The Case for the Family.

exactly, and he wraps all that hate in the esoteric web of the rules of logic. but it's still just hate.

I am enjoying the argument.

upnorth2505: I would ask you please refrain from pigeonholing Rick or anyone else with these types of labels. Let people form their own opinions based on what he says. If that is your opinion, fine. I can see why you think that. But please try to stick with the debate.

dukeofbaja said:

I am enjoying the argument.

upnorth2505: I would ask you please refrain from pigeonholing Rick or anyone else with these types of labels. Let people form their own opinions based on what he says. If that is your opinion, fine. I can see why you think that. But please try to stick with the debate.

Click to expand...

i suggest you win, then

This debate was over before it ever started. Gays and lesbians have been raising perfectly well-adjusted children for some time now. And SES has more to do with social ills then the invented notion of 'the conventional family' (or lack thereof) ever has.

Defining, confining, and sinking deeper

dukeofbaja said:

I am enjoying the argument.

upnorth2505: I would ask you please refrain from pigeonholing Rick or anyone else with these types of labels. Let people form their own opinions based on what he says. If that is your opinion, fine. I can see why you think that. But please try to stick with the debate.

Click to expand...

I admit it was a bit of a cheap shot. But this guy is arrghhhhh. So set, and wrong!!

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Pro-Homosexual Researchers Conceal Findings:
Children Raised by Openly Homosexual Parents More Likely to Engage in Homosexuality[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]By Trayce Hansen, Ph.D.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Research by social scientists, although not definitive, suggests that children reared by openly homosexual parents are far more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than children raised by others. Studies thus far find between 8% and 21% of homosexually parented children ultimately identify as non-heterosexual. For comparison purposes, approximately 2% of the general population are non-heterosexual. Therefore, if these percentages continue to hold true, children of homosexuals have a 4 to 10 times greater likelihood of developing a non-heterosexual preference than other children. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Some researchers who uncovered sexual preference differences between homosexually and heterosexually parented children, nonetheless declared in their research summaries that no differences were found. Many believe they concealed their findings so as not to harm their own pro-homosexual, sociopolitical agendas. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]All social scientists who conduct research in this emotionally-charged area have personal biases. That's a given. But if the authors of these studies want to be regarded as scientists, and not activists, they must set aside their biases and straightforwardly present their findings. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Regardless, no one should be surprised that homosexual parents are more likely to raise homosexual children. As one of the few forthright pro-homosexual advocates proclaimed, "Of course our children are going to be different." [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In fact, many believe the percentages of non-heterosexual children in these studies would be even greater if more of the children had been raised from birth by openly homosexual parents. But most weren't. A majority of these children actually were born into and raised by mother-father couples before one of their parents "came-out" and the parents divorced. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Findings from the best and most recent twin studies have found that homosexuality, unlike eye color, is not genetically-caused. But there are a number of non-genetic mechanisms through which homosexuality could be transmitted from one generation to the next. Those mechanisms include role-modeling, social learning and differential reinforcement, as well as outright encouragement of non-heterosexuality by parents or others. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]No one knows for sure by what complex mechanisms homosexual parents disproportionately rear homosexual children. But regardless of how, it appears they do. The public needs to be made aware of the findings of these studies so that when courts adjudicate and citizens vote on issues related to homosexuality, they're fully informed as to the possible consequences of those decisions on children.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]For a review of the research studies alluded to above, as well as additional analysis and references, see article entitled, "A Review and Analysis of Studies Which Assessed Sexual Preference of Children Raised by Homosexuals."[/FONT]

Here is a video about the controversy within the APA regarding its pro gay bias.

