Gays blaming blacks for gay marriage ban in California

[Cecilie1200]

Just jumping in...



Of course NARTH has a motive. Every non-profit has some kind of motive, usually to the exclusion of other motives. That's...kind of the point, yeah? Because they receive donations from religious organizations doesn't make them not credible. It just means they receive funding from religious organizations. You'd have to actually "prove" their claims wrong for your claim of their non-credibility to be true. Being biased doesn't mean the same as telling lies.

A good point. A motive is merely a purpose for existing, and all organizations have those. Homeless shelters want to feed the indigent and give them a place to sleep at night. That's their motive. Does that make their facts and figures concerning the homeless in their city unreliable? Not all by itself. You have to know who's honest and who isn't.

The Alan Guttmacher Institute, as an example, is quite openly liberal and supports abortion, among other related liberal causes. They receive financial support from a variety of organizations I do not like and would not cite as sources. Nevertheless, their basic statistics concerning abortion are well-known for being factual and reliable. I cite the Institute as a source all the time.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Um, excuse me? Are you that retarded? Wasn't it you and every other bigot in this thread that was dismissive when presented with the APA links? Royal College? National Geographic? World Health Organization?

You ignorant asses said the APA was wrong and posted a NARTH link. LOL. That's appeal to authority. The burden of proof is on you folks. This it has been since we began this discussion.

Bottomline, you haven't proven that NARTH is not credible and or that their claims are false and the APA hasn't backed up its statements with research.

 

[Macintosh]

Bottomline, you haven't proven that NARTH is not credible and or that their claims are false and the APA hasn't backed up its statements with research.

LOL. Yes, I have. Not only did I explain in my own words why they are not credible, but I provided links to the APA, the Royal College, the WHO, and National Geographic. To intelligent people, the amount of world renowned institutions I use to support my assertions ought to be reason enough.

Now, would you like to explain to us why you disregard everything my sources say? You've given no reason. Please, explain why NARTH is correct and my sources are not.

P.S. "Bottomline" should be two words, my friend.

 

[Macintosh]

A good point. A motive is merely a purpose for existing, and all organizations have those. Homeless shelters want to feed the indigent and give them a place to sleep at night. That's their motive. Does that make their facts and figures concerning the homeless in their city unreliable? Not all by itself. You have to know who's honest and who isn't.

No, it isn't a good point. I explained already why NARTH should be written-off. They have a specific motive. They'll not be pleased until they prove homosexuality is a choice. Again, the same does not ring true for these other organizations. They're purpose is science, research, and reporting what they find. I suspect they could care less what the implications their research would make.

If NARTH did a study and concluded that they were wrong, do you really believe they would report this? No. It would undermine the very reason they exist.

The Alan Guttmacher Institute, as an example, is quite openly liberal and supports abortion, among other related liberal causes. They receive financial support from a variety of organizations I do not like and would not cite as sources. Nevertheless, their basic statistics concerning abortion are well-known for being factual and reliable. I cite the Institute as a source all the time.

Alan Guttmacher is the former head of Planned Parenthood. It's pretty obvious he operates with a specific motive. As a matter of truth, I use this fact against any pro-choicer who decides to use the Guttmacher Institute to support an assertion they have made. They're simply not credible. Similarly, NARTH is not credible. They, like Guttmacher, operate with a specific motive. The only time I believe anything they report is if I can confirm it by another source. Too often, this is not the case. Much of what they report is simply a fairy tale. They are dishonest as all hell.

 

[glockmail]

Macintosh, I applaud your performance in this thread. You have, hands down, kicked the dogshit out of bass and sunni's arguments. BRAVO, sir. Bravo.

You forgot your fucking pom poms.

 

[glockmail]

Well, studies show that children raised by two homosexual parents, regardless of whether the children are the biological offspring of one of the parents or are adopted, show a much greater tendency to identify as homosexual themselves.

So that would indicate that it's not all biological, but also has an environmental aspect as well.

Gee, the Homos always say that they have no impact on the kids.

 

[glockmail]

?

You mean the elitists that YOU vote for. Like John Mccain worth over 14 million dollars, is that elitism?

.....

McCain is self-made, politically. He just happened to marry well. I say good for him.

 

[Vintij]

Um, my point is that you're an ignorant elitist praying that some kind socialist will come along and rescue you from the big, scary, independent folks around you who insist on participating in the democratic process and said kind socialist will then oppress those damned free thinkers and grind them under his heel and use them to support you and take care of you and tell you what to think so you won't have to do any of that distasteful stuff for yourself. The only proof I need of this point is your own posts.

If that's not clear enough for you, let me simple it up. I think you're an ignorant dumbass who doesn't know anything about America, fears it, and wants to destroy it. That help you any, or should I break out the Crayolas and start drawing diagrams?



