B
bingbang
Guest
Please provide evidence of the things you are stating in this thread…that kids with gender issues turn into homosexuals but this can be reversed if done early.
What if "gay" men die of AIDS far more than any other group of people?
- Status
B
Barbkw
Guest
No, I’m not joking.
And, are you trying to tell me, a female heterosexual, that homosexuals don’t fit a sterotype?
Male and female homosexuals are often distinctly identifiable by voice inflection, body language, their emotions and by their choice in clothing.
In example, the female homosexual who wears a male haircut and male clothing.
And, are you trying to tell me, a female heterosexual, that homosexuals don’t fit a sterotype?
Male and female homosexuals are often distinctly identifiable by voice inflection, body language, their emotions and by their choice in clothing.
In example, the female homosexual who wears a male haircut and male clothing.
B
Barbkw
Guest
“Please provide evidence of the things you are stating in this thread…that kids with gender issues turn into homosexuals but this can be reversed if done early.”
Contact the CMA and talk with them. They are saving children from entering the homosexual lifestyle - in all of its forms.
Why Bing, are you so steadfastly against accepting that homosexuality is a disorder that can be avoided, if treated early in life?
Contact the CMA and talk with them. They are saving children from entering the homosexual lifestyle - in all of its forms.
Why Bing, are you so steadfastly against accepting that homosexuality is a disorder that can be avoided, if treated early in life?
J
jmcrae
Guest
I am a female heterosexual who wears short hair and pants - not to attract women, but because it’s more efficient in the mornings.
B
bingbang
Guest
I am against accepting homosexuality as a disorder because the great majority of research and experts in the field don’t think that it is a disorder. So far the only people that seem to assert that it is a disorder are affiliated with a religion that believes homosexuality is a sin.
B
Barbkw
Guest
I should clarify.
The women who wear a high & tight male haircut, that Marines are required to wear.
The women who wear a high & tight male haircut, that Marines are required to wear.
The appeal to authority fallacy.
You cannot refute the argument, so you attempt to make the opposition less credible.
Fallacies do not buy points with me. Raw fact and logic do.
Calling opinion ‘fact’ does not make it so. It simply makes me question the other facts you present.
This ‘fact’ is an appeal to the popularity.
Just because more people believe anargument does not make it right.
So here is what I am seeing…
2 sides presenting an argument.
Side 1 presents evidence and begins to ridicule the other for not presenting evidence.
The other side presents evidence.
Side 1 ridicules the opposition rather then refutes the evidence.
Then side 1 presents several logical fallacies that do not address the evidence.
Who would you believe?
B
Barbkw
Guest
“So far the only people that seem to assert that it is a disorder are affiliated with a religion that believes homosexuality is a sin.”
Ah.
The god you believe in doesn’t set limits on behavior.
Ah.
The god you believe in doesn’t set limits on behavior.
B
bingbang
Guest
I am not a psychiatrist. The fact that the great majority of psychologists believe the homosexuality is not a mental disorder makes me side with them. To be honest, the retort that was posted didn’t really say much. It said that the APA article was missing a few things in explaining certain studies, but I haven’t read these studies. If I had to pick a side to trust more it would be the APA. The retort to the review was about 2 pages, the review itself was almost a hundred pages. If the review was so inaccurate then why couldn’t the guy throw out more than 2 pages bashing it?
EDIT: let me examine what the article actually says:
First assertion: that they used a study done by researches that are likely biased due to their affiliation with homosexual groups. This study was about homosexual parents being as good as heterosexual parents. To retort this line of thinking, he posts these two quotes from other reviews:
*"For example, Lerner and Nagai (2000b), in their comprehensive review of the data on same-sex parenting concluded: “The claim has been made that homosexual parents raise children as effectively as married biological parents. A detailed analysis of the methodologies of the 49 studies, which are put forward to support this claim, shows that they suffer from severe methodological flaws. In addition to their methodological flaws none of the studies deals adequately with the problem of affirming the null hypothesis, of adequate sample size, and of spurious non-correlation” (p. 1).
