B
buffalo
Guest
I think the statement “it came about through natural causes” is incorrect. It came through disordered desires and free will.
Right on - it fails its intended function.
The homosexual state of mind: Marriage isn't about a man & woman but love & love
- Status
Right on - it fails its intended function.
B
buffalo
Guest
think about it - just from sheer numbers 98% or research will be conducted by heterosexuals. If not, then we should suspect bias from the homosexuals.I disregard your sources for perfectly valid reasons, I believe.
Do I disregard homosexual funded research? Eh, possibly, depending on the circumstances. However, while I do believe many cases of paedophilia happen between men and young boys, it’s important to note that lots of paedophiles aren’t considered to have a sexuality, and I do believe the 85% figure to be inaccurate. I also would like to state that I don’t support same-sex paedophile acts, but I don’t see the problem with same-sex acts between consenting adults.
Besides, if paedophilia is such a good argument against homosexuality, then why isn’t it a good argument against the Catholic church:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2054674/Roman-Catholic-churchs-paedophile-investigator-jailed-possessing-thousnds-child-porn-images.html
economist.com/node/15720386
You missed the point about the 85%. It wasn’t pedophilia at all. The vast majority were homosexual acts on older boys and young men. Possibly still more unreported exists between consenting males.
How many priest incidents do you beleive were pdophilia?
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
Here is a list of all Roman Catholic sex abuse cases, per country:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases_by_country
I did some research on your source, and noticed that it was from members of the Family Research Council. Here is why they cannot be trusted:
internationalorder.org/scandal_response.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Institute
psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_sheet.html
psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_journals.html
No statistics from the Family Research Institute are considered valid by scientists. They have proven themselves to be biased numerous times, and their studies have almost always been found to have major flaws. Paul Cameron is a very notable member. For example, in 1996 the Canadian Psychological Association approved a position statement disassociating the organisation from Cameron’s work on sexuality, stating that he had “consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism”:
cpa.ca/aboutcpa/policystatements/
It’s also interesting to note that The Family Research Institute is designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center:
splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-map
iowaindependent.com/47947/groups-that-helped-oust-iowa-judges-earn-hate-group-designation
B
buffalo
Guest
FRC - I will check through your links and comment.
But you are using the CPA? That is about as bad as using the corrupt APA. (you did note the change though on the APA site as far as homosexuality goes?) The psychiatry profession has some real problems and one should be very careful assessing their statements on just about everything psychiatric.
I disregard wiki sources. They are unreliable. Here is one you should look at: John Jay Study -
The Nature and Scope of the Problem
of Sexual Abuse of Minors
by Catholic Priests and Deacons
in the United States
A Research Study Conducted by the
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
Because they hate evil? Count me among them if so.
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
Which is fine, so you should check the sources that the wiki site uses. If a wiki doesn’t give any source, then don’t believe it. If it does, click on the links to the sources and you’ll get the information from reliable experts. It’s not rocket science, mate.
So, you’re willing to trust an organisation that experts would agree are biased, lying and deceitful simply because of your religious beliefs?
B
buffalo
Guest
No - the truth needs to be discerned and ALL research should be challenged. That cuts both ways though. Groups that want to protect tradition, family and property do research, groups that want homosexual license do research. We need to be steadfast in seeing if that research is true.
Wiki has a way of ignoring the research that it doesn’t like so many times it is not even listed.
A quick look at the dates shows that they had problems with Cameron when the APA was hellbent on changing homosexuality from a disorder to a genetic condition. Well, now we know better, there is no gene, so maybe they will ask him back in.
In any case the APA and CPA had their own agenda. So I question if they are objective experts at all. (Kinsey has been discredited)Having said all that, it may be possible that some of SSA comes from epignetics. Once we were taught behaviors could not be passed to children. If so this would make it a degenerative disorder.
What 882 Ex-Gays Reported
The second study, titled “Retrospective Self-Reports of Changes in Homosexual Orientation: A Consumer Survey on Conversion Therapy Clients,” was written by the same three authors as the first NARTH study. Joseph Nicolosi was the Principal Research Investigator, and analysis of the data was performed by a group of statisticians at Brigham Young University.
The study surveyed 882 dissatisfied homosexual people, of whom 726 had received therapy from a professional therapist or pastoral counselor.
Over 67% of the participants indicated they were exclusively or almost exclusively homosexual at one time in their lives, while only 12.8% of them perceived themselves in this manner at the time of the survey.
Significantly, 45.4% of the exclusively homosexual participants reported having made major changes in their orientation.
On the other hand, 35.1% of the participants were unsuccessful in making significant changes.
Those participants who were successful reported statistically significant reductions in the frequency of their homosexual thoughts and fantasies. They also reported significant improvements in other important areas of their lives—particularly, their psychological, interpersonal, and spiritual well-being.
(I welcome your expected trashing of NARTH too
)
L
Lochias
Guest
The issue at hand is about marriage, not forced consent or lack thereof. Regardless of what the Church teaches, we don’t force homosexuals to act on our beliefs or tell them that they must accept what we teach as true. How many nuns are staring at you in your bedroom behind closed doors, wagging their fingers?
“This is a fact because it’s a fact. I won’t do the work though, you should go Google it.”
Yadda yadda. “This is a fact because it’s established because it’s a fact because”…never got your side anywhere. :yawn:
I’m sure there are many victims, and perpetrators, of family abuse that would love to speak with you about this, in some form or fashion. Your statement made my skin crawl.
I’ve known several homosexuals living free and easy, doing what they want, and all of them were on antidepressants, complained constantly about the unfaithfulness and fickleness of their boyfriends, and had to go get tested for disease fairly regularly after they learned about such infidelities on behalf of their “significant others.”
