CDC: Brand new - Less than 3% of US population Gay, lesbian, bisexual

[daws101]

The References aren't Bogus, as far as I saw - but they {The Stats} are somewhat misrepresented and some arealso not very reliable or objective. No different than Gay Science at the APA.

bullshit beside being a bigot you must be blind:
example: Approved by the NARTH Board of Directors on January 25, 2012



Current discussions of homosexual sexual orientation change are unavoidably occurring within a sociopolitical climate that makes nonpartisan scientific inquiry of this subject very difficult. In light of this reality, a few considerations are crucial for accurately understanding the sometimes contradictory opinions regarding the possibility of sexual orientation change. First and foremost, it is important to recognize that how change is conceptualized has vast implications for our thinking about change. Some of the more ardent proponents and opponents of homosexual sexual orientation change may view change in strictly categorical terms, where change is an all-or-nothing experience. Proponents and opponents with this view differ only in the direction of their desired outcome. Proponents of change understood in categorical terms may view a homosexual sexual orientation as a lifestyle choice that merely needs to be renounced. Opponents who take this viewpoint, on the other hand, may conceive of sexual orientation as essentially hard wired and simply not modifiable. NARTH does not support either of these perspectives.



NARTH believes that much of the expressed pessimism regarding sexual orientation change is a consequence of individuals intentionally or inadvertently adopting a categorical conceptualization of change. When change is viewed in absolute terms, then any future experience of same-sex attraction (or any other challenge), however fleeting or diminished, is considered a refutation of change. Such assertions likely reflect an underlying categorical view of change, probably grounded in an essentialist view of homosexual sexual orientation that assumes same-sex attractions are the natural and immutable essence of a person. What needs to be remembered is that the de-legitimizing of change solely on the basis of a categorical view of change is virtually unparalleled for any challenge in the psychiatric literature. For example, applying a categorical standard for change would mean that any subsequent reappearance of depressive mood following treatment for depression should be viewed as an invalidation of significant and genuine change, no matter how infrequently depressive symptoms reoccur or how diminished in intensity they are if subsequently re-experienced. Similar arguments could be made for any number of conditions, including grief, alcoholism, or marital distress. The point is not to equate these conditions with homosexuality, but rather to highlight the inconsistency of applying the categorical standard only to reported changes in unwanted same-sex attractions.



Rather than pigeonholing homosexual sexual orientation change into categorical terms, NARTH believes that it is far more helpful and accurate to conceptualize such change as occurring on a continuum. This is in fact how sexual orientation is defined in most modern research, starting with the well known Kinsey scales, even as subsequent findings pertinent to change are often described in categorical terms. NARTH affirms that some individuals who seek care for unwanted same-sex attractions do report categorical change of sexual orientation. Moreover, NARTH acknowledges that others have reported no change. However, the experience of NARTH clinicians suggests that the majority of individuals who report unwanted same-sex attractions and pursue psychological care will be best served by conceptualizing change as occurring on a continuum, with many being able to achieve sustained shifts in the direction and intensity of their sexual attractions, fantasy, and arousal that they consider to be satisfying and meaningful. NARTH believes that a profound disservice is done to those with unwanted same-sex attractions by characterizing such shifts in sexual attractions as a denial of their authentic (and gay) personhood or a change in identity labeling alone. Attempts to invalidate all reports of such shifts by presuming they are not grounded in actual experience insults the integrity of these individuals and posits wishful thinking on an untenably massive scale.



Finally, it also needs to be observed that reports on the potential for sexual orientation change may be unduly pessimistic based on the confounding factor of type of intervention. Most of the recent research on homosexual sexual orientation change has focused on religiously mediated outcomes which may differ significantly from outcomes derived through professional psychological care. It is not unreasonable to anticipate that the probability of change would be greater with informed psychotherapeutic care, although definitive answers to this question await further research. NARTH remains highly interested in conducting such research, pursuant only to the acquisition of sufficient funding.


