Posted on 02/09/2005 9:51:01 AM PST by Clint N. Suhks
BTTT for later reading
Where does this doctor, William Byne, get off stating, unequivocably: "it is unethical to act in any way to promote the agenda of such a movement ["anti-gay religionists"] that is driven by fear and hatred and almost devoid of compassion"? What people is he referring to? Which group of "anti-gay religionists" is he specifically attacking? How did he come to the conclusion as to what their motivations are? How does he know that, as a group, these people are "driven by fear and hatred"? What are these people (whoever they are) not compassionate about?
Oh darn, I just sent off the email with that link saying how his arguments should remain secualr in nature...oh well.
Is that from the gay orthodoxy article? If so you must have the software to convert it from a pdf file...and if that's true could you freep mail me a copy of even post it as a thread?
No....I'm just retyping it, Clint....sorry.
But I could retype it; I'm a fast typist. But I probably couldn't do it tonight...I've run out of paper and it would take too long to look between screens, I think.
pg. 7 (247 on text): "If opinions are founded purely on the alleged expert's personal morality or subjective beliefs, then a psychiatrist is no more an expert on homosexuality than an Orthodox rabbi or a Baptist preacher."
Dr. Byne, for example, never offered any evidence for lumping Dr. Rekers with "antigay religionists." I can only speculate that it is because Dr. Rekers holds a doctorate in theology in addition to his doctorate in psychology. But Rekers is also a tenured professor of neuropsychiatry at the University of South Carolina and an internationally recognized expert on Gender Identity Disorder. Is it really so much to ask that his paper be evaluated on its merits?
NARTH, however, is their primary target.
How does he know that, as a group, these people are "driven by fear and hatred"?
If you disagree with their agenda, you are a 'homophobe' and a 'hater' and must be silenced -- Documented in replies 308, 391, 143, 68, 443, 108, 245, 243, 175, and 136 of Scripter's Index of Links thread.
See also:
Okay, I won't retype it....I did start, lol. I'm on page 2 retyping it.
”Unlike the voir dire process for selecting jurors, establishment science has no process for vetting the fairness of peer reviewers. In fact, peer reviewers are often anonymous.”
I can’t believe what I am reading. We've been had and the academic sciences need to be exposed.
Yes, I liked that quote too...and almost posted it myself. I work in the legal profession, so I'm fairly familiar with some of the procedures.
I will look at that later, Ed; thanks for posting.
Don't forget to 'connect the dots' by doing the reading exercise in reply 68 above
;o)
bmp
"... The APA blocked presentations from researchers on whether sexual orientation can be changed through counseling and therapy,11 yet it published controversial research suggesting that sex between children and adults may not be harmful and then styled itself a defender of academic freedom (prompting both houses of Congress to take the unusual step of passing a unanimous resolution of condemnation).12
Meanwhile, the American Psychiatric Association [not to be confused with APA, which is American Psychological Association] offered luridly titled presentations on counseling aspiring transsexuals.13 This creates a rather bizarre contrast.
On the one hand, "mainstream" academic/professional organizations publish research suggesting adultchild sex may not be harmful, and they endorse supportive therapy for individuals who wish to surgically alter themselves (some would say physically mutilate themselves) from one sex to the other. Yet, they denounce as unethical any healthcare professionals who offer therapy to homosexuals who wish to become heterosexuals.
In other words, it is ethical to counsel a man to have his penis removed so he can have sex as a heterosexual woman, but it's unethical to counsel a man to have sex as a heterosexual man even if he wants to have sex as a typical man..."
Yeah, I can't believe there is no voir dire process for peer review...and this crap has been going on since 1973? There needs to be and investigation. This Regent article is justification for one. It's a blatant conspiracy that needs to be exposed. OMG
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.