Same-Sex Couples Just as Committed as Heterosexual Counterparts

[Moby]

I'm sure that some how, in some way, that they will still manage to destory the American family. It's just that no one can come up with a reason why :dunno:

http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2008/01/22/hscout611918.html
01.22.08, 12:00 AM ET

TUESDAY, Jan. 22 (HealthDay News) -- Same-sex couples are as committed and happy in their romantic relationships as heterosexual couples, find two studies in the January issue of the journal Developmental Psychology.

The authors of the studies say their findings challenge the stereotype that same-sex relationships aren't as healthy or secure as heterosexual pairings.

In the first study, researchers at the University of Urbana-Champaign compared 30 committed gay male and 30 committed lesbian couples to 50 engaged and 40 older married heterosexual couples, as well as dating heterosexual couples.

The researchers found that all the couples had positive views of their relationships, but the more committed couples (gay or straight) resolved conflict better than the heterosexual dating couples.

The belief that committed same-sex relationships are "atypical, psychologically immature, or malevolent contexts of development was not supported by our findings," noted lead author Glenn I. Roisman. "Compared with married individuals, committed gay males and lesbians were not less satisfied with their relationships."

Roisman added that gay males and lesbians "were generally not different from their committed heterosexual counterparts on how well they interacted with one another, although some evidence emerged the lesbian couples were especially effective at resolving conflict."

The second study -- conducted by researchers from the University of Washington, San Diego State University and the University of Vermont -- examined how sexual orientation and legal status affected relationship quality among 65 gay male and 138 lesbian couples in civil unions, 23 gay male and 61 lesbian couples not in civil unions, and 55 married heterosexual couples.

The three-year study found that same-sex couples were similar to heterosexual couples in most relationship areas and that legal status didn't seem to be the overriding factor affecting same-sex relationships.

Regardless of civil union status, same-sex couples were more satisfied with their relationships, reported more positive feelings toward their partners, and reported less conflict than married heterosexual couples.

The researchers did find that same-sex couples not in civil unions were more likely to end their relationships than same-sex couples in civil unions or married heterosexual couples. This suggests that protections offered by a legalized relationship may have an impact on same-sex couples, said the researchers, who plan to examine that question in future research.

[Islam Rocks!]

Big news!!

So some psychologist, who is more than likely gay, wants to further the homo agenda.

[Cat slave]

I'm sure that some how, in some way, that they will still manage to destory the American family. It's just that no one can come up with a reason why :dunno:

http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2008/01/22/hscout611918.html


Well, thats the real down side to same sex unions...they cant be fruitful and
multiply which is necessary to the species/families.

[Moby]

Well, thats the real down side to same sex unions...they cant be fruitful and multiply which is necessary to the species/families.
That's the real down fall to the American economy. The Party of family values wants women to work and they don't want society to provide health care, time off or any other services to working families with children.

If one parent stays home the economy falls apart.

More heterosexual families are not having babies. There's plenty of babies that need to be adopted. If a child is not adopted they often end up a burden on society.

No abortion, no services and no adoption for gay couples.

I don't think there's a down side to gay couples getting married. I think there's a down side to not letting them raise children that need the love and the care.

[Islam Rocks!]

I don't think there's a down side to gay couples getting married. I think there's a down side to not letting them raise children that need the love and the care.No child should be adopted by homo couples.

They would influence the kids to turn gay, and would more than likely molest them and call it love.

[Independent Harry]

No child should be adopted by homo couples.

They would influence the kids to turn gay, and would more than likely molest them and call it love.

hahahahhahaa, that's funny, because only gay people have children right...moron.

[Moby]

They would influence the kids to turn gay, and would more than likely molest them and call it love.
Actually the highest rate of child molesters in American happens to be in the inside church. There is no evidence that gay couples are more likely to molest children.

[Cat slave]

That's the real down fall to the American economy. The Party of family values wants women to work and they don't want society to provide health care, time off or any other services to working families with children.

If one parent stays home the economy falls apart.

More heterosexual families are not having babies. There's plenty of babies that need to be adopted. If a child is not adopted they often end up a burden on society.

No abortion, no services and no adoption for gay couples.

I don't think there's a down side to gay couples getting married. I think there's a down side to not letting them raise children that need the love and the care.

Good point. There are already enough people to go around and make families.
Too many people want their own biological offspring so there is a little copy
of themselves.