To summarize, then, those who are highly pessimistic regarding change in sexual orientation appear to have assumed a categorical view of change, which is neither in keeping with how sexual orientation has been defined in the literature nor with how change is conceptualized for nearly all other psychological challenges. NARTH believes that viewing change as occurring on a continuum is a preferable therapeutic approach and more likely to create realistic expectancies among consumers of change-oriented intervention. With this in mind, NARTH remains committed to protecting the rights of clients with unwanted same-sex attractions to pursue change as well as the rights of clinicians to provide such psychological care.


narth

asshat!

Right - okay NARTH , and what's your point ??? NARTH is a scientific organization that is politically incorrect - is that what you're trying to say ???? Come on now speak up little man - spit it out -you're not making any sense .

my point is obvious.
the rest is you raving.

 

[daws101]

narth

the above is another example of bias...

 

[daws101]

The Family Research Institute was founded in 1982 with one overriding mission: to generate empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family, particularly homosexuality, AIDS, sexual social policy, and drug abuse. FRI believes that published scientific material has a profound impact, both in the United States and around the world.



FRI was the first traditionally-minded organization to conduct scientific research in these areas and to publish it in peer-reviewed professional journals. Produced by scholars, this research provides lasting empirical evidence and influences public policy. FRI's scientific articles can be accessed in almost all university and medical libraries around the globe.

Family Research Institute is a non-profit scientific and educational corporation that believes the strength of our society depends on preserving America's historic moral framework and the traditional family. FRI is working to produce sound, scientific data on pressing social issues — especially homosexuality — in an effort to promote traditional policies. We welcome all who would join in the fight to restore a world where marriage is upheld and honored, where children are nurtured and protected, and where homosexuality is not taught and accepted, but instead is discouraged and rejected at every level.
Family Research Institute » About

 

[daws101]

Facts and Statistics About Homosexuals - Independent Baptist Ministries


“41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs (8). “

The author is listed below, no publication is listed. So no “research” can be verified.

(8) Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA.

The so called study came from a freeper post that was merely passing on a rather lengthy page long anti-gay hate libel that had been passed around the internet to theocon groups and hate groups.

The author of the “bathroom statistic” is a Dr. E.R. Fields. There is no Journal or peer reviewed Journal in which his data appeared that I could find.

There is no Catholic “study.” There is a paper with a patch work of out- dated references from a group called: “Catholic Apologetics International .”

The paper is not worth using for cat litter.

But, there is a Dr. E.R. Fields an anti-semitic, homophobic white supremacist from Marietta Georgia.

Before we contribute to the burden of lies and misinformation a little research is advisable otherwise we just turn into useful idiots for white supremacists, and radicalrightwing theofascists.

 

[Seawytch]

"Facts" from NARTH or FRC...are not

 

[daws101]

"Facts" from NARTH or FRC...are not

not to educated sane people but to green horn they are.
that's what paranoia does.

 

[Seawytch]

"Facts" from NARTH or FRC...are not

not to educated sane people but to green horn they are.

that's what paranoia does.

Paranoia? I don't think that's the correct diagnosis.

 

[koshergrl]

It's like the Special Olympics of internet discussion.

 

[koshergrl]

Ebonics.

 

[GreenBean]

narth

the above is another example of bias...

That says absolutely nothing to support your case. Nothing whatsoever .

It's a statement about Faith, Ethics, Scientific Objectivity. The problem with that philosophy is that Science and Religion simply don't meld together very well . Very similar to the Socio-fascist religions of Communism and Liberalism - whose modus operandi has always been to bend facts and twist science to suit their agenda and beliefs.

I don't challenge any good Christians or ridicule their beliefs - I simply don't accept them when they are based on primitive writings from many Centuries ago.

You've said absolutely Nothing - If you think you're making a point - well... sorry pal perhaps in your mind you feel you've made a statement - but unforunately you are simply a legend in your own mind. - Try Again

 

[GreenBean]

Yep, he just posts assumptions and then calls you an idiot for pointing that out.

Meaningless garbage.

What have you ever "pointed out" LMFAO -
Look little faggot, this a grown-up conversation here - if you can't contribute anything menaingful STFU

that's funny coming from you, spewing bigotry and homophobia is meaningful! right!

