Pick a side on gay issue!

[Libero]

setter:

This PhD psychologist does not agree with your interpretations and conclusions:

narth.com/docs/whitehead2.html

Ah yes …the conclusions (i.e., the agenda). You must reach for a basis to “revisit”. i.e., redesign, reinterpret, natural law, rather than acknowledge that abberations from the normative do not change the normative, in order to discard God’s moral compass as defective, insufficient to not condone or to not make allowance for immoral behavior.

This is all from NARTH an institution that has disgraced the psychological community. If you wish any credibility to be present when you discuss science, then you would do well to avoid promoting NARTH.

It’s techniques are condemned by all of these:

The American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Counseling Association, National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers. Other health care associations have also condemned reparative therapy including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American School Health Association. Professional organizations of educators have also added their voice opposing this therapy, such as the American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, and the National Education Association.

In fact the leader of NARTH Charles Socarides ran into alot of trouble for lying, he claimed that his position was defended by the APsaA but in fact they did not support him, and he was subsequently removed from the APsaA and they condemned NARTH.

Results that NARTH have produced have been proven biased as no information is given in regards to failures, only “sucess stories” are documented, and their studies do not mention long term effects of treatment. The studies did not distinguish between homosexuals and bisexuals both before and after treatement. The study has not been accepted to be published in any peer review medical journal - NARTH, should not be considered a reliable organisation.

 

[fix]

Libero:

This is all from NARTH an institution that has disgraced the psychological community. If you wish any credibility to be present when you discuss science, then you would do well to avoid promoting NARTH.

It’s techniques are condemned by all of these:

In fact the leader of NARTH Charles Socarides ran into alot of trouble for lying, he claimed that his position was defended by the APsaA (the only group that still had him as a member) but in fact they did not support him, and he was subsequently removed from the APsaA and they condemned NARTH.

Results that NARTH have produced have been proven biased as no information is given in regards to failures, only “sucess stories” are documented, and their studies do not mention long term effects of treatment. The studies did not distinguish between homosexuals and bisexuals both before and after treatement. The study has not been accepted to be published in any peer review medical journal - NARTH, should not be considered a reliable organisation.

Studies can stand or fall on their own merits. I hardly look to folks like the APA as beacons of truth and light.

 

[Digger71]

fix:

I would agree studying any trait does not make it pathologic, but your position seems to be that it is heritable therefore it is not pathologic?

Please, few are so naive as to think any science is free from agenda or influence. Particularly, behavioral sciences are hardly apolitical.

My position is that homosexuality is not pathalogical, but that opinion comes from the normality of the lives my gay friends lead, and from reading studies from psychologists who treated gays back in the bad old days, which uniformally failed to find a syndrome.

I compare that to well identified syndromes such as Aspergers syndrome that contain a number of related symptoms, and mental illnesses such as paranoid schizophrenia etc which show a pattern of related activities.

As for your final comment…hmmm NARTH is very cack-handed in its use of information, a bit more research, going to source material, checking facts against PubMed, etc, quickly revealed highly selective use and interpretation of data. It’s resemblance to creationist web sites was immediately evident.

To gain credibility with me it would have to start by representing data accurately.

 

[Digger71]

Libero:

Results that NARTH have produced have been proven biased as no information is given in regards to failures, only “sucess stories” are documented, and their studies do not mention long term effects of treatment. The studies did not distinguish between homosexuals and bisexuals both before and after treatement. The study has not been accepted to be published in any peer review medical journal - NARTH, should not be considered a reliable organisation.

It’s all a fiendship plot by Bush hating, leftie, tree-hugging, sandal wearing HIPPIES

 

[rlg94086]

Come on, you can do better than that. A genetic or psychological anomaly should not be compared to family sizes.

No one is saying people with SSA should have a lower status as a human being. We are just saying that marriage should not be redefined to include unions between two people of the same sex.

Digger71:

There is a species wide norm of 2%. 2% is normal for the species, and the species normally has 2%.

Families with more than 4 children are not the norm either. Are you suggesting these …‘families’ should be treated as if they deserve a lower status?

 

[rlg94086]

Probably.

Digger71:

It’s all a fiendship plot by Bush hating, leftie, tree-hugging, sandal wearing HIPPIES

 

[Digger71]

rlg94086:

Come on, you can do better than that.

I dont need to. I refer to species wide norms, and its valid. you refer to simple majorytism. in which case lets see you start dealing with all minorities with the same attitude.

rlg94086:

We are just saying that marriage should not be redefined to include unions between two people of the same sex.

Social exclusion is damaging, leads to extreme behaviour, damages health, and creates unstable sub-cultures. Same sex marriage will help them, and it will help you. This debate seems to me to be about voting for the greater of two evils.