We are over taxed. Thats why everyone has to work. The solution is not
have gov provide everything....who will give the gov its spending money. Us.
How? Work. More and more. The gov produces nothing but red tape and
strings and a hit squad we have to employ to intimidate us....the IRS.

[Cat slave]

hahahahhahaa, that's funny, because only gay people have children right...moron.

I dont think all homos as you say are child molesters. I think its two different
subjects. Incest is another category.

[Islam Rocks!]

hahahahhahaa, that's funny, because only gay people have children right.By being gay they are already perverts.

So why would anyone want to have children live with sexual deviants?

You would be putting small children with potential child molesters.

Not a good idea!!

[Cat slave]

Dawud strikes again.

[Little Red Dog]

Big news!!

So some psychologist, who is more than likely gay, ....

And your evidence that any of the researchers are gay, is .... where?

....
wants to further the homo agenda.

What, exactly, is this "homo agenda"? And could it possibly be any more destructive than the agenda of radical Islam?

[Little Red Dog]

No child should be adopted by homo couples.

They would influence the kids to turn gay, and would more than likely molest them and call it love.

Why don't you have an actual conversation with an actual openly gay person? Why are you so afraid to find out the facts from someone who actually knows what they are talking about?

Talk to any gay person and they will tell you that they were born gay. They didn't "turn gay". And, BTW: most gay people are the children of straight couples. Rarely, is their a case where one of the immediate parents are gay.

I would rather have a child of mine adopted by a loving, committed pair of homos, than an intolerant, ignorant, religious bigot.

In a heartbeat.

[Independent Harry]

By being gay they are already perverts.

So why would anyone want to have children live with sexual deviants?

You would be putting small children with potential child molesters.

Not a good idea!!

When I was dating my ex, we did some crazy sexual stuff, sorry I'm not mr missionary. But she was kinky so was I, that makes me a sexual deviant, I'm not gay, nor would I molest children. So I don't see how being a sexual deviant creates a higher risk of child molestation.

[Islam Rocks!]

Homosexuality is a choice. There is No such thing as a gay gene.

Why would I want to talk to a sodomite?

They are mentally ill people who need treatment and should be quaritined or locked up.

Sodomites are vile and disgusting people who are walking disease containers.

To allow them to adopt children is a terrible form of child abuse.

[Independent Harry]

Homosexuality is a choice. There is No such thing as a gay gene.

Why would I want to talk to a sodomite?

They are mentally ill people who need treatment and should be quaritined or locked up.

Sodomites are vile and disgusting people who are walking disease containers.

To allow them to adopt children is a terrible form of child abuse.

So even though I have given it to a girl in da booty, (sodomy for those less hip people) I should never be allowed to have children. What about the fact that the majority of gay people don't actually have anal intercourse. And the fact that there is a population of heterosexual men that enjoy anal stimulus. Do the rules still apply to the gay people that don't practice sodomy, or should we follow the same rules for the heterosexual men...

[Islam Rocks!]

Hererosexual sex, is sex between a man and a woman. What ever they do is still heterosexual sex.

Homosexual sex, is any type of sex between two people of the same sex.

[Moby]

By being gay they are already perverts.

So why would anyone want to have children live with sexual deviants?

You would be putting small children with potential child molesters.

Not a good idea!!
We allow Catholics and Republicans to have children and in the past few years both groups have spent a lot of time and money supporting the perverts by protecting the guilty.

There is far more evidence that Republicans and Catholics are tolerant and excepting of molestations then homosexuals.

[Little Red Dog]

Homosexuality is a choice. There is No such thing as a gay gene.

Why would I want to talk to a sodomite?

They are mentally ill people who need treatment and should be quaritined or locked up.

Sodomites are vile and disgusting people who are walking disease containers.

To allow them to adopt children is a terrible form of child abuse.


You seriously need to educate yourself. Why would you want to talk to a sodomite? To know the truth. Unless you don't want to know the truth. Which appears to be the case.

It seems that you would rather wallow in your misinformation and ignorance. (Which, ironically, is what you so frequently accuse haters of Islam of doing.)

Being Muslim is a choice. You ask for people who hate Islam and everything it stands for to educate themselves and not be persuaded by ignorant bigots who, you claim, are telling lies about your religon; about your choice of "lifestyle".