Yup- I liken it to rubbing a puppies nose in its own shit when it crap in the house - best way to teach them "Bad Doggy" with Fags and Queers it's "Bad Pervert" . But folks like you simply love to wallow in your own shit don't you?

 

[GreenBean]

right like looney bird is a respected scientific institution...

No - but they quote from respected scientific information - did you even bother to look at the article , or the argument -of course not -because you're daws101 and your reputation precedes you -welcome to the thread DAws - we could all use a few giggles

Of course you do know that the laughs are at you and not with you .

false. all the quotes are bias and not objective....
I READ the article there is no rational argument..

If you read the article - which I doubt - what part are you attempting to refute ?


Come on now boy - spit it out - You're can't possibly be as stupid as your posts seem to indicate so far , -Stop stutterring - -spit it out Boy !

 

[JakeStarkey]

As any person has the right to purse transgender change, so do folks who have not accepted their same sex attractions. That does not mean the latter is mentally, physically, or emotionally healthy.

 

[GreenBean]

As any person has the right to purse transgender change, so do folks who have not accepted their same sex attractions. That does not mean the latter is mentally, physically, or emotionally healthy.

SO you agree that same sex attraction is not mentally or emotionally healthy - - See we agree on something - I knew there was hope for you .

 

[JakeStarkey]

As any person has the right to purse transgender change, so do folks who have not accepted their same sex attractions. That does not mean the latter is mentally, physically, or emotionally healthy.

SO you agree that same sex attraction is not mentally or emotionally healthy - - See we agree on something - I knew there was hope for you .

You once again demonstrate you cannot comprehend.

Refusing to accept authentication of you are, same sex or straight sex or in between, is not healthy.

Your refusal to accept your obvious latency for man desire is wrecking you emotionally.

 

[GreenBean]

As any person has the right to purse transgender change, so do folks who have not accepted their same sex attractions. That does not mean the latter is mentally, physically, or emotionally healthy.

SO you agree that same sex attraction is not mentally or emotionally healthy - - See we agree on something - I knew there was hope for you .

You once again demonstrate you cannot comprehend.

Refusing to accept authentication of you are, same sex or straight sex or in between, is not healthy.

Your refusal to accept your obvious latency for man desire is wrecking you emotionally.

Jake Jake Jake you're funny funny funny - don't you recognize sarcasm when you see it ?

 

[Inevitable]

As any person has the right to purse transgender change, so do folks who have not accepted their same sex attractions. That does not mean the latter is mentally, physically, or emotionally healthy.

SO you agree that same sex attraction is not mentally or emotionally healthy - - See we agree on something - I knew there was hope for you .

You once again demonstrate you cannot comprehend.

Refusing to accept authentication of you are, same sex or straight sex or in between, is not healthy.

Your refusal to accept your obvious latency for man desire is wrecking you emotionally.

There is no point in reasoning with greenbean he isn't reasonable.

He put me on ignore and was dumb enough to put it in his signature. *

 

[JakeStarkey]

SO you agree that same sex attraction is not mentally or emotionally healthy - - See we agree on something - I knew there was hope for you .

You once again demonstrate you cannot comprehend.

Refusing to accept authentication of you are, same sex or straight sex or in between, is not healthy.

Your refusal to accept your obvious latency for man desire is wrecking you emotionally.

There is no point in reasoning with greenbean he isn't reasonable.

He put me on ignore and was dumb enough to put it in his signature. *

Greenbean simply bloviates.

He can't argue the issue sensibly, so he strikes out wildly.

He's a teenager, after all.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You once again demonstrate you cannot comprehend.

Refusing to accept authentication of you are, same sex or straight sex or in between, is not healthy.

Your refusal to accept your obvious latency for man desire is wrecking you emotionally.

There is no point in reasoning with greenbean he isn't reasonable.

He put me on ignore and was dumb enough to put it in his signature. *

Greenbean simply bloviates.

He can't argue the issue sensibly, so he strikes out wildly.

He's a teenager, after all.

His problem is his position on the issue is untenable.

 

[JakeStarkey]

His problem is that he actually believes what he is saying.