Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) is a association of conservative pediatricians and other healthcare professionals in the United States. The College was founded in 2002 by Dr. Joseph Zanga together with 100 dissenting members of the American Academy of Pediatrics in rejection of AAP's statement of support for LGBT parental rights.[1][2][3] Although the organization does not disclose its member count, as of May 2010, it was estimated to have about 200 members.[4] Zanga has described ACP as a group "with Judeo-Christian, traditional values that is open to pediatric medical professionals of all religions who hold true to the group's core beliefs: that life begins at conception; and that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children."[1] The organization's view on parenting is at odds with the position of the American Academy of Pediatrics[5][6] and other medical and child welfare authorities that aver that sexual orientation has no correlation with the ability to be a good parent and raise healthy and well-adjusted children.[7]"
It's interesting that our friend Tex has only found two sources to back him up and they are wildly biased.
What is the motivation for someone to go looking for a source to back up their opinion and only find religiously biased sites, yet ignore all the mainstream sources of every single major health association in the US?
God doesn't change ... His ways are higher than our ways. When He set down laws and rules it was for the good of mankind, not to punish us. Yet people in their arrogance have decided God is "spoiling their fun" so they reject the natural way to live at their own peril.
How sad it must make God to witness such mass rebellion toward Him once again. As in the Days of Noah ......
"You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do."
— Anne Lamott
I almost forgot... look at the dates on those sources cited... 15 - 30 years old! Yeah, the world was so enlightened on the gays in 1980 lol! I did look into one of the sources before and they had arrived at their conclusions by surveying gay prostitutes. Oh well, I should be dead by now according to these "experts", so I better get back to my to-do list.
Look at the source. It's George Rentboy Rekers fake anti-gay "Academy".
The leaders there have either never read the bible or they reject its teachings outright. They might as well tell everyone in the congregation there is no need to repent of any sin, that Christ's blood covers nothing, and God doesn't really care when we rebel against righteousness so "party on". Exactly the message that deceived Eve in the garden.
Jesus warned that in the last days false Christianity would abound with false teachers {wolves} coming in to destroy the flock. Politically correct, dead churches are growing in number, exactly as He predicted.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. -- 2Timothy 3-4
I would say that his church leaders HAVE read the Bible - which is why they are not anti-gay unlike so many others who only cherry pick verses completely out of their original context. His church sounds far more Christ-like and loving.
You are correct, but it is clear that this is a case of "casting pearls before swine". I recommend shaking the dust from your sandals (the ignore feature) and moving on to more fertile ground.
Uhhhh, so what is your point here? That this blurb in Wikipedia (a really objective source as we all know...) speaks of the ACPed as a mostly conservative group? Did you not note all were members of the AAP (and some still are) but simply had deep problems with the research and methodolgy of the parent organization. Does that negate their credentials as competent and learned professionals? That contention is ludicrous.
Zanga's group was formed by 100 dissenting members of the AAP. His organization disagrees with the AAP's point of view on gay parenting, as well as numerous other social issues.
In a recent interview with NARTH, Dr. Zanga said that the policy statement did not have the support of the AAP membership as a whole. In fact, the position paper--entitled "Co-Parent or Second Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents" -- was released to the public despite the objections of one-third of the committee which drafted it, he noted.
Zanga is still an active member of the larger AAP. In fact, he chairs its Bioethics Committee, which, he says, objected to the release of the position paper, citing what it felt were numerous flaws in the research and its foundation in "very weak science."
Quote:
It's interesting that our friend Tex has only found two sources to back him up and they are wildly biased.
LOL No, actually, I found many more than that (another is below), but this subject does not obscess me as it does you (and others) too much beyond that some things are just nature and common sense and, further, that the studies you all trot out as if they are the gospel (no pun intended) are every bit as biased as what you (accuse) the alternate as being. In fact, it is not so much the alternate ones are studies in their own right as they are pointing out the obvious flaws in the one by the AAP....which many like to present as objective and scientific. Love is blind, I suppose...
Just be honest, for gosh sakes, ANYthing which disputes what you want to believe will be considered "wildly biased" and the rantings of a bunch of rightwing fundamentalists lunatics. And anything you want to believe will be paraded as sound scientific research. It just goes to another main point made earlier: it drives a certain bunch nuts that any different viewpoint can possibly exist. You don't want to hear it and you shut your ears and eyes to it. Then shoot the messenger!
If you check out the actual studies cited, you would see exactly how the author has misrepresented them.
Whether he is a Christian or not makes no difference. It only brings in his motivation for misrepresenting studies. He has no relevant qualifications and has not done any studies himself. He is certainly no "expert" on homosexuality - just pretty good at "lying for Jesus" and propaganda pieces. It's aimed at gullible people who would not bother to check the sources. Anyone else would know better and check reputable health organisations for the facts, not anti-gay religious sources.
