
VI. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments, unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage; yet nothing but adultery, or such wilful desertion as can no way be remedied by the church or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage:o wherein, a publick and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed, and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills and discretion in their own case.p
o Matt. 19:8,9; 1 Cor. 7:15; Matt. 19:6.
p Deut. 24:1-4.”
Because of this landmark Reformation document, we now speak of “orthodoxy” instead of obedience to scripture, and bow down low to what the majority think, rather than what Christ commanded.
This, of course, set a powerful example for future corrupt church leadership in the 20th century, (ironically, in 1973, the same year as the APA official redefinition-by-committee of long-established moral truth), and ultimately, this power lesson, walked out by the church wolves, was not lost on the sexually lawless pagans. Sustaining such “reforms” over time, however, requires that its advocates remain temporally “large and in charge.”
Social conservatives are fond of asking these days, “if you change the definition of marriage not to require a man-woman union (of whatever sort or duration, in circumstances short of incest), why is there any logical reason to limit it to ‘two’ or to ‘persons’? “
SIFC believes this is a valid question, but a deliberately myopic one. The more revealing question is, “if you change the definition of marriage from lifelong indissolubility (also a creational non-negotiable, according to Jesus) between a man and a woman, how can you expect any other creational non-negotiable to apply?”
It is this question that finds us at the true foot of the “slippery slope”. One cannot only “partially” reject the teachings of Christ, consequentially or otherwise.
The Christian social conservatives complaining about the “slippery slope” and saying “we told you so!” aren’t wrong in their sentiments. But they are loath to acknowledge where the slippery slope accurately began, because they rather hope to preserve part of that slope…the part that imposes biblical morality on others, but not on them. It is a core mission of this blog to keep pointing out why that kind of a “strategy” will never work — namely, because God Himself will never allow it! Church leadership is going to be required by the Most High to officially renounce the harlotrous doctrine of WCOF Chapter 24, to excommunicate people in adulterous “marriages” with someone else’s discarded spouse who refuse to forsake those unlawful unions, and to cease creating new ones by undertaking vain “wedding” ceremonies in which God is no party at all.
Commentator Laurie Higgins correctly observes (while not necessarily considering #LukeSixteenEighteen violations “adultery”):
” ‘Consensual non-monogamy’ is a euphemism for adultery, sexual infidelity, or polyamory. Leftists must paint sexual immorality with a glossy finish if they’re going to deceive people and advance their socially destructive ideology.”
From God’s perspective, it doesn’t matter whether polygamy is concurrent or consecutive, nor does He consider polyamory any more immoral or abominable than either form of polygamy, even though a good 60% of His “church” is these days engaged in one of them. Furthermore, if the next stronghold does indeed prove to be civilly legalized or decriminalized pedophilia, and this in itself doesn’t trigger his final judgment on our land, the legalized sexual abuse of children will simply be an escalating form of judgment where several prior escalations have fallen on deaf ears, despite the loud (and also unheard) outcry of that harlot church doing the complaining.
A worthless person, a wicked man,
Is the one who walks with a perverse mouth,
Who winks with his eyes, who signals with his feet,
Who points with his fingers;
Who with perversity in his heart continually devises evil,
Who spreads strife.
Therefore his calamity will come suddenly;
Instantly he will be broken and there will be no healing.
– Proverbs 6:12-15
www.standerinfamilycourt.com
7 Times Around the Jericho Wall | Let’s Repeal “No-Fault” Divorce!