Really, it’s kind of like your side saying that the act of hitting oneself in the foot with a sledgehammer would be a lot better if it were normalized and state-sanctioned.
Apparently, because it’s not working otherwise for any homosexual I personally know ( 4 of 'em).
…so…if it clicks to a link, it’s automatically reliable?
Again, AGAIN I say: Atheists have more blind, illogical faith than any religious I ever knew.
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
These groups DON’T want to protect tradition, family and property, though. First of all, tradition is irrelevant and is not nessecarily a good thing. There are tons of traditions through out history that have included barbaric cruelty and killing. This idea that we should remain “traditional” is ludicrous, and is simply anti-progress. I also fail to see how homosexuals are going to destroy families or marriage. If two men get married, how is your marriage affected?
I do feel as though you’re only saying that because you don’t want to accept my sources.
Paul Cameron has been discredited by numerous groups, and I doubt they were all suffering from “liberal bias”. I’d also like some notable evidence that APA is corrupt, and from trustworthy experts.A quick look at the dates shows that they had problems with Cameron when the APA was hellbent on changing homosexuality from a disorder to a genetic condition. Well, now we know better, there is no gene, so maybe they will ask him back in.
I didn’t trash the FRI, mate. Experts did.(I welcome your expected trashing of NARTH too
And, about ex-gays, I do believe it’s possible to brainwash someone to think differently. However, the success rates are very low, and many “ex-gays” have admitted that they are still gay and longed to be heterosexual either through abuse they receieved or their religious beliefs. Take Michael Bussee for example:
beyondexgay.com/article/busseeapology
I’d also like to note that the men were not wired up to machines and had their heart rate measured while looking at homoerotic images or anything like that. They were simply asked. The man I mentioned above, Michael Bussee, would have happily stated that he was straight years ago, but now he admits he was deluding himself.
Some ex-gay groups also appear to be unable to give a success rate:
exgaywatch.com/wp/2009/08/exodus-unable-to-give-a-numerical-success-rate/
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
Depends who wrote the information. It’s not blind faith if it’s from someone who devotes their life to these kind of studies. I’ve also noticed that people like you are willing to accept sources from Christian Right groups, but other sources are suddely unreliable.…so…if it clicks to a link, it’s automatically reliable?
B
buffalo
Guest
Who would qualify in your mind as qualified experts?
Here is the first time I brought God or religion into this discussion. How many of those who wanted to be a normal heterosexual refused to pray? I submit it won’t happen without His help.
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
That’s absoutely disgusting. Stuff like that should certaintly not be allowed to happen. I approve of EQUAL rights. I don’t believe homosexuals should get any more than anyone else.
However, in that case the discrimination was not done by homosexuals but hotel staff. I do believe that was wrong, and I certaintly am horrified by it. However, it’s not as though I couldn’t find tons of examples of homosexuals being discriminated against. It’s also good to note that the church has been discriminating against homosexuals for over a century, punishing them, often very harshly, for their “crime”.
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
Well, in all fairness I suppose Paul Cameron is an expert, which is why he’s so good at twisting and lying about statistics and observations.
I don’t really want to discuss any gods. However, can you demonstrate that YOUR god exists?
A
ASimon
Guest
I told you to Google it. Independent verification is at your fingertips. If you’re not going to trust that, then you’re certainly not going to make me do your homework for you, to present you with information you’re not going to trust anyway.
B
buffalo
Guest
If you wanna play we can do it on another thread. But not today. I am barely keeping up. I am sure we will cross swords on that one in the future.
But I need a list of experts so we can see if we can agree.
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
You give me a list and we’ll see if we agree. How about that?If you wanna play we can do it on another thread. But not today. I am barely keeping up. I am sure we will cross swords on that one in the future.
But I need a list of experts so we can see if we can agree.
The fact is anyone can be an expert on something, as long as they have the right qualifications. Someone who is a ‘Dr’ is certaintly going to be an expert in something. However, the idea that everyone who has certain qualifications is trustworthy is untrue, and some people have qualifications in different things.
Expert - A person who has a comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of or skill in a particular area.
B
buffalo
Guest
I will start with:
**SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE - NARTH
**
John Babatzanis, M.D.
Joseph Berger, M.D.
Toby B. Bieber, Ph.D.
Sander J. Breiner, M.D.
Lawrence F. Burtoft, Ph.D.
A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D.
Cora Dobbs-de Fierro, Ph.D.
Richard P. Fitzgibbons, M.D.
Hillel Goldberg, Ph.D.
Ian Graham, M.D.
Russell Hilliard, Ph.D.
Elan Karten, Ph.D.
Nathaniel S. Lehrman, M.D.
Felix Loeb, M.D.
Loretta Loeb, M.D.
Uriel Meshoulam, Ph.D.
James Phelan, Ph.D.
Paul Popper, Ph.D.
Sharon Quick, MD, FCP, FAAP
James Randall, M.D.
Philip Scott Richards, Ph.D.
Christopher Rosik, Ph.D.
Marcosa Santiago, M.D.
Jeffrey B. Satinover, M.D.
Gerald Schoenewolf, Ph.D.
Natalie Shainess, M.D.
E. Mark Stern, Ed.D., ABPP
Philip Sutton, Ph.D.
Johanna K. Tabin, Ph.D.
C. Downing Tait, M.D.
G. van den Aardweg, Ph.D.
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
Oh, sure, I’d agree. However, just because they have the nessecary degrees doesn’t mean you aren’t going to be bias or untrustworthy.
And the test you showed me regarding ex-gays seemed dodgy, as they’d only asked the men and not actually done anything else.
D
Debora123
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
Indeed.
And I’ve seen in certain populations what happens when people are unhappy to defecate.
- Status