 

[fix]

Digger71:

My position is that homosexuality is not pathalogical, but that opinion comes from the normality of the lives my gay friends lead, and from reading studies from psychologists who treated gays back in the bad old days, which uniformally failed to find a syndrome.

I compare that to well identified syndromes such as Aspergers syndrome that contain a number of related symptoms, and mental illnesses such as paranoid schizophrenia etc which show a pattern of related activities.

As for your final comment…hmmm NARTH is very cack-handed in its use of information, a bit more research, going to source material, checking facts against PubMed, etc, quickly revealed highly selective use and interpretation of data. It’s resemblance to creationist web sites was immediately evident.

To gain credibility with me it would have to start by representing data accurately.

The point is all the data in the world, pushed in any direction you want, will never prove that same sex attraction is healthy or acting on it is good. That is because the definitions of health, in terms of psychological health, and good depend on things that are not based in science.

The efforts of so many to “scientize” same sex attraction will never bear the fruits you want. The same folks who claim it is “scientifically” proven same sex attraction is “natural” give us things like masturabation is healthy, gay marriage is good, contraception is good, abortion is healthy, etc. It is overly simple to make science the infallible guide to living a morally correct life.

 

[rlg94086]

I see. So, you are saying that homosexuality is purely a choice, as is family size, and therefore the two can be compared. Thanks for the clarification.

Digger71:

I dont need to. I refer to species wide norms, and its valid. you refer to simple majorytism. in which case lets see you start dealing with all minorities with the same attitude.

Social exclusion is damaging, leads to extreme behaviour, damages health, and creates unstable sub-cultures. Same sex marriage will help them, and it will help you. This debate seems to me to be about voting for the greater of two evils.

 

[Digger71]

rlg94086:

I see. So, you are saying that homosexuality is purely a choice, as is family size, and therefore the two can be compared. Thanks for the clarification.

No, I am saying if you go for majorytism as the definition of normal, YOU should be prepared to go with the implications of that logic.

The way you suddenly didnt have issues with families with abnormal number of children demonstrates that your issue isnt with whether something is ‘normal’, just whether you like it or not.

It’s a very simple point. Your demonstration was right on cue.

 

[rlg94086]

I wasn’t speaking about majority. I’m speaking about homosexuality as being a psychological or genetic abnormality, which you claim is 2% of the species. Human birth rates or family sizes can not be studied in the same way as animal birth rates, because the element of choice is part of the mix. Therefore, you can not compare the two, unless you believe that homosexuality is a purely a choice.

The reason for not redefining marriage has nothing to do with the number or percentage of self-identified homosexual human beings. It has to do with a) propogation of the species from an evolutionist standpoint or b) the sanctity of marriage from a religious standpoint. I see very little value to society for homosexual marriage.

Digger71:

No, I am saying if you go for majorytism as the definition of normal, YOU should be prepared to go with the implications of that logic.

The way you suddenly didnt have issues with families with abnormal number of children demonstrates that your issue isnt with whether something is ‘normal’, just whether you like it or not.

It’s a very simple point. Your demonstration was right on cue.

 

[Digger71]

rlg94086:

The reason for not redefining marriage has nothing to do with the number or percentage of self-identified homosexual human beings. It has to do with a) propogation of the species from an evolutionist standpoint or b) the sanctity of marriage from a religious standpoint. I see very little value to society for homosexual marriage.

1. The human race is multiplying at an alarming rate with 6.4 billion people on the planet. You appeal to ‘species survival’ explanation is hereby rejected and clearly and obviously nonsense.

The words “breathtakingly inane” come to mind.

 

[setter]

Libero:

This is all from NARTH an institution that has disgraced the psychological community. If you wish any credibility to be present when you discuss science, then you would do well to avoid promoting NARTH.

It’s techniques are condemned by all of these:

In fact the leader of NARTH Charles Socarides ran into alot of trouble for lying, he claimed that his position was defended by the APsaA but in fact they did not support him, and he was subsequently removed from the APsaA and they condemned NARTH.

Results that NARTH have produced have been proven biased as no information is given in regards to failures, only “sucess stories” are documented, and their studies do not mention long term effects of treatment. The studies did not distinguish between homosexuals and bisexuals both before and after treatement. The study has not been accepted to be published in any peer review medical journal - NARTH, should not be considered a reliable organisation.

I do not know how to accurately say this without sounding rude, so forgive me but I will accurately respond to your post: The usual gay activists agenda dribble.

BTW – Do you have any objective sources to support your claim other than the usual suspects. After all, this is a divisive issue that the gay agenda folks have alot to gain/win if they succeed/fail in their efforts to scurry the efficacy of reparative therapy.