Baumrind (1995) agrees. “Research findings to date are not definitive, however, because most of the studies are based on small samples of convenience, retrospective data, or self-report instruments subject to social desirability biases. Also few, if any, of the studies have explored theoretically relevant hypotheses concerning adolescent outcomes or used intensive observational and interview methods most likely to reveal possible problems such as identity diffusion or parent child enmeshment” (p. 134)."*
All these say is that the results seem inconclusive. Also, it is interesting that these studies are from 1995 and 2000, when there have been 15 and 10 years respectively of research after these studies.
Then he goes on to quote a review “Williams, R. N. (2000). A critique of the research on same-sex parenting”…the only references I could find to this on google were to other articles on narth and one other psychiatrist who mentions it in her anti gay marriage review.
Then they go on to quote a former president of APA who is now associated with Narth.
Basically the whole article is full of falacies and is quoting extremely biased material themselves.
OK, so you jumped on the bandwagon.
Do you have actual evidence to support this or are you simply catering to the majority?
This would be incorrect assuming on your part.
If this is your reason for disbelief of the opposing view, you are mistaken.
B
Barbkw
Guest
“The retort to the review was about 2 pages, the review itself was almost a hundred pages. If the review was so inaccurate then why couldn’t the guy throw out more than 2 pages bashing it?”
Because the studies are “fruit from the poison tree”.
They found what they wanted to find.
The APA psychologists and psychiatrists conducting the studies are biased toward the acceptance of homosexuality. Others are open militant homosexuals.
Because the studies are “fruit from the poison tree”.
They found what they wanted to find.
The APA psychologists and psychiatrists conducting the studies are biased toward the acceptance of homosexuality. Others are open militant homosexuals.
Bandwagon mentality.
You would do well to pay attention to evidence and not who believes what.
2+2=4 no matter how many people say otherwise.
Very often a mountain of research need only a single fact to prove it all wrong.
How many volumes are written to defend Sola Scriptura; yet it is easily refuted with a couple of verses that are less then 20 words each.
B
bingbang
Guest
Evidence is what I posted already…in that review done by the APA. The group that is actually respected
B
bingbang
Guest
lol, yes I am sure that the 152,000 members of the APA are biased towards the acceptance of homosexuality and militant homosexuals. Maybe it is Narth that is just militant antihomosexuals.
P
PatrickSebast
Guest
Gender identity having a correlation with homosexuality is no where near the same thing as them being equatable. There are homosexuals who act completely in-line with there gender and heterosexuals who act outside of it. Fixing gender identity is far different than changing a persons sexuality too. You are using correlation fallacy in attempts to prove something you already decided to believe, this is not objective reasoning.
Oh and the idea that the secular world of psychology has been so infested and politically influenced by “group X” is probably quite insulting to anyone studying psychology. I know people like to say these things about studies done by other scientists and sometimes engineers as well, but in my experience with university research there is usually not a single person that cares what the accepted beliefs on something are. We usually get more excited about research if it is disproving something that is generally accepted. Regardless all we care about in the end is the data and what conclusions can be drawn from it, not the politics, I would assume the same is true of many psychologists. I suppose I could be wrong though, as an Engineer I am far closer to practical application.
Oh and the idea that the secular world of psychology has been so infested and politically influenced by “group X” is probably quite insulting to anyone studying psychology. I know people like to say these things about studies done by other scientists and sometimes engineers as well, but in my experience with university research there is usually not a single person that cares what the accepted beliefs on something are. We usually get more excited about research if it is disproving something that is generally accepted. Regardless all we care about in the end is the data and what conclusions can be drawn from it, not the politics, I would assume the same is true of many psychologists. I suppose I could be wrong though, as an Engineer I am far closer to practical application.
B
bingbang
Guest
I already edited this into another post, but I will post it here:
EDIT: let me examine what the article actually says:
First assertion: that they used a study done by researches that are likely biased due to their affiliation with homosexual groups. This study was about homosexual parents being as good as heterosexual parents. To retort this line of thinking, he posts these two quotes from other reviews:
*"For example, Lerner and Nagai (2000b), in their comprehensive review of the data on same-sex parenting concluded: “The claim has been made that homosexual parents raise children as effectively as married biological parents. A detailed analysis of the methodologies of the 49 studies, which are put forward to support this claim, shows that they suffer from severe methodological flaws. In addition to their methodological flaws none of the studies deals adequately with the problem of affirming the null hypothesis, of adequate sample size, and of spurious non-correlation” (p. 1).
