Federal Gay-Activist Judges Aren't to Blame: They Rely on "Science"..

[Silhouette]

congress sanctioned the American psychiatric or psychological assoc?

No, close though. They censured the APA for their soft stance on adults having sex with children. They actually tried to introduce a study that said that sex between adults and children was beneficial to the child.

Welcome to post 1970s gay-cabal APA...

...oh and they disappeared the ruling scientific principle that says they must rely on facts if they take a public position on anything. CQR (see the OP) replaced that. Facts will tell people the truth about the LGBT cult. They're not having any of that. People in deep stage denial who are sexual predators will go to GREAT lengths to get under the radar. Unbelievable lengths in this case..

 

[mal]

There are many Academics and Psychologists... ALL Leftists, who are not only questioning the "Harm" to Children in Adult/Child Sex, but going further and Advocating for it... They been named and linked many times here. Until 1994 NAMBLA Marched in Gay Parades and was directly Allied with the ILGA. Gays demanded an end to Age of Consent Laws at the same time their people in the APA were changing their status... These are Facts... Gays know them... Some of their Deviant Advocates know them also... But they Lie... Like our Lying still in the Closet President. Leftist have to Lie and Abuse the Courts to get what they want.



peace...

 

[bendog]

congress sanctioned the American psychiatric or psychological assoc?

No, close though. They censured the APA for their soft stance on adults having sex with children. They actually tried to introduce a study that said that sex between adults and children was beneficial to the child.

Welcome to post 1970s gay-cabal APA...

...oh and they disappeared the ruling scientific principle that says they must rely on facts if they take a public position on anything. CQR (see the OP) replaced that. Facts will tell people the truth about the LGBT cult. They're not having any of that. People in deep stage denial who are sexual predators will go to GREAT lengths to get under the radar. Unbelievable lengths in this case..

Ok, so you admit your OP contained a factual mistake. No do you have a link supporting your "new" factual assertion that congress "censured" either the American Psychiatric or Psychological Assoc for a "soft stance" (I cannot make up this shit) on adults having sex with children?

 

[Silhouette]

congress sanctioned the American psychiatric or psychological assoc?

No, close though. They censured the APA for their soft stance on adults having sex with children. They actually tried to introduce a study that said that sex between adults and children was beneficial to the child.

Welcome to post 1970s gay-cabal APA...

...oh and they disappeared the ruling scientific principle that says they must rely on facts if they take a public position on anything. CQR (see the OP) replaced that. Facts will tell people the truth about the LGBT cult. They're not having any of that. People in deep stage denial who are sexual predators will go to GREAT lengths to get under the radar. Unbelievable lengths in this case..

Ok, so you admit your OP contained a factual mistake. No do you have a link supporting your "new" factual assertion that congress "censured" either the American Psychiatric or Psychological Assoc for a "soft stance" (I cannot make up this shit) on adults having sex with children?

They absolutely did vote to censure the APA for their soft stance on adults having sex with kids. The OP had a typo. Sue me. I meant "censure".

IPT Journal - Societal Myths about Sex Offending and Consequences for Prevention of Offending Behavior Against Children and Women

"In August of 1999, the United States Congress issued a joint resolution censuring the American Psychological Association, perhaps the first occasion in our country's history that our nation's highest legislative body actually censured a professional organization for the publication of scientific findings....

...The issue of child sexual abuse has become so polarized that it has become necessary, and almost reflexive if not de rigueur, for authors to state, as a prelude to any critical analysis of societal perceptions and reactions to such abuse, what should be obvious. Thus we state unequivocally that this reaction to the Congressional Censure should, in no way, be construed as an apology for sex offending behavior, or an attempt to deny or minimize the traumatic effects many children experience as a consequence of sexual abuse. It is also not an attempt to justify sexual contact between children and adults as ever being legitimate, even if immediate negative effects are not apparent..."