The APA should be a scientific community seperate from politics - clearly, it is not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJhs_UaZ4gw

http://www.narth.com/docs/deemphasizes.html


APA's New Pamphlet on Homosexuality
De-emphasizes the Biological Argument, Supports
a Client's Right to Self-Determination

March 6, 2008 - In 1998, the American Psychological Association (APA) published a brochure titled "Answers to Your Questions about Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality."
This particular document was ostensibly published to provide definitive answers about homosexuality. However, few of the assertions made in the brochure could find any basis in psychological science. Clearly a document anchored more in activism than in empiricism, the brochure was simply a demonstration of how far APA had strayed from science, and how much it had capitulated to activism.
The newest APA brochure, which appears to be an update of the older one, is titled, "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality."
Though both brochures have strong activist overtones (both were created with "editorial assistance from the APA Committee on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Concerns"), the newer document is more reflective of science and more consistent with the ethicality of psychological care.
Consider the following statement from the first document:

That statement was omitted from the current document and replaced with the following:

Although there is no mention of the research that influenced this new position statement, it is clear that efforts to "prove" that homosexuality is simply a biological fait accompli have failed. The activist researchers themselves have reluctantly reached that conclusion. There is no gay gene. There is no simple biological pathway to homosexuality. Byne and Parsons, and Friedman and Downey, were correct: a bio-psycho-social model best fits the data.
On the question of whether or not therapy can change sexual orientation, the former document offered a resounding "no." However, the current document is much more nuanced and contains the following statement: "To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective."
Of course, no mention is made of the Spitzer research, the Karten research, or the recent longitudinal research conducted by Jones and Yarhouse -- all of which support the conclusion that some people can and do change.
Of the Spitzer research, psychologist Dr. Scott Hershberger (who is a philosophical essentialist on questions of sexual orientation) conducted a Guttman analysis of the study sample, and declared:

The Spitzer study found no evidence of harm. Neither did the Karten study, nor the Jones and Yarhouse study.
Furthermore, one might ask, does the APA plan to conduct studies on the effectiveness of other therapies in use? Many are entirely without validation, yet practitioners regularly receive Continuing Education credits for teaching these same therapies through APA-approved courses. Perhaps it is time for APA to hold all therapies and all therapists to the standard which they advocate for reorientation therapy.
In APA's new document, there is a greater emphasis on ethicality. The pamphlet includes this key statement:

