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.
You are correct, I provided the wrong link. Go back and see the other which I later edited. It goes to the American College of Pediatricians.
And so what if they are religious? That is a very weak argument. Does being a Christian negate their credentials for being professionals in their fields? Or incapable of valid research and findings? How does this make them a bogus organization?
BTW though, here is a rebuttal to the AAP position:
And further, I will have to find it, but I definitely recall that roughly a third of those on the AAP board (or whatever) had problems with the position taken by the larger organization on this issue.
They are bogus not because they are Christian (there are plenty of Christians who are not rabidly anti-gay), but because everything on their site is based on discredited unscientific non-peer reviewed "opinions" or misrepresentations of actual studies (easy to prove), and the ONLY subject they bang on about is homosexuality. They are obsessed with homosexuality. They are an anti-gay political group with an agenda.
Unlike the REAL organization which actually focuses on children.
Your "rebuttal" is written by....you guessed it... the bogus fringe group "The American College of Pediatrics" and uses their usual misrepresentation of facts.
PS: One of the American College of Pediatrics founders was Jewish, not Christian, (Arthur Goldberg), but he has been exposed as a con-man with a felony record.
Others are just members of that other tiny anti-gay propaganda group, NARTH, whose main purpose is to vilify homosexuals and make money from the discredited "pray away eh gay" therapy.
They really don't stand up to even the briefest scrutiny.
The difference between us (social liberals) and you (social conservatives) is the fact that we never say you shouldn't be allowed to go to church, practice your religion, scream about how much gay people/atheists/whatever suck, protest about it, ect.
So why do social conservatives seem to think that everybody should cow-tow to their beliefs just because they are strict? What about the religious Left? Why are your opinions more valuable than liberal Christians? They are Christians, too.
And I never said you can't practice your lifestyle either. And I couldn't care less what two consenting adults do. But that doesn't mean I have to accept homosexual marriage and parenting on the same plane as the traditional male/female combination. Which is what is being demanded nowdays. It is no longer a matter of just toleration and acceptance, but a demand it be openly embraced.
Quote:
BTW, it is bigotry because this is a human rights issue. If we were debating about healthcare, marijuana, the stimulus package, or illegal immigration, people wouldn't get so inflamed and it'd be more of a discussion. But because, by saying what you are saying, you're directly assaulting the friends and family of some people, emotions run a little higher.
Ok then, it is bigotry if that is what you want to call it. Go back and read the link to Joe Sobrans "hate mail" column to get an idea of how I feel about it. I am not going to roll over and play dead or get on the defensive just because someone can scream bigot, homophobe, or whatever.
They are bogus because everything on their site is based on discredited unscientific non-peer reviewed opinions or misrepresentations of actual studies (easy to prove), and the ONLY subject they bang on about is homosexuality. They are obsessed with homosexuality.
Unlike the REAL organization.
Somehow I expected this answer. LOL In a nutshell, you are going to dismiss out of hand any contrary evidence to your own position. And to this, there is really no answer.
Still, for what it is worth, the ACP was created by dissenting members of the AAP (and most still retain membership, in fact). So did they suddenly lose their scholarly credentials upon forming a seperate group?
Here is a link (and excerpt) speaking of how almost a third of the AAP disagreed with the larger groups' findings on homosexual parenting:
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.
Somehow I expected this answer. LOL In a nutshell, you are going to dismiss out of hand any contrary evidence to your own position. And to this, there is really no answer.
Still, for what it is worth, the ACP was created by dissenting members of the AAP (and most still retain membership, in fact). So did they suddenly lose their scholarly credentials upon forming a seperate group?
Here is a link (and excerpt) speaking of how almost a third of the AAP disagreed with the larger groups' findings on homosexual parenting:
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.
And there you go quoting from NARTH- a tiny anti gay religious propaganda group whose "reparative therapy" "pray away teh gay" practices have been discredited by all the mainstream health organizations as unethical, ineffective and harmful.
Seriously, check your sources first before posting them.
These two fringe groups base a lot of their misinformation on the work of Paul Cameron who was de-registered as a psychologist for unethical practices and for misrepresenting research years ago.
Organizations like:
the American Academy of Pediatricians (60,000 members)
the American Psychological Association (150,000 members)
the American Psychiatric Association (38,000 members)
the National Association of Social Workers (150,000 members)
and many other health organizations who abide by a strong code of ethics.
All with peer-reviewed studies published in reputable journals...
Or...
Tiny groups with less than 100 members with no peer-reviewed studies in any reputable journals (NARTH self published a non peer-reviewed journal that only had one volume).
Whose members are virulently anti-gay mostly for religious reasons.
Who have been caught out over and over again misrepresenting studies by real researchers and scientists
And whose sole reason for existence is that they are anti-gay and have a political agenda.
And let's not forget that George (rentboy) Rekers was a board member of both NARTH and the ACP (until NARTH dropped him like a hot potato after he was caught having a holiday with a young gay rent-boy).
Then there's Arthur Goldberg one of ACP's founders, a con-man with a history of felony.
There's Christopher Austin who taught at NARTH seminars who was convicted of sexually assaulting his clients and got 10 years.
Then there's Joseph Berger, a member of NARTH's “Scientific Advisory Committee,”. He wrote a paper encouraging school students to ridicule gender variant children.
thats a cop-out. do you really need others to approve of your immoral behavior? Does that help?
Just curious, but who is asking for "approval" of anything, much less behavior? I see the gay rights advocates mainly asking antis to simply "butt out" and not try to regulate the lives of others.
lets take Mike tyson for example... I may like him as a boxer, but I don't like his "behavior" outside of the ring. You want to define people by their sexual orientation, and that is narrow-minded. A prostitute is still a person no matter what she does on the street. You need to look past the negatives, and see people for what they are and not stereotype them as gay or straight.
Uhhhh, perhaps the religious beliefs are grounded in morality and personal faith? And that they were the essence of the religion itself...?
Sorry, but my faith in God does not require me to attempt to force others to live by MY beliefs. Especially in this great nation where all are supposed to be free to believe and worship as they see fit.
Somehow I expected this answer. LOL In a nutshell, you are going to dismiss out of hand any contrary evidence to your own position. And to this, there is really no answer.
Well no...
You havent provided any contrary "evidence" for me to dismiss.
I DO dismiss scientifically unsupported "opinions" from a small bunch of activist conservative religious people (some with a very shady history) whose only clear agenda is to spread misinformation and vilify gay people.
The real question is: Why don't you dimiss them?
Going to NARTH or the ACP for information about homosexuality is like going to Answers In Genesis for scientific information on Evolution.
Sorry, but my faith in God does not require me to attempt to force others to live by MY beliefs. Especially in this great nation where all are supposed to be free to believe and worship as they see fit.
Free country ain't it? Or just for the people we deem worthy?
You are correct!
Everyone has a right to their opinion & I can only hope these people stay out there & very verbal so just maybe more & more will see who the "haters" in this country really are!
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.