Why do you doubt all the hundreds of thousands of mainstream US health professionals? And why do you automatically believe someone with no qualifications and a religious bias against gay people? What is your motivation?
The American Academy of Pediatricians has about 60,000 qualified clinicians.
The so called American College of Pediatricians has about 60 "qualified" members who are all conservative, religious and anti-gay. (Their other members are non-clinical.)
They were a break away fringe group whose only reason for existance is that they are anti-gay and disagreed with the REAL professional body over their stance on gay adoption. If you look at their website you will see that their only concern is homosexuality and their anti-gay agenda. Nothing much about anything else.
Everything they have ever written is very easy to debunk. All you have to do is look at the actual studies....not just their misrepresantions of all the facts.
This is not just my opinion.... it can be backed up easily. Just do some honest research for yourself.
60 religiously biased fringe groupers with an anti-gay agenda versus hundreds of thousands of mainstream health professionals..... you decide.
My reply to this is pretty much that written just a bit earlier. To repeat a bit though, it simply confirms my main thesis. That anything presented which goes against your beliefs (or perhaps what you want to believe) is going to attacked as biased, and with a "hidden agenda" and calling into question the "real motivations" behind the authors of the said alternative viewpoint. This is obvious as that the sun rises in the east.
It was not a fringe group, by the way...although you would love to have it presented that way. It was roughly a third of the original AAP group who -- for professional reasons -- objected to the conclusions, and decided to go public with their reasons. Some of them -- the founder in particular -- are STILL members of the AAP; he chairs a committee in fact.
So let me get this straight (no pun intended!); he is a credentialed professional in that regard (i.e. AAP memberhip), but an anti-gay nut in his alter-ego with the ACP? This is just ludicruous. With all due respect, this whole case that you seem trying to present has the ring of desperation
You can go on and on about it if you want, but if you think the studies you like are any less biased and/or not driven by an agenda of its own? Then there is the proverbial Arizona swampland. In fact, THAT is what the objection by the ACP really stemmed from; that it was shoddy and selective research and, except for political correctness, would not have passed muster in any other arena.
And this is what drives so many nuts. They simply can't stand that an alternative viewpoint can exist and/or actually be credible. Which is why it is so often shouted down, censored, etc. Likewise of course, the messenger called the usual -- yet meaningless -- names (i.e. homophobe, ignorant, hateful, bigot, etc, etc, ad nauseum). Somehow it has to be framed in terms of hate or bigotry, because no other explanation is possible to this ilk (or else they don't want to think it can be). I have said countless times I have a few openly gay friends, I believe sexual orientation is largely innate, and I don't care what two people do in their personal lives. Their right to be protected from physical assault and malicious harrasement is as important as any one elses. But that doesn't translate into that I accept the marriages as the equivelent of the traditional man and womans, nor that two same-sex couples can raise a baby/child of the opposite sex -- sans no balancing influence -- without some kind of directly related development problems, regardless of good intentions. On a related tangent, believe me, a lot of people feel that way, but don't say so publicly out of fear of being attacked by the PC police.
As it is, I am content to let others review all the links and make up their own minds. No problem with that.
But anyway (and I know I keep saying this! , I am outta here. Gotta go to work. I have said all I have to say, really, and stand by it. I don't have unlimited time to reply to every person who cannot tolerate hearing something they really just don't want to hear (And, perhaps part of that reason is, on some level they fear it might actually be true....?)
Regardless, I am done with it (unless something truly unheard and original is presented). Someone else can have the last word. But again, just because they have it, and I don't reply, doesn't mean they convinced me or I am intimidated by their argument. It just means people can search and reasearch and come to their own conclusions about where the better arguments and facts are. My case has pretty much been presented and I got others things to do. Have a good day!
I said the ones with the death penalty.
Why do you think Lev 20:13 was never repeated again?
and neither were the all the ones with a death penalty since your the one stating such a "fact" show all the death penalties repeated again, verse by verse so you can prove your point.
And you reply with a blurb from NARTH and Family Watch International.
Look, I tried to pull my studies from actual published reports. Not things from so-called liberal or pro-gay websites, but studies published by actual researchers in actual scientific publications.
And all four links you've posted so far are from conservative, anti-gay groups.
So my point is your opinion has no scientific backing, and you are proving it by only using the most biased sources available to try and back up your claims.
Of course you are welcome to your opinion, but scientifically speaking, it's wrong.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, I am outta here. Gotta go to work. I have said all I have to say, really, and stand by it. I don't have unlimited time to reply to every person who cannot tolerate hearing something they really just don't want to hear (And, perhaps part of that reason is, on some level they fear it might actually be true....?) 