Certainly, client self-determination is one of the cornerstones of any form of psychological care. And any attempt to ban psychological care for those unhappy with their homosexual attractions would be a direct violation of enormous magnitude of APA's own Code of Ethics -- one which neither the federal/state governments nor the American public would respond to favorably.
Imagine a media headline, "APA Declares That Homosexuals Are Not Competent To Determine Whether Or Not They Can Seek Psychological Care to Change" or "APA Bans Choice of Psychological Care for Homosexuals."
Additions to the new APA brochure also include sections on adolescents, homosexual marriage and adoption by homosexual couples.
Interestingly enough, the section on adolescents contains fairly good information regarding the differences between homosexual attractions, homosexual orientation and homosexual identity (though the terms are not used). There is an admission of the sexual fluidity of adolescence, with different ultimate outcomes for different sexually confused adolescents.
The section on marriage is simply an advocacy statement suggesting that marriage might enhance the stability of homosexual couples.
The discussion on parenting by homosexual couples was noteworthy for its internal contradictions. There is an admission that there is a dearth of scientific data on children raised by same-sex couples, but the authors conclude that there are "few differences." How can the dearth of scientific studies allow anyone to offer such a conclusion?
Finally and most intriguing are the recommended resources for further reading. The former brochure referred readers to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; to Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, and to Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), all activist groups.
The current brochure refers readers to the American Psychological Association, Mental Health America, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
A significant portion of the new brochure was devoted to the role that prejudice and discrimination plays in the lives of lesbian, gay and bisexual people. This theme seemed pervasive throughout the document. Homosexual relationships are viewed as no different from heterosexual relationships. There is no acknowledgement of the substantial research that clearly demonstrates that homosexuals are at greater risks for some forms of mental illness (Herrell, Ferguson, Sandfort).
It's unfortunate that APA does not move beyond its single-minded focus on "discrimination and prejudice" to allow honest and open study of GLBT issues. In areas such as homosexuality, political correctness seems to have gone amok. On this front in particular, APA seems to have surrendered its professionalism and its science to political correctness.
Consider the following statement made by a prominent member of the American Psychological Association and published by the Harvard University Press: "...it may be that for now, the safest way to advocate for lesbian/gay/bisexual rights is to keep propagating a deterministic model: sexual minorities are born that way and can never be otherwise. If this is an easier route to acceptance (which may in fact be the case), is it really so bad that it is inaccurate?"
Where are the guardians of our professional ethics? Will they really allow such Machiavellian statements to go uncritically examined? Is there an ethical violation when a self-identified psychologist and a member of APA supports activism masqueraded as science, and states that it is not so bad?
Political correctness would suggest that there will be no response from the APA.
In his book, Destructive Trends in Mental Health, former APA president Nicholas Cummings notes that he and his co-author lived through the abominable McCarthy era and the Hollywood witch hunts; still he notes, there was "not the insidious sense of intellectual intimidation that currently exists under political correctness." He says, "Now, misguided political correctness tethers our intellects."
Perhaps the British playwright, self-identified secularist atheist Pat Condell, is indeed correct: "Political correctness is like a drug that we just can't stop injecting, even though we know it's going to kill us."
In summary, if one reduces the recent APA document to one based on scientific merit and ethicality, it might translate into something like the following:
"We at APA acknowledge that there are probably many factors that lead to one to claim a gay identity, likely different for different folks. However, what is clear is that homosexuality is not simply a biological phenomenon. We are not sure about the effectiveness of reorientation therapy (or any other therapies for that matter!) but political correctness demands that APA take a position of extreme caution, even though there is no evidence to support such a position. And APA believes that though homosexuality may be fluid for some people, it is certainly not a matter of choice for anyone. However, having expressed these reservations (and fears), it is important that all mental health professionals respect client self-determination (including those who seek reorientation therapy)."
The APA should be commended for its greater reliance on science and ethicality in this document. Perhaps now is the time for the association to abide by its commitment that accompanied then-APA President Nicholas Cummings' proposal to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1974: "a proscription that appropriate and needed research would be conducted to substantiate these decisions." None, however, was ever conducted.
Such research should include a study of the efficacy of psychological care for those unhappy with unwanted homosexual attractions, as well as for its counterpart--gay-affirmative therapy for those who wish to claim a gay identity.

http://www.narth.com/docs/fathers.html

FATHERS OF MALE HOMOSEXUALS:
A Collective Clinical Profile

It is widely agreed that many factors likely contribute to the formation of male homosexuality. One factor may be the predisposing biological influence of temperament (Byne and Parsons, l993). No scientific evidence, however, shows homosexuality to be directly inherited in the sense that eye color is inherited (Satinover, 1996).
Recent political pressure has resulted in a denial of the importance of the factor most strongly implicated by decades of previous clinical research--developmental factors, particularly the influence of parents. A review of the literature on male homosexuality reveals extensive reference to the prehomosexual boy's relational problems with both parents (West 1959, Socarides 1978, Evans 1969); among some researchers, the father-son relationship has been particularly implicated (Bieber et al 1962, Moberly 1983).
One psychoanalytic hypothesis for the connection between poor early father-son relationship and homosexuality is that during the critical gender-identity phase of development, the boy perceives the father as rejecting. As a result, he grows up failing to fully identify with his father and the masculinity he represents.
Nonmasculine or feminine behavior in boyhood has been repeatedly shown to be correlated with later homosexuality (Green, l987, Zuger, l98; taken together with related factors--particularly the often-reported alienation from same-sex peers and poor relationship with father--this suggests a failure to fully gender-identify. In its more extreme form, this same syndrome (usually resulting in homosexuality) is diagnosed as Childhood Gender-Identity Deficit (Zucker and Bradley, 1996).
One likely cause for "failure to identify" is a narcissistic injury inflicted by the father onto the son (who is usually temperamentally sensitive) during the preoedipal stage of the boy's development. This hurt appears to have been inflicted during the critical gender-identity phase when the boy must undertake the task of assuming a masculine identification. The hurt manifests itself as a defensive detachment from masculinity in the self, and in others. As an adult, the homosexual is often characterized by this complex which takes the form of "the hurt little boy" (Nicolosi, 1991).
During the course of my treatment of ego-dystonic male homosexuals, I have sometimes requested that fathers participate in their sons' treatment. Thus I have been able to familiarize myself with some of the fathers' most common personality traits. This discussion attempts to identify some clinical features common to those fathers of homosexuals.
For this report, I have focused on sixteen fathers who I consider typical in my practice--twelve fathers of homosexual sons (mid-teens to early 30's), and four fathers of young, gender-disturbed, evidently prehomosexual boys (4- to 7- year-olds). The vast majority of these fathers appeared to be psychologically normal and, also like most fathers, well-intentioned with regard to their sons; in only one case was the father seriously disturbed, inflicting significant emotional cruelty upon his son.
However as a group, these fathers were characterized by the inability to counter their sons' defensive detachment from them. They felt helpless to attract the boy into their own masculine sphere.
Clinical Impressions.