Baumrind (1995) agrees. “Research findings to date are not definitive, however, because most of the studies are based on small samples of convenience, retrospective data, or self-report instruments subject to social desirability biases. Also few, if any, of the studies have explored theoretically relevant hypotheses concerning adolescent outcomes or used intensive observational and interview methods most likely to reveal possible problems such as identity diffusion or parent child enmeshment” (p. 134)."*
All these say is that the results seem inconclusive. Also, it is interesting that these studies are from 1995 and 2000, when there have been 15 and 10 years respectively of research after these studies.
Then he goes on to quote a review “Williams, R. N. (2000). A critique of the research on same-sex parenting”…the only references I could find to this on google were to other articles on narth and one other psychiatrist who mentions it in her anti gay marriage review.
Then they go on to quote a former president of APA who is now associated with Narth.
Basically the whole article is full of falacies and is quoting extremely biased material themselves.
**The review of the apa review you posted is complete garbage. It only challenges a few of the sources (out of the hundreds cited) and it uses its own biased sources to “disprove” them. **
EDIT: let me examine what the article actually says:
First assertion: that they used a study done by researches that are likely biased due to their affiliation with homosexual groups. This study was about homosexual parents being as good as heterosexual parents. To retort this line of thinking, he posts these two quotes from other reviews:
*"For example, Lerner and Nagai (2000b), in their comprehensive review of the data on same-sex parenting concluded: “The claim has been made that homosexual parents raise children as effectively as married biological parents. A detailed analysis of the methodologies of the 49 studies, which are put forward to support this claim, shows that they suffer from severe methodological flaws. In addition to their methodological flaws none of the studies deals adequately with the problem of affirming the null hypothesis, of adequate sample size, and of spurious non-correlation” (p. 1).
Baumrind (1995) agrees. “Research findings to date are not definitive, however, because most of the studies are based on small samples of convenience, retrospective data, or self-report instruments subject to social desirability biases. Also few, if any, of the studies have explored theoretically relevant hypotheses concerning adolescent outcomes or used intensive observational and interview methods most likely to reveal possible problems such as identity diffusion or parent child enmeshment” (p. 134)."*
All these say is that the results seem inconclusive. Also, it is interesting that these studies are from 1995 and 2000, when there have been 15 and 10 years respectively of research after these studies.
Then he goes on to quote a review “Williams, R. N. (2000). A critique of the research on same-sex parenting”…the only references I could find to this on google were to other articles on narth and one other psychiatrist who mentions it in her anti gay marriage review.
Then they go on to quote a former president of APA who is now associated with Narth.
Basically the whole article is full of falacies and is quoting extremely biased material themselves.
**The review of the apa review you posted is complete garbage. It only challenges a few of the sources (out of the hundreds cited) and it uses its own biased sources to “disprove” them. **
B
bingbang
Guest
The people that actually care about the end results of these studies are either homosexuals or people that are pro homosexual and religious people who believe that homosexuality is a sin. Now, when a large majority of evidence states that homosexuality is not a disorder and that it is not harmful, you logically have to side with the majority (especially when pretty much all of the evidence against homosexuality is done by one of the biased groups…religious people that believe it is a sin.)
B
Barbkw
Guest
Perhaps it would help if I found reading material identifying the who, what, when, where and how behind the APA’s changing of their definition of homosexuality from being a “disorder” to a “disturbance”.
B
bingbang
Guest
It is in the report that I posted.
P
PatrickSebast
Guest
But the people who actually DO the studies are students trying to get their masters/PH.D or Professors trying to improve their resume and get more access to grant money. None of these people want their study to be rejected by the peer review boards because they collected data badly, or even worse, be found to have purposely scewed the data. A PH.D student who does that can probably forget about ever getting their PH.D.
- Status