Human rights law passed- Gays, lesbians get protection

Right from the U.N to laws of of you home

"Just answer this one question: Should two homosexual brothers be allowed to "marry"? Yes or no? "

Well that's easy. Immediate family members can't marry eachother. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with that.

And your reasoning would be? Consenting adults. No issue of birth defects. Too icky? Culturally inncorrect?

But what's really ironic is that your own cite supported MY point! I said that there is "most certainly a biological influence." (As I have repeatedly posted, the scientific consensus regarding orientation determination is that there are biological and environmental influences {Nature AND Nurture}).

Regarding your point, this is what they say:

at most, but a small proportion of the risk.

That is, at most, it's a small proportion - you want to emphasize the small portion and de-emphasize the considerable factor.

What's really pathetic is you think it's ironic when it's quite obvious your objectivity is lost on the facts. I've read the article numerous times and am quite familiar with what it says.

What's really sad is on the one hand you call Narth tiny and say "If it was "someone from NARTH," then you should be suspicious of anything they say" and on the other state that the article on the web site supports your point. Ya wanna talk irony? I'm just glad to see you read the article.

I have no problems with "At least somewhat heritable" and agree with it if that's what objective experts say. The same could probably be said for pedophilia. If you weren't so biased you would have realized I said something along these lines at the end of post 110.

What's really interesting is the main reason which you chose not to emphasize:

environment must also be of considerable importance

Apparently you would say anything to push your agenda.

How a person is made up may very well be a factor in homosexuality. Environment is the considerable and perhaps deciding factor and that means gay behavior is a choice and can be changed. And that fits with what we've seen - homosexuals can and do leave that life as evidenced from this link and others.

While I can't speak for anybody else here, that's my beef. If environment is the major factor, why encourage someone who from their environment, the way they're made up and any social pressures to even consider a destructive lifestyle?

"What's really sad is on the one hand you call Narth tiny and say "If it was "someone from NARTH," then you should be suspicious of anything they say"..."

Psychology Today Editor Defends Reorientation Therapy

"In an editorial which just appeared in the latest issue of Psychology Today (Jan./Feb. 2003) editor Robert Epstein, Ph.D. defends sexual reorientation therapy, responding as well to recent bruising criticism from the gay community. Epstein's editorial, "Am I Anti-Gay? You Be the Judge" was written after gay activists objected to his magazine's publication of an ad for a controversial new book.
The book is A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality, by Joseph and Linda Nicolosi, which describes the ways in which parents can maximize the likelihood of their children growing up with a secure gender identity and heterosexual orientation.
Angered when she saw the ad, psychologist Betty Berzon somehow located the private phone number of magazine editor Bob Epstein. Calling him at home on a Saturday, she demanded an explanation from him.
(Epstein graciously refrained from identifying Berzon by name in his editorial, but a gay magazine, The Advocate, later identified her as the caller.)
Berzon demanded to know why his magazine accepted "such a heinous ad." She told Epstein that she was speaking for thousands' of gays who were going to boycott the magazine -- "and worse," she warned.
In that conversation, and in letters from other gay activists that followed, Epstein -- who is a social liberal and champion of gay rights--was suddenly immersed in something quite new to him--what he describes as "the dark, intolerant, abusive side of the gay community."
The author of the book, Berzon charged, "was 'a bigot.'" Furthermore, "no gay person had ever successfully become straight," and "homosexuality was entirely determined by genes." She added that sexual conversion therapy had been condemned by the American Psychological Association.

"Threats, Insults and Brutal Letters"
When Epstein disagreed with the above assertions, Berzon hung up the phone and sent out a flurry of postings to gay and lesbian internet sites, urging activists to harass him at home by telephone, Epstein says, and then to barrage him with complaint letters.
The Psychology Today editor subsequently received "threats, insults," and "brutal letters" from gay activists.
"In all," Epstein says, "I received about 120 letters...Several writers suggested I was a 'Nazi' and 'bigot,' and one compared me with the Taliban. A surprising number of letters asserted that gays have a right to be rude or abusive because they themselves have been abused."

But Reorientation Therapy Is Not Condemned
"But my caller was way off-base, on key points," Epstein notes. "The APA has never condemned sexual conversion therapy but has merely issued cautionary statements." One of those statements in fact reminds psychologists "of their obligation to 'respect the rights of others to hold values, attitudes and opinions that differ from [their] own'--an obligation from which my caller clearly feels exempt."
So what about therapy to change homosexuality? Since the condition was removed from the diagnostic manual in 1973, did the authors of Preventing Homosexuality have the right to promote reorientation therapy?
"Although homosexuality was removed from the DSM as a mental disorder in 1973," Epstein says, "all editions of the DSM have listed a disorder characterized by 'distress' over one's sexual orientation, and some choose to try to change that orientation. Both gays and straights have a right to seek treatment when they're unhappy with their sexual orientation, and some choose to try to change that orientation. It would be absurd to assert that only heterosexuals have that right."
But can gays actually change? Epstein said that he had seen some "interesting data" supporting the ethics and effectiveness of reorientation therapy. He cited recent research, featured on the NARTH web site and just published in an APA journal, by NARTH Fellow Award recipient Warren Throckmorton, Ph.D., "which suggests that sexual orientation conversion therapy is at least sometimes successful...From this and other sources I'd guess that such therapy is probably successful about a third of the time..."

Prominent Gay Figure Gives Up Homosexual Lifestyle

"Also, the gay community has "overly glorified sex to the point that it's expected to be the most important piece of our lives..."