You really can't read, can you? "LOL" It says " . . . and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation . . ." That whole "I'm going to pick out part of what you said and pretend that was the whole quote" thing only works when you're talking to someone as ignorant, obtuse, and short-memoried as you are, and I'm afraid my cat is unable to come to the computer right now, so you'll have to deal with me.

Do NOT try that dishonest bullshit on me again.



I take it back. You're not an ignorant dumbass. You're an ignorant, LYING dumbass. I don't waste much time on poltroons, and I don't waste ANY on liars. FLUSH!

First of all, thank you for keeping it down to one post.

Now, as far as the first paraphrase.....you sound as dense as the 9-11 conspirators. All anyone has to do is disagree with your strict capitalistic views or any view at all for you to call them the typical, predictable "socialist" or "elistist" line. Do you know how pathetic that attack is? I mean seriously, not everyone living in this nation wants to "destroy" the system or even slightly alter it. All I am advocating is something less stratified as the previous administration. Besides that is not even the point of this thread. Little do you know is that this nation would not even exist without a little socialism (case in point. 700 billion dollar bailout, 25 billion dollar auto bailout, taxation to fund many unpopuliar pieces of legislation) you see, you literally are so closed minded that you can not even see that the United States is not cut and dry, the US is generally in the middle when it comes to issues (which is why Sarah Palin did not help Mccain win the election) The days of your partisanship is over and the fact that you think any of your out dated ideologies are relevant in todays changing political climate, really says alot about your lack of human solidarity and acceptance.


Secondly, if "short-memoried" was a word.....I would respond to you on the definition segment, and I dont see how the word "obtuse" is relevant to this paragraph. Clearly you need to catch up on the english language.


Thirdly, rep power alone speaks for itself. After 400 posts, you only have 2 rep power.....which tells me that the people of this board do not see the world in the way you seem to describe it.

 

[Macintosh]

Gee, the Homos always say that they have no impact on the kids.

You laud such bull shit, huh? Cecile lied her ass off when she said that, and I believe I proved that.

Consider, for a moment, the brevity of her post. Consider, too, the lack of a reference. I mean, consider...

 

[Macintosh]

And what the hell does socialism, capitalism, or any other ism have to do with this thread?

The bottom line is rather simple: This is a Constitutional Republic, Not a Democracy.

Before people start spewing their ignorance, they might want to go back to school and learn that. If this was a strict democracy, African Americans wouldn't have been allowed (terrible to even say it that way) fundamental natural rights as quickly as they were, Women's Suffrage might have been entirely pointless at the time, and a variety of different bigotries and myopic ideas may have taken hold. It's not mob rule, notwithstanding the ignorant ranting of certain posters.

 

[Vintij]

And what the hell does socialism, capitalism, or any other ism have to do with this thread?

The bottom line is rather simple: This is a Constitutional Republic, Not a Democracy.

Before people start spewing their ignorance, they might want to go back to school and learn that. If this was a strict democracy, African Americans wouldn't have been allowed (terrible to even say it that way) fundamental natural rights as quickly as they were, Women's Suffrage might have been entirely pointless at the time, and a variety of different bigotries and myopic ideas may have taken hold. It's not mob rule, notwithstanding the ignorant ranting of certain posters.

Cecile, seems to think the People of this nation created the constitution and voted on the ammendments. Its pretty sad, which is why she was for prop 8....because apparently the people of the nation are actually part of the executive branch. I thought that was called "egalitarianism"? I guess according to cecile, its democracy.

What's worse, she brought out the definition of democracy which clearly stated a "republic governing of a body of people, with elected representative officials".......sure the people have the power to vote, but she is mistaken to say that every citizen individually has the same power as the 3 branches of government. As I said before, that is called egalitarianism.

 

[Vintij]

Gee, the Homos always say that they have no impact on the kids.

Perhaps is cecile could produce some data on this subject, someone would take her seriously.

 

[Macintosh]

Cecile, seems to think the People of this nation created the constitution and voted on the ammendments. Its pretty sad, which is why she was for prop 8....because apparently the people of the nation are actually part of the executive branch. I thought that was called "egalitarianism"? I guess according to cecile, its democracy.

What's worse, she brought out the definition of democracy which clearly stated a "republic governing of a body of people, with elected representative officials".......sure the people have the power to vote, but she is mistaken to say that every citizen individually has the same power as the 3 branches of government. As I said before, that is called egalitarianism.

There are many legitimate arguments against same-sex marriage. I disagree with nearly all of them, but I can certainly recognize the legitimacy. However, insinuating that same-sex marriage should be illegal because people demand it is non sequitur, to say the least. Suggesting such a thing clearly displays how well that person would do on a Civics exam.

Plain and simple, this is a Constitutional Republic, Not a Democracy.

 

[joe77]

NARTH has a specific motive; critical distinction. They'll not be content until they prove homosexuality is a choice. The same does not ring true for groups like the APA, the Royal College, the WHO, and National Geographic. Secondly, the links and explanations from credible organizations prove NARTH wrong for me.

