So much of this is not about truth at all. If it were, they have a perfectly placed target out there:

http://www.narth.com/docs/nonFactSSAEducDale.pdf

If they are really so sure of themselves, how about taking this on, point by point and demonstrating credible research discredits such???

But, this is simply not about facts — it’s about a political agenda.

There really are two arguments out there:

(1). Should people be permitted to have sex with whatever other consenting adult they desire and not be oppressed in any way for such?

(2). Should those who desire to change who they want to have sex with be free to attempt to do so (And therapists be free to help them do such)?

The, “Fact sheet,” in question claimed to be all about freedom — a value I 100% endorse. I would suggest that consistency with that value of freedom demands that the answer to the first question must be, “Yes.” But then, the same answer must also be true for the second question.

This publication is a blatant attempt to say, “Yes,” to the first question but, “No,” to the second. It’s not actually about freedom — it’s about the enforcement of an agenda.

The detractors will howl back in fury claiming that offering the option of change (Even if many HAVE been shown by studies to have successfully transitioned into heterosexuality) is creating a discriminatory and judgment driven climate for people who have same sex attractions. But, that’s roughly the same fury of the deaf community against cochlear implants…

Freedom, for it to be real, must go both directions or it’s simply not freedom at all.

Cal

I so appreciate you reading through that! I didn’t have time to wade into all that whining, but I see I came to the same conclusion in a 2 minute glance. This was my reply:

“On first glance I see angry accusatory bloggers claiming this organization is a hate group and a sham. At the moment, I have no clue who is more legit. This organization or the angry bloggers?? (I prefer people who rationally argue the studies presented and show me the flaws than those that figure calling them “conservative” or “Christian” is reason enough to say it’s all false.) But, I’ll look into this further when I have the time to spare.”

Thanks – M

ps.

Love the pics in your last post.

First — thanks! I had not followed up on any of the controvercy…

Some direct links:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alvin-mcewen/phony-medical-group-recei_b_536868.html

http://www.bloggernews.net/124263

Ok, let’s take this apart:

Phony medical group/sham — that’s like calling the Roman Catholic Church a, “Phony Church,” because you do not agree with it.

It’s there, it’s been there since 2002, there are some big names and a lot of members signed on to it. Yes, it’s conservative and, yes, it’s pissed a lot of people off but that doesn’t invalidate the voices of the highly educated men and women who are members of such — or the truth of their publication.

He doesn’t like the references used, the sites they link to or how they used his work — um, ok. Cry me a river. I’m sure the other side feels the same about his use of their research. His offense is a rather comical failure to grasp the rigors of academic debate — though meaningless…

He then cites a series of studies to validate his conclusions — for example the twin studies — (that was not a study of twins but, rather an irrelevant study of the attitude of society on sexual orientation with respect to twins), the abuse study (That actually undermines his position — though it says nothing new) and some vague skewing of a chromosome in the mothers of gay males which could mean nearly anything and is, thus, also irrelevant.

He then twists some research beyond recognition to try to discredit the obvious mortality rate increase by citing a study that focused on the tiny fraction of MARRIED gay males (You know, the ones who are not sleeping around) and found that they do not experience the same death rate. (It’s like saying, “Oh no, Speed doesn’t kill — look, all the airforce pilots that used it in the Gulf war under the medical supervision they were given are all still fine…”)

In other words, the usual…

He then protests the age of studies and the people who happen to do them — ignoring the fact that the initial paper to which this medical organization issued a response did the exact same thing. Everyone cites old and new research…

Add in some off topic rambling as to whether a child reading the site would feel confused (It was never intended for children) and a quote from Colins who doesn’t like the conclusions some other thinker reached (though he has nothing more then hopes to discredit such) — then tie it all up with a bow of whining about how he feels the site is more religious then it appears and we have the makings of:

The usual BS.

How about they instead go through the actual paper, point by point, and use real research to really discredit it? (You know, the way the American College of Pediatricians did with their own publication…) Then, perhaps, we could have a real debate.

But, then, they would have to want that debate instead of an opportunity to simply shoot the messenger.

Cal

“Many psychologists, many psychiatrists have demonstrated there exists no relationship between celibacy and pedophilia. But many others have demonstrated, and have told me recently, that there is a link between homosexuality and pedophilia. This is true, this is the problem.” — CARDINAL TARCISIO BERTONE

The usual suspects are complaining loudly about this statement (and conveniently forgetting how extensively ILGA, the International Lesbian and Gay Association, sheltered NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association — which also got welcome from the Radical Faeries… I’m sure these aren’t the only instances of Pride organizations covering for molesters).

If these shrill mouthpieces weighed the circumstances logically, they’d see how molester priests are leveraging the Pride life: as a revolving door of young tenderloin. It’s what public schools in Montreal and Vancouver are set to provide, using their new gay-friendly curricula, to feed the local meat markets.

The American College of Pediatricians has added valuable input to this debate. We just need to ensure their voices spread.

Is this true? (I got other things I need to research at the moment. And you’d want to know the answer, too.)

“It turns out that The American College of Pediatricians is a sham organization that is pushing false and msleading information. Here are a few links that discuss the sham, this first one sums up many reactions to the fake site http://www.facebook.com/l/5375d;www.huffingtonpost.com/alvin-mcewen/phony-medical-group-receib536868.html and this second one is a conservative Christian professor’s views: http://www.facebook.com/l/5375d;www.bloggernews.net/124263“

????