This was an article where the APA kiddie sex authors were complaining about being censured. "even if immediate negative effects are not apparent"... (read: we were just trying to incrementally introduce the idea of adult-child sex, why the big fuss??)

 

[Silhouette]

The article continues to complain...equating suppression or corrective techniques to correct pedophile behaviors as "equal to those (bad) attempts to try to change homosexuals" (paraphrased). They actually link themselves together like this hoping nobody will notice! I offer it's litte comments like these woven into their study too that is what got them censured in the first place...apparently their mission overrides their common sense:

"Treatment programs exist predicated upon the belief that such behavior is attributable to psychiatric disorder; that no one would choose to be a pedophile, for example (given the social execration and criminal sanctions associated with such behavior — note also that a similar argument has been made and accepted with regard to homosexuality to counter that individuals choose to be gay). Many states have now instituted civil commitment laws to address habitual sexual offenders, which ostensibly attributes offending behavior to a mental abnormality and an inability to control one's behavior, requiring treatment. Finally, several states permit chemical castration (administration of Depro Provera to reduce testosterone in the blood stream to prepubescent levels) as a means of reducing sex drive and, consequently, sex offending behavior."

It gets worse! Listen to the rationalizing of pedophile behaviors here!

Finally, newspaper reports of arrests of sex offenders, compared to other criminal offenses, often include the shocking revelation that the accused was an upstanding member of the community, respected teacher or coach, or respected business man, or even a nationally recognized sportscaster (Mel Albert), or judge (Judge Wachtler). The shock of family, friends and the general community to such arrests is invariably one of perplexity attesting to the lack of evidence of anti-social or amoral behavior anywhere else in their lifestyle. Finally, such behavior is consistent with other forms of sexual deviancy which are not necessarily criminal in nature, such as cross-dressing, sadomasochism, fetishism, etc

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THIS is your new APA folks. No wonder Congress censured them.

The overall study's conclusions are that sex abuse of kids should be decriminalized because it's just a natural compulsive sexuality and that anyway, if offenders weren't afraid of getting arrested, they'd more likely seek counseling. The logic is that then more kids would be spared being molested....except...

...remember, this is from the same outfit that says sexual deviant lifestyles are no longer on the DSM. They just equated pedophiles with gays. So the second any decriminalization happened, guess what? The APA would announce that you cannot "cure" someone from their "natural innate sexuality". And that would be that.

NAMBLA's arm in the LGBT cabal ALMOST got that one through..till Congress said "uh...yeah....NOT".

VVVVVVVVVVV There it SCOTUS. In black and white. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

 

[bendog]

ah, so the House censured them over a study reviewing other studies with the conclusion that children who were molested as children often have relatively unaffected lives.

 

[Silhouette]

ah, so the House censured them over a study reviewing other studies with the conclusion that children who were molested as children often have relatively unaffected lives.

^^^^^^^^^ Did you read what you just wrote? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[mal]

ah, so the House censured them over a study reviewing other studies with the conclusion that children who were molested as children often have relatively unaffected lives.

Amazing...



peace...

 

[Silhouette]

ah, so the House censured them over a study reviewing other studies with the conclusion that children who were molested as children often have relatively unaffected lives.

Amazing...



peace...

I know, right? Not even shy about foreshadowing what's to come. See this thread for more details on that: Teacher Wanting to Be on the Right Side of History Introduces 50 Shades of Gray Wordsearch to Kids US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Silhouette]

ah, so the House censured them over a study reviewing other studies with the conclusion that children who were molested as children often have relatively unaffected lives.

Are you saying that molestation is good for kids? Seriously?

 

[bendog]

ah, so the House censured them over a study reviewing other studies with the conclusion that children who were molested as children often have relatively unaffected lives.

Are you saying that molestation is good for kids? Seriously?

Are you illiterate or simply a tool?

 

[daws101]

ah, so the House censured them over a study reviewing other studies with the conclusion that children who were molested as children often have relatively unaffected lives.

