Posted on 04/30/2003 6:50:25 AM PDT by new cruelty
You cannot be objective where Narth is concerned since you're a gay man who has many times demonstrated no interest in facts.
In these forums, the biological influence is what NEEDS to be emphasized, considering the widespread reluctance amongst some to deny it exists.
Besides the minimal biological risk factor, we get enough of the biological influence from the extremely biased media and pro-gay sources.
The pro-gay source said:
Although male and female homosexuality appear to be at least somewhat heritableThey don't say it is heritable, they say it appears that way and you appear to want to emphasize this minor statement and ignore what the same source said is the major risk factor. That being environment as the major risk factor.
Your redundant and gratuitous use of "properly" reveals your own bias.
Everybody say it with me: "please." I stated the facts and you don't like it.
You said: "Narth QUOTES from a pro-gay source..." But then, what you actually CITE... is a NARTH OPINION!!!
There's just no end to your obfuscation is there? I cited a quote from Narth about a fact. That being, a pro-gay source was forced to admit the opposite of what the public is led to believe:
environment must also be of considerable importance in [homosexuality]That's a pro-gay source stating something you refuse to acknowledge.
"Some people are gay and that's okay." I'd call that "factual."
The problem is they don't keep it to themselves and they try to recruit in the schools. That's a fact and it's not okay.
People have this fiction that Nazism (National Socialism) is somehow "right" wing. Nazism (fascism) and socialism and communism are all cousins. None of them has anything to do with conservatism. They all depend on lying, repression, and totalitarianism, and especially on supressing all opposition. The founder of ACT-UP read Mein Kampf for inspiration, guidance, and tactics. This is not hearsay, he admitted it.
Can anyone say "KLINTOON AND MRS. KLINTOON"????
Umm, I think you mean Dr. Warren Throckmorton, immediate past president of the American Mental Health Counselors Association. Nice try at misdirection, though.
"... managed to get something published..."
Ever hear of the peer review process used to publish articles in refereed journals?
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice - Manuscript Submission Guidelines
"Masked Review
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice uses a masked reviewing system. In order to permit anonymous review, all authors' names, affiliations, and contact information should be removed from the manuscript itself and included instead in the submittal letter. Every effort should be made by the authors to see that the manuscript itself contains no clues to their identities."
WHAT IS A REFEREED ARTICLE? "The following definition is found in Cabell's Directory of Publishing Opportunities in Educational Psychology and Administration, David W.E. Cabell, Editor, 6th edition, 2002-2003 on page XIV.
With some exceptions a refereed article is one that is blind reviewed and has two external reviewers. The blind review requirement and the use of external reviewers are consistent with the research criteria of objectivity and of knowledge.
The use of a blind review process means that the author of the manuscript is not made known to the reviewers. With the large number of reviewers and journals, it is also likely that the name of the reviewers for a particular manuscript is not made know to the author. Thus, creating a double blind review process. Since the author and reviewers are frequently unknown, the manuscript is judged on its merits rather than on the reputation of the author and/or the author's influence on the reviewers.
The use of two (2) reviewers permits specialists familiar with research similar to that presented in the paper to judge whether the paper makes a contribution to the advancement of knowledge. When two reviewers are used it provides a broader perspective for evaluating the research. This perspective is further widened by the discussion between the editor and reviewers in seeking to reconcile these perspectives..."
"... does not in way suggest that his opinions are now law."
It would seem that the APA now believes his research is valid enough to publish them.
Former APA President Condemns APA for Barring Research
"The APA is too goddamn politically correct...and too goddamn obeisant to special interests!" said Robert Perloff, 1985 President of the American Psychological Association.
Dr. Perloff delivered those uncensored remarks during a rousing speech to psychologists at the 2001 APA Annual Convention.
In an expression of public anger and frustration, Dr. Perloff condemned the APA's one-sided political activism. Of reorientation therapy with homosexuals, he said: "It is considered unethical...That's all wrong. First, the data are not fully in yet. Second, if the client wants a change, listen to the client. Third, you're barring research." (1)
Dr. Perloff is a recipient of the American Psychological Foundation's Gold Medal Award for Lifetime Achievement in Psychology in the Public Interest. In bestowing the award, the Psychological Foundation recognized Perloff for his noted "love of social justice" and his career-long struggle to champion "the rights and dignity of women, minorities, and homosexuals."
But, Perloff asked, "How can you do research on change if therapists involved in this work are threatened with being branded as unethical?"
Contacted by NARTH, Dr. Perloff added the following comment in an interview:
"I believe that APA is flat out wrong, undemocratic, and shamefully unprofessional in denying NARTH the opportunity to express its views and programs in the APA Monitor and otherwise under APA's purview." (2)..."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.