As a whole, these fathers could be characterized as emotionally avoidant. Exploration of their histories revealed that they had typically had poor relationships with their own fathers. They tended to defer to their wives in emotional matters and appeared particularly dependent on them to be their guides, interpreters and spokespersons.
While these men expressed sincere hope that their sons would transition to heterosexuality, nevertheless they proved incapable of living up to a long-term commitment to help them toward that goal. In his first conjoint session, one father cried openly as his 15-year-old son expressed his deep disappointment with him; yet for months afterward, he would drive his son to his appointment without saying a word to him in the car.
Further, while they often appeared to be gregarious and popular, these fathers tended not to have significant male friendships. The extent to which they lacked the ability for male emotional encounter was too consistent and pronounced to be dismissed as simply "typical of the American male." Rather, my clinical impression of these fathers as a group was that there existed some significant limitation in their ability to engage emotionally with males.
From their sons' earliest years, these fathers showed a considerable variation in their ability to recognize and respond to the boys' emotional withdrawal from them. Some naively reported their perception of having had a "great" relationship with their sons, while their sons themselves described the relationship as having been "terrible." Approximately half the fathers, however, sadly admitted that the relationship was always poor and, in retrospect, perceived their sons as rejecting them from early childhood. Why their sons rejected them remained for most fathers a mystery, and they could only express a helpless sense of resignation and confusion. When pushed, these men would go further to express hurt and deep sadness. Ironically, these sentiments--helplessness, hurt and confusion--seemed to be mutual; they are the same expressed by my clients in describing their own feelings in the relationship with their fathers.
The trait common to fathers of homosexuals seemed to be an incapacity to summon the ability to correct relational problems with their sons. All the men reported feeling "stuck" and helpless in the face of their sons' indifference or explicit rejection of them. Rather than actively extending themselves, they seemed characteristically inclined to retreat, avoid and feel hurt. Preoccupied with self-protection and unwilling to risk the vulnerability required to give to their sons, they were unable to close the emotional breach. Some showed narcissistic personality features. Some fathers were severe and capable of harsh criticism; some were brittle and rigid; overall, most were soft, weak and placid, with a characteristic emotional inadequacy. The term that comes to mind is the classic psycholanalytic term "acquiescent" - the acquiescent father.
Homosexuality is almost certainly due to multiple factors and cannot be reduced soley to a faulty father-son relationship. Fathers of homosexual sons are usually also fathers of heterosexual sons--so the personality of the father is clearly not the sole cause of homosexuality. Other factors I have seen in the development of homosexuality include a hostile, feared older brother; a mother who is a very warm and attractive personality and proves more appealing to the boy than an emotionally removed father; a mother who is actively disdainful of masculinity; childhood seduction by another male; peer labelling of the boy due to poor athletic ability or timidity; in recent years, cultural factors encouraging a confused and uncertain youngster into an embracing gay community; and in the boy himself, a particularly sensitive, relatively fragile, often passive disposition.
At the same time, we cannot ignore the striking commonality of these fathers' personalities.
In two cases, the fathers were very involved and deeply committed to the treatment of their sons, but conceded that they were not emotionally present during their sons' early years. In both cases it was not personality, but circumstance that caused the fathers' emotional distance. In one case the father was a surgeon from New Jersey who reported atteding medical school while trying to provide financial support for his young family of three children. The second father, an auto mechanic from Arizona, reported that when he was only 21 years old, he was forced to marry the boy's mother because she was pregnant. He admitted never loving the boy's mother, having been physically absent from the home, and essentially having abandoned both mother and boy. Both fathers, now more mature and committed to re-establishing contact with their sons, participated enthusiastically in their therapy. But in both cases, the sons had, by then, become resistant to establishing an emotional connection with their fathers.
Attempt at Therapeutic Dialogue.