Saturday, December 31, 2005
(12-31) 16:58 PST New York (AP) –
Charles Socarides, the psychiatrist famous for insisting that homosexuality was a treatable illness and who claimed to have “cured” hundreds, has died. He was 83.

Socarides, died Dec. 25 of heart failure at a hospital near his Manhattan home, his family announced. A funeral Mass was held Friday.

He waged an unsuccessful battle to reverse the American Psychiatric Association’s 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders, and brushed off frequent condemnations by colleagues who considered his views hurtful.

“Gays ascribe their condition to God, but he should not have to take that rap, any more than he should be blamed for the existence of other manmade maladies — like war,” he wrote in the Catholic weekly magazine America in 1995.

Socarides persisted in his views despite having a gay son, Richard, who became an adviser to President Clinton on gay and lesbian affairs.

In the 1990s, he was among the founders of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, a nonprofit group based in Encino, Calif., “dedicated to affirming a complementary, male-female model of gender and sexuality.”
A native of Brockton, Mass., Socarides decided he wanted to become a psychoanalyst at age 13 after reading a book on the life of Sigmund Freud.

He graduated from Harvard College, earned his medical degree at New York Medical College, and got a certificate in psychoanalytic medicine at Columbia University. He taught at The Albert Einstein College of Medicine.

sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/12/31/national/a151831S57.DTL&type=printable

 

[trustmc]

1. The human race is multiplying at an alarming rate with 6.4 billion people on the planet. You appeal to ‘species survival’ explanation is hereby rejected and clearly and obviously nonsense.

The words “breathtakingly inane” come to mind.

Overpopulation Myths :bigyikes:

 

[Libero]

setter:

I do not know how to accurately say this without sounding rude, so forgive me but I will accurately respond to your post: The usual gay activists agenda dribble.

BTW – Do you have any objective sources to support your claim other than the usual suspects. After all, this is a divisive issue that the gay agenda folks have alot to gain/win if they succeed/fail in their efforts to scurry the efficacy of reparative therapy.

Oh just google it, you may have to go a few pages in. I suppose it is hard to actually know what they are like without a strong amount of trust either way…

Besides that, you were remarkably polite! It is nice to see we can remain civilised

 

[setter]

Again I suggest you go beyond NARTH, it’s agenda makes it untrustworthy. Going to NARTH for accurate descriptions of homosexuality is like going to darwinismisrefuted to get accurate descriptions of evolutionary theory…nieve.

Just because this entirely trustworthy organization is in the political minority in the mental health profession is no basis to “go beyond” their sound and valid scientific study and critique. Supplement, augment with other reliable sources, yes; discard because of political incorrectness, no.

 

[setter]

Oh just google it, you may have to go a few pages in. I suppose it is hard to actually know what they are like without a strong amount of trust either way…

Uhmmm, …you are the one making the claims without source …you google and provide the citation.

Besides that, you were remarkably polite! It is nice to see we can remain civilised

Yes, I am capable of being polite and respectful.

 

[rlg94086]

I didn’t mention anything about “species survival”, so the claim of inanity may be a case of projection.

Propagation of a species is something that occurs, regardless of numbers. In some areas birth rates are low and in others they are high, but in all cases the species is propagating. Marriage helps in providing a good environment for children to be raised.

You might want to rent Lion King, as that appears to be more your speed. You can learn all about the “circle of life”.

1. The human race is multiplying at an alarming rate with 6.4 billion people on the planet. You appeal to ‘species survival’ explanation is hereby rejected and clearly and obviously nonsense.

The words “breathtakingly inane” come to mind.

 

[setter]

Originally Posted by Digger71
Indeed, the direct study of homosexuality has led to it’s declassification as an illness. Empirical evidence over the years revealed no pathology and changes were made to reflect this.

(aside: Cue conspiracy theory reasons for the change)

This is a total misrepresentation that the gay activists would have us all believe. It was the direct result of the gay activists lobbying efforts to exert political pressure, not sound clinical research, that resulted in the declassification of homosexuality as a psychological disorder from the APA DSM criteria manual for mental disorders. No conspiracy theory here.

Let’s connect the dots here: Remove homosexuality as a mental health diagnosis from the APA DSM which is the mental health field “bible” for diagnosis of mental disorders; then debunk the efficacy of reparative therapy; make diagnosis of “homophobia”; normalize and mainstream gay lifestyle/partnership; prove the “gay gene” to rule out environmental and personal choice variables, hence reparative therapy is really a cruel misnomer. What agenda you ask?

 

[rlg94086]

Overpopulation Myths :bigyikes:

If the entire population of the world were put into the land area of Texas, each person would have an area equal to the floor space of a typical U.S. home and the population density of Texas would be about the same as Paris, France.

No offense to y’all, but I ain’t movin’ to Texas!