Are you saying that molestation is good for kids? Seriously?

Are you illiterate or simply a tool?

silly wet is both and obsessed.
he /she thinks and talks about homosexuality exponentially more than gay people do.

 

[bendog]

Sil started the thread, son.

 

[daws101]

Sil started the thread, son.

you've just proven my point....thanks!

 

[bendog]

Sil started the thread, son.

you've just proven my point....thanks!

Son, if Sil and I choose to post to one another, try to keep your pants on.

 

[daws101]

Sil started the thread, son.

you've just proven my point....thanks!

Son, if Sil and I choose to post to one another, try to keep your pants on.

don't call me son you are not god or my dad and I am most likely older than you .
as to silly wet his bullshit need to be called every time he /she posts.

 

[Silhouette]

don't call me son you are not god or my dad and I am most likely older than you .
as to silly wet his bullshit need to be called every time he /she posts.

I bet I'm older than either one of you.

The only bullshit that needs to be called out is the neo-LGBT-APA that is following a program of cult dogma and audited small-sampling, relying on group-think instead of numbers to come to "conclusions" that they hold out "as facts for public consumption".

The US Supreme Court needs to know that the amicus briefs rolling in from the APA are not based on actual science.

 

[daws101]

don't call me son you are not god or my dad and I am most likely older than you .
as to silly wet his bullshit need to be called every time he /she posts.

I bet I'm older than either one of you.

The only bullshit that needs to be called out is the neo-LGBT-APA that is following a program of cult dogma and audited small-sampling, relying on group-think instead of numbers to come to "conclusions" that they hold out "as facts for public consumption".

The US Supreme Court needs to know that the amicus briefs rolling in from the APA are not based on actual science.

bullshit where you alive when
Eisenhower was in office or when john glen orbited the earth?
the rest of your post is just your typical bloviating ....

 

[Silhouette]

don't call me son you are not god or my dad and I am most likely older than you .
as to silly wet his bullshit need to be called every time he /she posts.

I bet I'm older than either one of you.

The only bullshit that needs to be called out is the neo-LGBT-APA that is following a program of cult dogma and audited small-sampling, relying on group-think instead of numbers to come to "conclusions" that they hold out "as facts for public consumption".

The US Supreme Court needs to know that the amicus briefs rolling in from the APA are not based on actual science.

bullshit where you alive when
Eisenhower was in office or when john glen orbited the earth?
the rest of your post is just your typical bloviating ....

I don't think substituting dogma for science as an official policy at the APA qualifies them to weigh in on any amicus brief to the US Supreme Court.

For that matter, my mere opinion would hold equal weight to theirs. If "science" is based on opinions instead of numbers and facts, then by virtue of equality, my opinion is equal to the opinion of the APA. They have stripped themselves of any prestige by turning their backs on the scientific method.

"Small samples"? "Preference to words over numbers"???! Really?

 

[daws101]

don't call me son you are not god or my dad and I am most likely older than you .
as to silly wet his bullshit need to be called every time he /she posts.

I bet I'm older than either one of you.

The only bullshit that needs to be called out is the neo-LGBT-APA that is following a program of cult dogma and audited small-sampling, relying on group-think instead of numbers to come to "conclusions" that they hold out "as facts for public consumption".

The US Supreme Court needs to know that the amicus briefs rolling in from the APA are not based on actual science.

bullshit where you alive when
Eisenhower was in office or when john glen orbited the earth?
the rest of your post is just your typical bloviating ....

I don't think substituting dogma for science as an official policy at the APA qualifies them to weigh in on any amicus brief to the US Supreme Court.

For that matter, my mere opinion would hold equal weight to theirs. If "science" is based on opinions instead of numbers and facts, then by virtue of equality, my opinion is equal to the opinion of the APA. They have stripped themselves of any prestige by turning their backs on the scientific method.

"Small samples"? "Preference to words over numbers"???! Really?