You get upset when people refer to Muslims using terms like "vicious animals" and the like. You say it's because they are ignorant; they don't truly understand Islam. You direct them to web sites and readings that you say will give them the other side of the story. You suggest they go to mosques, seek out Muslims, talk to everyday Muslims and get to know their side of the story. You ask that people be informed before passing judgement on something that, for you, is an inextricable part of what makes you, you.

Yet you wear your own ignorance like a badge of honor. You refuse to educate yourself. And you refuse to extend the same courtesies of education and understanding to others that you wish others would give you.

Be the change yourself that you wish to see in others.

[Islam Rocks!]

Thank You for the well thought out post LRD

But in my heart I believe 100% that the long term homosexual agenda will destroy the familys and morals of America.

[Islam Rocks!]

There is far more evidence that Republicans and Catholics are tolerant and excepting of molestations then homosexuals.That may be true, but there is the old saying "that two wrongs, don't make a right".

[Little Red Dog]

Thank You for the well thought out post LRD

But in my heart I believe 100% that the long term homosexual agenda will destroy the familys and morals of America.

In other words, you will make no effort to get all the information pertaining to the facts.

I will leave you to ask yourself then, if it is right for you to ask other people to do something that you are not prepared to do yourself.

[Im a Bad Girl]

Homosexuality is a choice. There is No such thing as a gay gene.

Why would I want to talk to a sodomite?

They are mentally ill people who need treatment and should be quaritined or locked up.

Sodomites are vile and disgusting people who are walking disease containers.

To allow them to adopt children is a terrible form of child abuse.

I think they might be locking up Muslims in this country before they start locking up homosexuals.

Unless OBama gets elected and can convince people that Muslims aren't inheriently bad or looking for 72 virgins to suicide for.

[Im a Bad Girl]

However, there is strong evidence that it may be foolish to allow homosexual partners to adopt children. None of it based on the fear of influencing the child to be gay or sexually abusing/misusing the child. But on actual real concerns.



http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50




One could argue though that if America would allow her Homosexuals to marry some of the concerns would disappear.


But that's another topic.

[Cat slave]

We allow Catholics and Republicans to have children and in the past few years both groups have spent a lot of time and money supporting the perverts by protecting the guilty.

There is far more evidence that Republicans and Catholics are tolerant and excepting of molestations then homosexuals.


Good come back!

[Cat slave]

Well, I have one more thing to say on this subject and it is not about same
sex people and kids. During my 18 years of having a pet sitting business I
had several same sex households and without exception they were the nicest,
kindest people who loved their pets very much. I think they make great friends
and I dont believe for one second any of them would harm a child in any way.
Thats all I have to say about "gay" people!

[Islam Rocks!]

In other words, you will make no effort to get all the information pertaining to the facts.

I will leave you to ask yourself then, if it is right for you to ask other people to do something that you are not prepared to do yourself.LRD I have read many reports and have gathered a ton of information that backs up what I say and believe about Sodomites and their lifestyle.

[Islam Rocks!]

During my 18 years of having a pet sitting business I
had several same sex households and without exception they were the nicest,
kindest people who loved their pets very much.
Adolph Hitler was an avid dog lover.

He had a pet German Shepard named "Blondi."

Hitler had many pictures taken of him with his dog.

He loved his pet very much and was one of the nicest and kindest people ever.

[Little Red Dog]

LRD I have read many reports and have gathered a ton of information that backs up what I say and believe about Sodomites and their lifestyle.

I have no doubt that you have read reports. However, I question your sources. Somehow, I suspect that none of them are secular, or scientific.

If they were, you would know by now that being gay is not a choice, and that gays are not inherently child molesters.

And that's just for starters.

[Islam Rocks!]

If they were, you would know by now that being gay is not a choice, and that gays are not inherently child molesters.






Study after nationwide study has yielded estimates of male
homosexuality that range between 1% and 3%. So, overall, perhaps 2% of adults regularly indulge in homosexuality. Yet they account for between 20% to 40% of all molestations of children.

If 2% of the population is responsible for 20% to 40% of something as
socially and personally troubling as child molestation, something must
be desperately wrong with that 2%. Not every homosexual is a child
molester. But enough gays do molest children so that the risk of a
homosexual molesting a child is 10 to 20 times greater than that of a
heterosexual.

Common sense will also tell you if a person is involved in one form of
immoral behavior, they would be more likely to be involved in another similarly related immoral behaviour.

[Islam Rocks!]

If they were, you would know by now that being gay is not a choice.

Being gay is a choice. Just like any other choice in life.

[Cat slave]

Adolph Hitler was an avid dog lover.