My overall impression of fathers in conjoint sessions was of a sense of helplessness, discomfort and awkwardness when required to directly interact with their sons.
These men tended not to trust psychological concepts and communication techniques and often seemed confused and easily overwhelmed with the challenge to dialogue in depth. Instructions which I offered during consultation, when followed, were followed literally, mechanically and without spontaneity. A mutual antipathy, a stubborn resistance and a deep grievance on the part of both fathers and sons was clearly observable. At times I felt myself placed in the position of "mother interpreter," a role encouraged by fathers and at times by sons. As "mother interpreter," I found myself inferring feeling and intent from the father's fragmented phrases and conveying that fuller meaning to the son, and vice versa from son to father.
Some fathers expressed concern with "saying the wrong thing," while others seemed paralyzed by fear. During dialogue, fathers demonstrated great difficulty in getting past their own self-consciousness and their own reactions to what their sons were saying. This limited their empathetic attunement to the therapeutic situation, and to their sons' position and feelings.
As their sons spoke to them, these fathers seemed blocked and unable to respond. Often they could only respond by saying that they were "too confused," "too hurt," or "too frustrated" to dialogue. One father said he was "too angry" to attend the sessions of his teenage son--a message conveyed to me by the mother. At the slightest sign of improvement in the father-son relationship, a few fathers seemed too ready to flee, concluding "Everything is okay - can I go now?"
Treatment Interventions

Before conjoint father-son sessions begin, the client should be helped to gain a clear sense of what he wants from his father. To simply expose the father to a list of complaints is of no value. He should also decide on a clear, constructive way to ask for this. Such preparation shifts the son from a position of helpless complaining, to staying centered on his genuine needs and the effective expression of them.
The Deadly Dilemma.

