Gay Marriage

You obviously either know these things off the top of your head or you take the time to research things & share the knowledge in a concise manner when you have it. On top of that you & I see this kind of subject in the same light I believe. These Bozos that keep haranguing without knowing anything other than what their preacher has told them to say about anything that would bang against their homophobic short sighted views of reality are so tiresome & annoying to the point of being infuriating.

 

Wow, PhotoGra1 is amazingly adept at copying and pasting voluminous diatribes trashing NARTH. I'm impressed!

I could respond in kind, but instead, I'll just note that the APA leadership is hardly free of ideological bias:

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/1995papers/johnson.html

Fortunately, their efforts to stifle dissent within their ranks have waned in recent years:

http://www.narth.com/docs/throckarticle.html

http://www.narth.com/docs/journalarticle.html

http://www.narth.com/docs/published.html

 

I responded with text cut and pasted from my own research for a 20 page paper on this topic. I choose to cut and paste, rather than post links, because, as you well know, people don't often read the links. Unfortunately, I don't think they will read the text either. . .

My source does not mention JUST the APA, but every major professional organization that maintains interest in this subject.

Dr. Nicolosi, and LeaderU, can hardly be considered objective, scientific sources.

 

Here is a scholarly review of one book by Dr. Nicolosi:

http://math.ucsd.edu/~weinrich/NCLSWNRC.HTML

Also, NARTH does not perform any longitudinal studies, making any results invalid.




http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cach...D=15255+ex-gay+ministries&hl=en&client=safari

 

Your response failed to address any of the specific facts raised in the articles I cited. Instead, you just went for the nuke button.

Then why clutter up the thread? At least links take up less space!

Nobody's approach to this topic is unaffected by a worldview. Philosophical materialism and moral relativism are not "neutral." The AMA leadership apparently shares the bias of the APA on this issue:

http://www.narth.com/docs/correctionletter3.html

The pronouncements of these elites don't represent anything close to a consensus among professionals in their respective fields.

Again, hardly "objective," considering the author's smug dismissal of both the obvious sexual complementarity between men and women and the gay community's devastating health statistics.

They've only just begun to have studies published in professional journals. The APA has long tried to squelch open discussion of this subject, even cancelling a scheduled debate at one of their recent conferences:

http://www.narth.com/docs/debate.html

 

Perhaps you would like to point them out.

Yes, Huck, your way is superior, I agree. . .

Again, I agree.

I think a consensus among professionals is too ambitious. I do think the majority of professionals agree with them, or these very large organizations would cease to exist.

Sexuality does not affect health statistics, behaivor does. You seem to confuse the two. Sexual orientation and sexual behaivor are two separate entities.

I could hardly blame any professional organization for not participating with NARTH. NARTH's practice of "science" varies widely from standards accepted within the scientific community, whether physical or social science.

Hasn't NARTH has been around since 1973? Why don't they have longitudinal studies? The real question is, why don't they publish them!

 

ok this is kinda off topic but i just have to say, i happen to like the longer posts rather then the links. i mean, give me somthing to read!!! dont give me a link that i have to click on fifty other links just to read somthing that's at least 20% true.

ok i will admit i haven't even clicked on even one of the narth links. i dont want to. this narth "BS" sounds stupid to me.

so thats my 2 cents for now.

Now give me somthing to read!

PS: im sorry if this sounds a little bit, like, childish, but i've just been in a weird mood lately.

 

Even the Westboro Baptist Church, who run the website God Hates Fags .Com agree that the reliability of ex-gay ministries, such as NARTH and Exodus, are suspect.

From the site:

The only hope that fags have is to listen to the preaching of Westboro Baptist Church, which is none other than the message of Jesus Christ: "Repent or perish" (Luke 13:3). If a fag is to have any hope of heaven, he will repent, he will be converted to Christ, and his sins will be blotted out (Acts 3:19). The word "repent" in Acts 3:19 is translated from the Greek word "metanoeo," which means "to think differently" and "feel compunction (remorse)." That means that if a fag repents, he changes the way he thinks, he stops having sex with other men (or, in the case of female fags, with other women), he will cast off the old sinful man and become a new man (2 Corinthians 5:17), he will stop identifying himself with a group of people whose only distinguishing factor is that they lust after people of the same sex, he will live soberly, righteously and godly (Titus 2:12), and he will give fruits meet for repentance (Matthew 3:8, Acts 26:20). In other words, if a fag repents, he is no longer a fag. He doesn't become a "gay Christian," because such a concept is an oxymoron. He doesn't go around the nation like John Paulk (the former chairman of Exodus International - a supposed "ex-gay" organization) telling everyone about his "former" fag lusts, and begging them for money to fund his "ministry." This same John Paulk was recently found in a gay bar. See WBC's flier about this issue.

 

I can't even find a longitudinal study on their own website.