He had a pet German Shepard named "Blondi."

Hitler had many pictures taken of him with his dog.

He loved his pet very much and was one of the nicest and kindest people ever.

That only serves to prove there is some good in everybody. Whats your
good point?

[Little Red Dog]

Study after nationwide study has yielded estimates of male
homosexuality that range between 1% and 3%. So, overall, perhaps 2% of adults regularly indulge in homosexuality. Yet they account for between 20% to 40% of all molestations of children.

...

Get your facts straight.

There are NUMEROUS studies that clearly indicate that sexual orientation is not a choice. Did you "choose" to be straight? I certainly didn't. Yet I have been straight all my life. This was not a choice for me. It is just who I am. And a great deal of eposure to gays and lesbians has in no way convinced - or tempted me to be otherwise.

As for your presumed link between child molestation and gays - utter crap.

Research has proved that child molesters are a separate category of orientation. These people molest children because they are not sexually attracted to adults. Homosexuals are no more likely to fall in this category than hetrosexuals. As several studies have shown.

...many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women.

Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as "fixated;" 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that "in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women....There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males..." (p.180).


Other researchers have taken different approaches, but have similarly failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994).

In yet another approach to studying adult sexual attraction to children, some Canadian researchers observed how homosexual and heterosexual adult men responded to slides of males and females of various ages (child, pubescent, and mature adult). All of the research subjects were first screened to ensure that they preferred physically mature sexual partners. In some of the slides shown to subjects, the model was clothed; in others, he or she was nude. The slides were accompanied by audio recordings. The recordings paired with the nude models described an imaginary sexual interaction between the model and the subject. The recordings paired with the pictures of clothed models described the model engaging in neutral activities (e.g., swimming). To measure sexual arousal, changes in the subjects' penis volume were monitored while they watched the slides and listened to the audiotapes. The researchers found that homosexual males responded no more to male children than heterosexual males responded to female children (Freund et al., 1989).

Science cannot prove a negative. Thus, these studies do not prove that homosexual or bisexual males are no more likely than heterosexual males to molest children. However, each of them failed to prove the alternative hypothesis that homosexual males are more likely than heterosexual men to molest children or to be sexually attracted to children or adolescents.

Reflecting the results of these and other studies, the mainstream view among researchers and professionals who work in the area of child sexual abuse is that homosexual and bisexual men do not pose any special threat to children.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

You can personally object to homosexuality on religious grounds. That is your perogative.

But you have absolutely no right - and no proof - to slander an entire group of people simply because you disagree with their "choice".

[Islam Rocks!]

But you have absolutely no right - and no proof - to slander an entire group of people simply because you disagree with their "choice".
I have every right to say and show that sodomites are filthy and disgusting. And that the vile and nasty lifestyle they lead is nothing but perverse.

Plain and simple. It is a choice!!!!!


Urban Legends

One of the most persistent and culturally damaging Homosexual Urban Legends is the erroneous claim by homosexual activists that they are "born gay" or that their sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence and is fixed and unchangeable.

One or both of these urban legends has been perpetuated not only by homosexual activist groups but by prestigious organizations like the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association.

The American Psychological Association, for example, features a Q&A section on its web site that deals with sexual orientation. To the question, "Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?" the APA answers: "No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed."

In a follow up question, "Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?" the APA answers: "No. … The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable."

Current research from professional organizations like the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) dispute the APA's pro-homosexual position.

Regrettably, however, homosexuals have used this particular urban legend to fight for anti-discrimination laws and for "hate crime" laws that provide special legal protections for homosexuals not accorded to heterosexuals. They have also used this fraudulent claim to push for homosexual recruitment programs in public schools under the guise of providing "safe schools" for "homosexual" teenagers. Homosexuals have also demanded sensitivity training for those who are repelled by homosexual behavior. Currently, transgendered individuals (those who cross-dress or are undergoing sex change operations), are also now claiming to be "born transgender." Transgenders are demanding federal laws to protect them from societal disapproval. (See TVC's Special Report on this: "A Gender Identity Goes Mainstream.")

Great cultural and legal changes have taken place in our society because of this Homosexual Urban Legend-but it is slowly but surely being debunked. This is being done not only by conservative psychologists and psychiatrists, but by the admissions of homosexual researchers themselves.

Dr. Robert Spitzer, a NARTH associate, was one of the main forces behind the American Psychiatric Association's 1973 decision to remove homosexuality as a mental illness from the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM).