"This tiny group in the business of selling experimental, unsupported "therapy" (and selling books, and speaking engagements, and memberships to their club). It's important to remember that NARTH is NOT mainstream science."

You're wrong, madg.

Gay-To-Straight Research Published In APA Journal

"The American Psychological Association's prestigious journal Professional Psychology: Research and Practice has just published a comprehensive research paper on sexual-orientation change. Clients have the right to pursue change, the author says, because "sexual orientation, once thought to be an unchanging trait, is actually quite flexible for some people."
An article by Dr. Warren Throckmorton, "Initial Empirical and Clinical Findings Concerning the Change Process for Ex-Gays," has been published in the June 2002 issue of the American Psychological Association's publication Professional Psychology: Research and Practice.
"I'm pleased that this research summary will reach an audience of psychologists and mental health professionals that may not be aware of ex-gay issues," says Throckmorton, the director of college counseling at Grove City College.
"My literature review contradicts the policies of major mental health organizations because it suggests that sexual orientation, once thought to be an unchanging sexual trait, is actually quite flexible for many people, changing as a result of therapy for some, ministry for others and spontaneously for still others..."
"The APA's professionalism in handling this research is commendable and I think it demonstrates the APA's willingness to explore all sides of this important matter," Throckmorton said..."

Should Reorientation Therapy Be Available? -- APA Journal Article Says Yes

"A new 2002 article published by the American Psychological Association journal "Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training" defends the ethics and effectiveness of sexual reorientation therapy..."

Our exchange history strongly suggests that you are simply not accepting of anything that would constitute "proof." Therefore, I'm not going to waste my time.

OK...then just pretend I'm someone else. I can't imagine what "science" you're refering to. Just cite, don't write.

A bunch of mumble jumble & no substance in what you say. You couldn't even point me to one study ? Actually madg, I thought you would do better than that ; )

To answer your question about turning back the clock, you stated in an earlier post that homosexuality was much different than if someone wanted to make the same argument that pedophilia was ok. You said it wasn't because it was a mental condition and it was also against the law. My point was, people have made those very same arguments against homosexuality in the past.

So you TOO acknowledge the existence of a "biological influence?!!"

I acknowledge what objective experts say and what Narth has at one of their links. It certainly isn't a breakthrough of any kind except perhaps for you.

Some excerpts from the Narth site say:

Exactly opposite to what the public is being led to believe, the research that has been done thus far suggests that genetic factors account for, at most, but a small proportion of the risk.

And what the scientists said on it:

Although male and female homosexuality appear to be at least somewhat heritable, environment must also be of considerable importance in their origins.

That's something you don't want to emphasize which demonstrates your subjective thinking and bias.

You're much too smart for me.

That much is obvious.

Ummm... I'm the guy that keeps on saying: "Nature AND Nurture." "Nurture" means "environment," or "environmental influence(s)." Environment is of "considerable importance," as is "biology." I have never denied the as-yet-unquantified influence of environment and/or biology.

Yet Narth which you state is tiny and anything they say is suspicious states the same thing. Narth properly cites the much higher risk factor of environment and properly cites the much lower risk factor of somewhat heritable traits. Something you avoid and deny at all costs.

Apparently you have run out of arguments.

Is that one of the tactics mentioned in After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990s by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen? Anybody can read some of the tactics of the homosexual agenda from that book here.

That's utter nonsense.

Psst. Your bias is showing. You only believe what you want to believe and I hate to break your bubble, but believing something to be false doesn't make it false. I can understand your hesitation or inability to see the facts for what they are, because if you accept the facts you realize you're responsible for your actions, and you can't have that because you have too much invested. That's about the saddest thing there is.

We don't know that "environment is the major factor." That's NARTH salesmanship....

Yet another attempt at misdirection. Narth quotes from a pro-gay source that "were forced to admit otherwise by the results of their own research". Your continued attempts at obfuscation will be shown for what they are.

We can see you consider the ends justify the means. Whatever it takes to convince somebody that being gay is okay, damn the facts.

And I'm not your honey so stop hitting on me and go and sin no more.

You're wrong, madg.

He sure is. Biased too, and very afraid to face the facts so he continues to obfuscate whatever facts we present. Being gay and not interested in facts in a pretty sad lifestyle.

Homo nazi? That's funny. Nazi's excuted gays simply for being gay. Were there jewish nazi's too?

Do a google search on Ernst Roehm....

The cancer is spreading.

Laws passed against the will of the people.

Your cite: The author of this chapter, Dr. Fitzgibbons, is a member of NARTH's Scientific Advisory Committee. I'm terribly sorry if I missed it... I tend to look for credible sources... force of habit.

You call them not credible because they espouse a point of view that you abhor. Many psychologists who are not afflicted with "buggery-brain" consider them credible--even if they don't say so publicly. I certainly consider them much more credible than any organization that tells me that people who habitually commit sodomy, fisting, eat feces, and have random sexual encounters with members of the same sex in public restrooms and parks are perfectly normal. I'm not stupid.

I know what "SSAD" is... it's a made-up "disorder" based on theories that are outdated by decades, it is not at all supported by modern science,

Sadly, modern psychological "science" is based to a large extent on politics. The decision to remove SSAD from the DSM was based entirely on politics. Interestingly, I believe reparative therapy has a higher success rate than treatments for clinical depression, schizophrenia, and other notoriously stubborned pathologies.

I'm sorry but one's personal medical history is not an appropriate topic for casual conversation.

Thank you. No further questions. For the record, seeing a shrink who simply validates your pathology has zero chance of leading to healing deep inner wounds. It will, however, help him or her pay a good chunk of the 30 year mortgage on that nice house on the Cape.