Again, had you people taken the time to read the links I provided, you might not be blubbering on and on.

Uh, are you sure? I thought the point of NARTH was to prove that homosexuality was treatable, not necessarily a choice for everyone who identifies themselves that way. I didn't see the links you posted, but I will say you're not really proving anything if you posted links from the APA, Royal College, WHO, and National Geographic. Like I said, you'd have to show a claim NARTH has made and then show how it's been debunked. Posting a link that basically asserts a contradictory opinion isn't proof of anything other than other, differing opinions.

 

[Macintosh]

Uh, are you sure? I thought the point of NARTH was to prove that homosexuality was treatable, not necessarily a choice for everyone who identifies themselves that way. I didn't see the links you posted, but I will say you're not really proving anything if you posted links from the APA, Royal College, WHO, and National Geographic. Like I said, you'd have to show a claim NARTH has made and then show how it's been debunked. Posting a link that basically asserts a contradictory opinion isn't proof of anything other than other, differing opinions.

Apparently you know very little about NARTH. They seek simply to prove one of the following: a) homosexuality is not a natural sexual feeling; b) homosexuality is a choice; and c) homosexuality is a mental illness.

For them, proving any or all is their motive.

Moreover, before you start spouting off, you should probably read the thread in its entirety. I posted my links first. Someone countered them with NARTH links. So, actually, the burden of proof is on them - not me. That's how a debate works.

Given that NARTH has a specific motive in mind, and my sources do not, why should NARTH be taken seriously?

If someone has an answer to that, I'd be mighty glad to hear it.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Apparently you know very little about NARTH. They seek simply to prove one of the following: a) homosexuality is not a natural sexual feeling; b) homosexuality is a choice; and c) homosexuality is a mental illness.

For them, proving any or all is their motive.

Moreover, before you start spouting off, you should probably read the thread in its entirety. I posted my links first. Someone countered them with NARTH links. So, actually, the burden of proof is on them - not me. That's how a debate works.

Given that NARTH has a specific motive in mind, and my sources do not, why should NARTH be taken seriously?

If someone has an answer to that, I'd be mighty glad to hear it.

All this talking and you still haven't posted any proof of anything NARTH published that was debunked, refuted and or non-credible.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

NARTH MISSION STATEMENT


We respect the right of all individuals to choose their own destiny. NARTH is a professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality. As an organization, we disseminate educational information, conduct and collect scientific research, promote effective therapeutic treatment, and provide referrals to those who seek our assistance.

NARTH upholds the rights of individuals with unwanted homosexual attraction to receive effective psychological care and the right of professionals to offer that care. We welcome the participation of all individuals who will join us in the pursuit of these goals.



NARTH Mission Statement

MacIntosh's nonsense refuted.

 

[Shogun]

[youtube]64A2HrvYdYQ[/youtube]

 

[ABikerSailor]

NARTH MISSION STATEMENT

We respect the right of all individuals to choose their own destiny. NARTH is a professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality. As an organization, we disseminate educational information, conduct and collect scientific research, promote effective therapeutic treatment, and provide referrals to those who seek our assistance.

NARTH upholds the rights of individuals with unwanted homosexual attraction to receive effective psychological care and the right of professionals to offer that care. We welcome the participation of all individuals who will join us in the pursuit of these goals.

Okay......so now we know that NARTH has it's own agenda. To stamp out homosexuality.

WHO Mission Statement......

The objective of WHO is the attainment by all people of the highest possible level of health in the sense that “Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity”, as enshrined in the WHO Constitution as one of the basic principles. WHO provides technical support to address the country’s priority health issues within the purview of WHO core functions which relate to engaging and partnerships, shaping the research agenda, setting norms and standards, articulating policy options, catalyzing change and assessing health needs. We provide support mostly in policy planning and program development; human resources development; prevention and control of major communicable diseases, polio eradication, leprosy elimination; health promotion; healthy environment; and health technology and pharmaceuticals.

Mission Statement

Now......on one hand we have an organization that seeks to promote it's own agenda by only recognizing the things that support their view, while ignoring everything else. That's NARTH.

Then.....we have the World Health Organization (WHO), which is a consortium of doctors from all over the world, providing OBJECTIVE, SCIENTIFIC, PROVABLE TRUTH.

Nope.....I'd trust WHO over NARTH any day.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Okay......so now we know that NARTH has it's own agenda. To stamp out homosexuality.

WHO Mission Statement......



Mission Statement

Now......on one hand we have an organization that seeks to promote it's own agenda by only recognizing the things that support their view, while ignoring everything else. That's NARTH.

Then.....we have the World Health Organization (WHO), which is a consortium of doctors from all over the world, providing OBJECTIVE, SCIENTIFIC, PROVABLE TRUTH.

Nope.....I'd trust WHO over NARTH any day.

When has NARTH stated its mission is to stamp out homosexuality? Just because they have an opposing viewpoint you don't agree with doesn't mean they're biased.