Dr. Spitzer is now convinced that men and women who have a homosexual orientation can change through therapy. His most recent findings were published in Archives of Sexual Behavior (Vol. 32, No. 5, October 2003, pp. 403-417).

NARTH summarized his findings on its web site. Dr. Spitzer interviewed some 200 men and women who reported changes from homosexual to heterosexual orientation that lasted five years or longer. According to Spitzer, his findings show that "the mental health professionals should stop moving in the direction of banning therapy that has, as a goal, a change in sexual orientation."

One of the most compelling articles to dispel the notion that homosexuality is genetically determined, fixed, and unchangeable is: "The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science: In Their Own Words: Gay Activists Speak About Science, Morality, Philosophy," by Drs. A. Dean Byrd, Shirley Cox, and Jeffrey W. Robinson. This essay is published on the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality web site.

The authors of this study carefully quote a number of homosexual researchers who have worked for years to locate a "gay gene" or some other genetic basis for homosexuality. They have failed and are now admitting that such evidence may never be found.

Homosexual researcher Dean Hamer, for example, attempted to link male homosexuality to a bit of DNA located at the tip of the X chromosome. He has written: "Homosexuality is not purely genetic…environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay. . . . I don't think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay."

Homosexual researcher Simon LeVay, who studied the hypothalamic differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men noted: "It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain."

Homosexual researchers Bailey and Pillard conducted the famous "twins study" quoted by homosexual activist groups to promote the idea that being "gay" is genetic. The study found that among those twins studied, the researchers found a rate of homosexuality of 52% (both twins homosexuals); 22% among non-identical twins; and a 9.2% rate among non-twins.

This was hailed by homosexual activists groups and by the media as supposedly proving that homosexuality is genetic. The study actually proved the opposite. As Byrd, et al, note: "This study actually provides support for environmental factors. If homosexuality were in the genetic code, all of the identical twins would have been homosexual."

In short, the three most famous studies in recent years that homosexual activists use to claim that homosexuality is genetic prove no such thing. In fact, two of the authors of these studies admit their research has not proven a genetic basis to homosexuality.

[mwillman]

Being gay is a choice. Just like any other choice in life.

This just proves you know nothing about which you speak.

Did you choose to be left or right handed?

Did you choose to have black/blond/red hair? ignoring dyes.

Did you choose to have blue or brown eyes?

[Islam Rocks!]

This just proves you know nothing about which you speak.

Did you choose to be left or right handed?

Did you choose to have black/blond/red hair? ignoring dyes.

Did you choose to have blue or brown eyes?All of these are genetic

So what's your point?

There is NO gay gene


Choice is things like becomming a lawyer, doctor, drug user, bum, homo, etc.

Choice is choosing to be honest or dishonest.

Choice is choosing to be a kind person or an evil person

[mwillman]

Wrong

The latest science does show strong evidence that homosexuality is genetic.

It also shows that it is something that exists in many species, meaning there are gay monkeys and gay dolphines. Of course monkeys and dolphines dont hate like you so Im sure the monkey gays are much happier.

[Islam Rocks!]

Wrong

The latest science does show strong evidence that homosexuality is genetic.

It also shows that it is something that exists in many species, meaning there are gay monkeys and gay dolphines. Of course monkeys and dolphines dont hate like you so Im sure the monkey gays are much happier.So far there is NO evidence to back up the fake homos are genetic theory.

There is just a sodomite agenda that would love to prove homosexuality is genetic.

But so far they have NOTHING!! It's only a quack Theory!!!

Just a bunch of antecedal and pseudo science to try and back up their bogus claims.

[mwillman]

Yea, Tell me islam what you know about genetic science?

I wont bother arguing with you becuase your hate and fear blind you and that isnt something that can be argued away.

[Little Red Dog]

I have every right to say and show that sodomites are filthy and disgusting. And that the vile and nasty lifestyle they lead is nothing but perverse.

That's what I said. You have that right. You do not, however, have the right to state that an entire group of people are child molesters. Unless you have the proof. Which you do not.

Just like I have a right to say that Islam is inherently oppressive to women. But I do no have the right to say that all Muslim men beat women, or that by being Muslim, they are inherently so inclined.

..
Current research from professional organizations like the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) dispute the American Psychological Association's pro-homosexual position.

