Why, because you… a homosexual, or the HRC… a homosexual activists group says so? After I stop laughing again, can anyone say HYPOCRITE? He’s written a rather convincing research paper, unlike what the APA committee did by voting, that’s supported by proper research from many pro-homosexual researchers. Funny how conclusions can be political but DATA doesn’t lie. All you’ve got is OPINION and Dr. Groth fails to support any of his.
Thank you for PROVING ME RIGHT once again, oh predictable one: (blah, blah, blah, A review of that website will show that it has not been updated for more than two years.) Sometimes this is just TOO easy.
You’re right it is TOO east, almost embarrassingly. Post#128
… sell their totally unsupported theories as a product to a gullible public. So much for NARTH.
Theories??? It’s called well supported HISTORY and it wasn’t from NARTH. But if you want it to be I’ll be happy to wear that hat. Can you cite ANY reseach that debunks any research from NARTH. Anything? I’ll give you some time and you get back to me, OK?
See my above re: “Doctor” Dailey’s complete lack of qualifications to conduct ANY such “study.”
Sorry, where exactly has Dr. Dailey failed to follow scientific method? Should you have some research that debunks his findings let me know. Otherwise we’ll have to assume your unsupported biased opinion is just that, OPINION.
NARTH’s wacky theories may APPEAL to those with an 8yo’s mentality.
Ummm…it’s Freund’s research DATA that an 8-year old can objectively understand, do you have reading comprehension problems?
blah, blah, blah, you can also believe that a tiny, outré, group of “therapists” with outdated, radical theories are correct; and the overwhelming mounds of evidence that prove them wrong (including millions of people on a daily basis) simply don’t exist.
“overwhelming mounds of evidence”, what evidence proves homosexuality is NOT a disorder? What???
“including millions of people on a daily basis”, hehehe…it’s just like you to use public opinion in place of science. I guess your Santa Clause theory has some legs.
You’ve got that backwards, bub. YOU are the one inferring that NAMBLA is viable by leading us to a stagnant website. The burden of proof is on you. You’re looking at a years-old photograph and claiming that something is still alive, even though you haven’t got a shred of evidence to support that claim. Who is REALLY engaging in the “hopeful wishing?” For that matter, why do you so desperately want to believe that NAMBLA is STILL alive?
A web site is a pretty good indication for starters, then there’s the resource information like Membership New and Noteworthy Boys Speak Out What People Are Saying The Prisoner Program What Can Science Tell Us? Publications Selected Readings, and of course there’s the CONTACT INFORMATION! But you can pretend it doesn’t exist, I’d be in denial too if I had a pathology that made me more likely to commit such behavior. As for wanting it here, I want it destroyed!