Aineo wrote: You have quite a double standard for deciding what is and is not true. Regardless of when a psychologist or psychiatrist observed spontaneous change in sexual preference is immaterial. If you took the time to read what I posted, those who changed their orientation were not seeking counseling for change; they had other issues that once resolved resulted in a change of orientation, therefore when this happened (pre or post APA decision) is immaterial to this discussion since the counseling has nothing to do with changing sexual orientation.

:roll: You don't get it, don't you? The studies were old and faulty in that they don't differentiate homosexual behavior from homosexual attraction. How hard is it to understand that?!? One of Kinsey's criticism is the fact that he constantly associated homosexuality with homosexual acts when there are millions of heterosexual men and women that have had engaged homosexual acts in the past. Aineo, your ignorance is staggering.

As to the Kinsey Institute, since psychologists and psychiatrists use Kinsey what some Christian's feel about these studies is immaterial to this discussion.

It was a remark about the irony of it. If Christians can criticize legitimate problems within Kinsey's studies, so can others.

Also if you are going to disregard qualified mental health professionals such as Dr. Throckmorton or Dr. Satinover simply because of their faith then if you don't disqualify mental health professionals for the sexual orientation you are being a hypocrite.

I'll say this once more and I won't say it again. Dr. Throckmorton and Dr. Satinover's books are completely irrelevant to the discussion. I explained it numerous times and I won't repeat myself again.

When any mental health professional quotes an accepted professional journal then yes I do expect you to take what the journal states at face value. Just because NARTH was the organization that compiled the information does not mean the information is false.

Not when they use old and faulty studies to back their positions when better, credible research done in recent years show the opposite.

As to what is posted concerning pedophilia on Fathers for Life and the Family Research Institute, it happens to be true. There is a movement among mental health professionals to normalize pedophilia, which started a couple years ago.

February 15, 2001

When the psychologists and psychiatrists of America surfaced in their campaign to normalize pedophilia in 1999, Massachusetts News was one of the first to alert the public.

As a result of the publicity, there was a unanimous condemnation of the psychologists by Congress which resulted in an apology from the psychologists.

http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/200 ... rrape4.htm

There is a controversy swirling around psychology circles these
days. It has to do with pedophilia, which some psychologists now argue
is less harmful than we all believe.
The matter was provoked by an article in the American Psychological
Association's Psychological Bulletin. Bruce Rind, Phillip Tromovitch
and Robert Bauserman conclude that the negative effects of child
sexual abuse have been overstated. ''The self-reported effects data do
not support the assumption of widescale psychological harm from (child
sexual abuse),'' they write.
In addressing sexual relations between adults and children, and
particularly men and boys, they introduce phrases such as ''a willing
encounter with positive reactions.'' They want psychologists to dump
judgmental terms like child abuse and molestation in favour of
value-free terms like ''adult-child sex.'' And they would prefer
people talk of ''level of sexual intimacy'' instead of ''severity of
abuse.''
The authors claim their intention was to differentiate between
willing and coerced acts, and negative and positive childhood sexual
experiences. But they fail to differentiate between homosexual and
heterosexual experiences, and to address the issue of how young
children can give consent.
http://tanadineen.com/COLUMNIST/Columns/Pedophilia.htm

In fact the ACLU has decided to do legal work for NAMBLA. ACLU to Defend Pedophile Group Associated Press

And how is that related to homosexuality? Sounds to me that it's nothing more than an unrelated article on pedophilia that was designed to get readers to equate pedophilia with homosexuality. Many ex-gay groups tend to use this sort of intellectual dishonesty, so I'm not exactly surprised here.

There are homosexual pedophiles and there are heterosexual pedophiles and since the media has a double standard for reporting on pedophiles the homosexual pedophiles get the most coverage unless a girl is murdered. So if you want to blame anyone for the general public's perception linking pedophiles with homosexuals blame the media.

However, so you will know where I stand on linking pedophiles with the gay community this is sheer lunacy unless you link heterosexual pedophiles with the straight community. Girls are molested in greater numbers than boys. However man/boy molesters victimize more boys than man/girl molesters victimize girls.

And what makes you think 'Fathers for Life' is justified in linking pedophilia with homosexuality?

No, I didn't bother since the argument you are trying to make with those books are irrelevant to the matter at hand. I explained this to you numerous times and I hate repeating myself.

This only demonstrates that you will not accept what is written by psychologists and psychiatrists in textbooks or other books since they prove the APA is not sharing the whole truth, which effectively demonstrates you are just as bigoted and prejudiced as those you denounce.

No, this only means that I don't have the time to read something that is irrelevant to the discussion.

Appealing to authority again? It's nice they have credentials but if their work is disjoint from their credentials, then I have every reason to be skeptic of their work. The same goes with Paul Cameron who's work has been nothing but a disgrace to the field of psychiatry.

It seems that Cameron is the only person you want to dispute.

I used him as an example to show the logical fallacy in your argument. He is by no means the only person I have disputed as observed earlier.

Jeffrey B. Satinover, M.D curriculum vita I think Dr. Satinover is more than qualified to be taken seriously.

Irrelevant as mentioned before.

You know lemmein, some of your remarks only demonstrate just how sophomoric you are. The Journal of General Psychology, and other professional journals will be my made area of research. Did I claim Fathers for Life and the American Family Institute qualified as professional journals? I don’t think so.

You're criticizing me of being sophomoric when you're trying to convince me with unprofessional journals? Really, I highly doubt my judgment is as bad as yours.

However, the fact they quote professional journals that show you are totally out in left field is a plus.

:roll: Yeah, professional journals done 60 years ago that are flawed in sampling data and sexual orientation categorization.