Let's clear up a couple of points here:

One of NARTH's three co-founders, Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, is a frequent speaker for Focus on the Family's "we're no longer queer" Love Won Out conferences.

Another of its founders, Dr. Charles Socarides, had an openly gay son, which he admitted prompted him to start NARTH. Interestingly, Socarides maintained that homosexuality was neither immoral nor sinful. Something you should perhaps consider if you're going to quote his organization's blather.

NARTH advocates the use of reparative therapy - where the patient is "changed" back to straight - as its answer to being gay. Reparative therapy has long been rejected by the psychiatric and medical community (http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html)as unethical and ineffective.

The many organizations which reject reparative therapy include: the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of School Administrators, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Education Association.

No peer-reviewed study has ever been published on reparative therapy. No longitudinal study has ever been conducted into its long-term effectiveness and hazards. However, there is sufficient anectdotal evidence that reparative therapy is not only ineffective, but often promotes feelings guilt and anxiety, while having no effect on the person's sexuality.

As an example of how well reparative therapy works, consider the recent case of one Christopher Austin, an "ex-gay" counselor specializing in reparative therapy. A graduate of reparative therapy himself, Mr. Austin frequently spoke at "e-gay" conferences. However, in 2007, Mr. Austin was convicted of sexually assulting a male client. Penetration was involved.

On the Evergreen International (a Mormon psychiatric organization focused of "healing" sexual disorders), Mr. Austin is described thusly (http://www.evergreeninternational.org/Speakers.htm)(the emphasis is mine):

Christopher Austin is a therapist specializing in homosexual and sexual addiction recovery. He and his wife are therapists at Christian counseling centers in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex. He is the creator of RENEW, a multi-dimensional treatment approach for men struggling with homosexuality, and has written a treatment program called Cleaning Out the Closet. His wife Karla runs programs for spouses of husbands who struggle with homosexuality. They are the parents of three boys.

Oh, the irony. And pity the three unfortunate children who have shared a home with - and no doubt been frequently molested by - this pervert/pedophile. And yet he was "cured" by the same treatment NARTH advances.

And let us not forget John Paulk, married with two children, poster boy for Focus on the Family and the "ex-gay" movement. He even made the cover of Newsweek. Yet in September, 2000, Mr. Paulk was photographed leaving a gay bar in Washington D.C. , where the patrons claimed he had spent over an hour flirting with various men.

Mr. Paulk now lives and works in Oregon, where he has a catering business staffed by burly young men (http://www.mezzaluna.biz/photos.php)in sleeveless Ts.

BTW: NARTH is the ONLY "psychological organization" which advocates reparative therapy. And when you consider that NARTH has about 1,100 members, compared to the 477,000 research, education, and mental health professionals who have denounced reparative therapy, well...

Dr. Robert Spitzer, a NARTH associate, is ... convinced that men and women who have a homosexual orientation can change through therapy. ...Dr. Spitzer interviewed some 200 men and women who reported changes from homosexual to heterosexual orientation that lasted five years or longer.

Are you f'ing kidding me? "Five years or longer"? 200 men and women? That is hardly a viable stastical sample of anything.

...a number of homosexual researchers who have worked for years to locate a "gay gene" or some other genetic basis for homosexuality. They have failed and are now admitting that such evidence may never be found.

Elementary logic 101: the absence of evidence is not, in itself, proof that a condition does not exist. For example, ther is no empirical proof that God exists. Conversely, there is no empirical proof that God does NOT exist.

And I really love this one:
Homosexual researchers Bailey and Pillard conducted the famous "twins study" ... the researchers found a rate of homosexuality of 52% (both twins homosexuals); 22% among non-identical twins; and a 9.2% rate among non-twins.

This was hailed by homosexual activists groups and by the media as supposedly proving that homosexuality is genetic. The study actually proved the opposite. As Byrd, et al, note: "This study actually provides support for environmental factors. If homosexuality were in the genetic code, all of the identical twins would have been homosexual."

... a conclusion that is so flawed as to get this moron laughed out of any competent high school science class.

My suggestion: If you're going to claim your bigotry is justified by evidence, you're going to have to work a little harder.

[Little Red Dog]

BTW: The NARTH position on pedophilia:

Pedophilia

Early sexual experiences with an older, same-sex person are commonly
reported by our homosexual clients. And some studies do suggest that such experiences may be more common among homosexuals than heterosexuals; in proportion to their numbers, that is, homosexuals may be more likely to sexually abuse a same-sex minor.