Eventually, within the course of conjoint sessions a particular point will be reached which I call "the deadly dilemma." This deadlock in dialogue--which seems to duplicate the earliest father-son rupture--occurs in two phases as follows:
Phase 1: With the therapist's assistance, the son expresses his needs and wants to his father. Hearing his son, the father becomes emotionally affected, so much so that he cannot respond to his son's disclosure. He is overwhelmed by his own reactions, becoming so "angered," "hurt," "upset," or "confused" that he cannot attend to his son's needs. Blocked by his own internal reactions, he is unable to give what his son asks of him.
Phase 2: In turn, the son is unable to tolerate his father's insular emotional reaction in place of the affirmative response he seeks from him. To accept his father's non-responses, the son feels he must abandon the needs he has expressed. The only recourse for the son is to retreat again to the defensive distancing which is already at the core of the father-son relationship. The son cannot empathize with the father's non-responsiveness because to do so is painfully reminiscent of childhood patterns that are associated with his own deep hurt and anger: namely the imperative, "My father's needs must always come before mine." The son's hurt and anger is in reaction to what appears to him to be "just more lame excuses" for Dad's inability to give the attention, affection or approval he has so long desired from him. Indeed, to the son this seems like Dad's old ploy, with all the associated historical pain.
This deadly dilemma originated, I believe, during the preverbal level of infancy. As one father's recollections confirmed, "My son would never look at me. I would hold his face with my hands and force him to look at me, but he would always avert his eyes." Other men have described an "unnatural indifference" to their fathers during their growing-up years.
During the course of therapy with these fathers, I began to see the deep hurt in them--a hurt that came from their sons' indifference to their attempts (however meager) to improve the relationship.
Reflecting on his now-elderly father, one client sadly recalled:
These fathers appeared unwilling or unable to be open and vulnerable to their sons; unable to reach out, to hear their sons' pain and anger with respect to them, and unable to respond honestly. Their emotional availability was blocked and they were unable to turn the relational problem around. Rather they remained removed, seemingly dispassionate and helpless.
In conjoint sessions, none of the fathers were incapable of taking the lead in dialogue. When dialogue became stagnant, they were unable to initiate communication. I believe the consistent inability of these fathers to get past their own blocks and reach out to their sons played a significant role in these boys' inability to move forward into full, normal masculine identification and heterosexuality.
Bibliography

Bieber, I. et al (1962) Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals. New York: Basic Books.
Byne, W. and Parsons, B., "Human sexual orientation: the biologic theories reappraised," Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 50:228-239, March l993.
Evans, R. (1969). Childhood parental relationships of homosexual men. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 33:129-135.
Green, Richard (l987) "The Sissy Boy Syndrome" and the Development of Homosexuality. New Haven, Ct.: Yale U. Press.
Moberly, Elizabeth (1983) Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic. Greenwood, S.C.: Attic Press.
Nicolosi, Joseph (l991) Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality; A New Clinical Approach. Northvale, N.J.: Jason Aronson, 1991.
Satinover, J. (1996). Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
Socarides, Charles (197. Homosexuality. New York: Jason Aronson.
West, D.J. (1959). Parental figures in the genesis of male homosexuality. International Journal of Social Psychiatry 5:85-97.
Zucker, K. and Bradley, S. (1995)Gender Identity Disorder and Psychosexual Problems in Children and Adolescents. N.Y.: The Guilford Press.
Zuger, Bernard (l98 Is Early Effeminate Behavior in Boys Early Homosexuality? Comprehensive Psychiatry, vol. 29, no. 5 (September/October) p. 509-519.

For more information see: Joseph Nicolosi.com.

Below is the introduction from the APA pamphlet on understanding Homosexuality. By their own admission, the APA clearly takes an activist role in the issue. This, though understandable, is inexcusable from a scientific standpoint.

I was going to highlight examples of this activism but found I would need to highlight the entire piece.

We all agree that Gays should not be subject to bigotry and should be free to live as they wish. But, this is not science - it is activism.

Since 1975, the American Psychological Association has called on psychologists to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations. The discipline of psychology is concerned with the well-being of people and groups and therefore with threats to that well-being. The prejudice and discrimination that people who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual regularly experience have been shown to have negative psychological effects. This pamphlet is designed to provide accurate information for those who want to better understand sexual orientation and the impact of prejudice and discrimination on those who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual.

Anyone who is compulsively obsessed with the idea that they are right will have no problem finding data that seems to support their erroneous position. This neither makes this position correct, nor does it make that position morally acceptable.

For example, one could argue that Hitler had a sound scientific reason to do what he did to the Jews. Even though the thought of this idea makes me physically ill, does not prevent one from making what seems like a sound, scientific case for this.

I however am done discussing this issue.

upnorth2505 said:

Rick wont admit it, but the truth is he hates queers, niggers, jews, spics. It is just that the "new ultra-right" rarely use theses words. They do not want to scare people whom they are trying to recruit.

Click to expand...

Lots of insults, thread reported to be closed.

good.......................................................................