However, the data remains inconclusive for several reasons.

Studies have not always been able to determine the sexual orientation of the same-sex molester (was he a heterosexual man crossing over into same-sex behavior? a bisexual? or a homosexual?) Also, clinical reports suggest that a very substantial proportion of homosexual molestation is not reported to adults or legal authorities because the child was ashamed, fearful or considered the same-sex contact with an older person to have been "consensual."

For these and other reasons, it is difficult to come to a conclusive answer on the basis of the evidence now available.

Looks like even they don't agree with you that homosexuals are a bunch of child molesters.

[Islam Rocks!]

LRD we could set here all day and post pro and con articles to support our views.

Let me put it this way. If one of my children wanted to join a sports team, Boy Scouts, or any club that had a homosexual as one of the adult leaders of the organization.

I would refuse to allow my child to participate for two reasons.

First, I would worry about my kids physical safety.

Secondly, I wouldn't want my child to be influenced by interaction with this person.

I am not being a bigot. I am being a concerned parent.

[mwillman]

Yes, you are being a bigot.

Judging someone based on sexuality, race, religion is being a bigot.

You should worry more about conservative men then you should worry about homosexuals since all the stats show that the vast majority of child molesters are conservative straight men not homosexuals.

[Little Red Dog]

LRD we could set here all day and post pro and con articles to support our views.

Let me put it this way. If one of my children wanted to join a sports team, Boy Scouts, or any club that had a homosexual as one of the adult leaders of the organization.

I would refuse to allow my child to participate for two reasons.

First, I would worry about my kids physical safety.

Secondly, I wouldn't want my child to be influenced by interaction with this person.

I am not being a bigot. I am being a concerned parent.

You can put lipstick on a pig and make it pretty. But it's still a just pig wearing lipstick.

News Flash: Not all homosexuals wear their sexual orientation like a flashing light on their foreheads.

Sure you got your flaming queens or your really butchy dykes. But there are lots and lots of "normal" looking, "normal" acting homosexuals. Haven't you heard of "lipstick lesbians"? Haven't you seen the news reports about NFL and NBA players who have "come out"?

Your children have already had interactions with homosexuals. You just don't know who they are.

For example, I met a guy several years ago. He had been with his partner for 10 years. He is an elementary school teacher in a somewhat rough neighborhood. He was also a 4-time Teacher of the Year, and at the time I met him, had been nominated for 5th time.

Many of his kids came from very dysfunctional homes, and he would go out of his way - on his personal time - to get them enrolled in after-school programs, additional tutoring, and such. This while the parents of these kids wouldn't get off their asses to give their kids a chance. He loved his job, and he loved his kids. We talked about NAMBLA, and the veins actually popped out on this guy's forehead. He hates them like I hate Bush. But when he talked about his kids, his face lit up like it was illuminated.

He was also very much in the closet in his public life. He was terrified of losing his job if anyone found out he was gay.

The sad thing was that he had to live a double life. But he had been teaching for 8 years, and no one had figured it out. In fact, some of his co-workers would try to set him up with their female friends. That's how good he was at concealing himself.

Fact is, IR, whether you like it or not, there are many, many gays and lesbians who don't fit your stereotypes. And "they" work in every part of our society. Including some of the most macho professions. You don't know who they are - and you shouldn't - because their sex lives are their own damn business. And should be.

If you think you "know" who's gay and who isn't, you're going to have to spend the rest of your life trying to figure it out. And seriously, don't you have anything better to do with your time?

[Islam Rocks!]

If you think you "know" who's gay and who isn't, you're going to have to spend the rest of your life trying to figure it out. And seriously, don't you have anything better to do with your time?
Honestly LRD I don't spend much of my time thinking about this subject.

If I come across an obvious gay, I will avoid them.

An example would be if I was at a store and a gay salesman want to sell me something. I would tell him that I ws just looking, and then go and find a normal salesman to wait on me.

[Little Red Dog]

Assuming that you know he's gay. And if you don't?

You just got served.

Because the point I'm trying to make - and which you keep avoiding - is that people don't always fit your neat little stereotypes.

Flip the situation: Let's say there's an obviously Muslim person (obvious from their dress) working in a store. Would you not call me a bigot if I insisted on being served by an obviously non-Muslim person? Or if I refused to let a Muslim waiter serve me in a restaurant? Or refused to let a Muslim teach my children something like, say, art studies?

The knife cuts both ways. Live and let live.