16 Sep 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieJoe Dallas is the guy in the OP video.
He has a degree in philosophy, divinity and history as well. Why he is wearing a lab coat I dunno.
BS in Philosophy and History, Towson University
MDiv, Oral Roberts University
PhD in Apologetics, Westminister Theological Seminary
http://www.seu.edu/academics/faculty/jhdavis/
If he is Davis then who is Joe Dallas?
16 Sep 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhich study were you citing when you mentioned the "up to 46%" statistic?
He cited that part which stated that the percentages were much lower than previously thought in the Australian study. It had been previously suggested that a biological element resulted in fifty percent of self identifying homosexual twins being likely to engage in homosexual behavior. The Australian study puts it at twenty percent and sites the re ...[text shortened]... y name and may i suggest that you get off your intellectually lazy a$$ and do your own research,
16 Sep 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDo you have a link to the study in question? I can't imagine you'd take a man you've described as morally reprehensible (for his activities in exactly the same field of work) at his word without double checking. Right?
Its in the video
16 Sep 15
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFYes but you're not getting it until you watch the video i don't see why i should discuss a presentation with someone that refuses to watch it.
Do you have a link to the study in question? I can't imagine you'd take a man you've described as morally reprehensible (for his activities in exactly the same field of work) at his word without double checking. Right?
16 Sep 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf I've missed a bit where the 26 studies are revealed and where they can be found, tell me at which minute this can be found.
Yes but you're not getting it until you watch the video i don't see why i should discuss a presentation with someone that refuses to watch it.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
16 Sep 15
4 edits
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemI think we must be careful with findings that seem to confirm things we want to believe. Confirmation bias is insidious and our ego and emotions really don't want us to bother looking for it in our own reasoning.
I think you should take seriously into account that the speaker here was the very psychologist who MOVED that homosexuality be dropped from the list of mental illnesses.
In other words he complains that the SCIENCE of the matter was overshadowed by political activism. As he spoke he was STILL positive to people choosing to be homosexual if they wish.
In that video and even more so in the other, his complaint is that his more scientific attitude towards the study was circumvented by the control of the APA exercised by political activism.
In case you forget already, this guy is OK with gayness. But he will NOT lie and say that SOME people wanted OUT and that SOME people were damaged, and that SOME people did change.
HIs attitude is one of REALISM and he bemoans that politics have skewed what was the intention of a more inclusive attitude of psychologist about homosexuality.
Did you watch ?
2011 NARTH Conference Dr. Nicholas Cummings
He KNOWS all about what happened in San Fransisco inside out.
He speaks of the perfect spreading ground for venereal disease.
He says the Civil Rights issue of Gay movement overshadowed the real clinical needs of thousands of people. These people came for HELP.
I had a brother DIE out there in the Gay capital of the US. This is personal with me. I lost my younger brother to that "experimental" Gay utopia.
Look, watch the video and come back and scold me all you want.
I'll take some balancing from you.
But some of this has to be faced up to.
2011 NARTH Conference Dr. Nicholas Cummings
Even with a scientific study, other likely possibilities that lead to the same result must be eliminated. Otherwise, the conclusion drawn is not objective.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suspect that you have rose colored glasses on in this matter.
For example, isn't is possible that gays want to change because people in their lives have treated them horribly because they were gay?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some wanted out because they were sick. Some wanted to find the perfect match and were weary of sleeping with multitudes of partners in order to find that one.
You don't think this can cause a person to be miserably depressed ?
This is the guy who said in essence " Let's not call this a mental illness anymore. " And he STILL believes it is not a disease.
The picketers protested that Gays CANNOT change. He says you have a right to be gay but make no mistake, some came for HELP. Some came for HELP.
And you seem to want to say all that is because of societal pressures. That is an easy excuse. Suppose we say people coming in with lung cancer, dying, are just being too blackballed by society ?
It is a close analogy.
I'd think you'd have to check for that before assuming that the root cause of the 'wounds and scars' was being homosexual or acting homosexual.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not the expert. But person is an expert on the medical side of the matter.
He protests against the ideological position and political activism that took over the American Psychological Association and damaged that SCIENCE of helping people who wanted help.
Myself, I think that the human need to be loved and accepted is so strong that people will betray their own inner nature at times, or forgo their own desires, if that's what it takes to gain acceptance from their families and friends. It's not easy to be true to yourself it means cutting out 10, 20, 30+ people you really care about out of your life.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He says "The people in APA who might change it are leaving it in discuss." [ close paraphrase ] see about 51:00 or a few seconds before.
The APA was picketed by people who accused them of causing gays to commit suicide. They did not realize that they were talking to Dr. Nicholuas Cummings, who opened the APA up to no longer treat homosexuality as a mental disease.
Have any studies been done that take social and family bias against homosexuality into account?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I gather that these clinical psychologists and psychiatrists consists of responsible people who want to get to the bottom of the matter in a scientific way.
He speaks of one doctor was thrown out of a group because they believed that if you are for the family you are against gays ?
The complaint of the doctor is about political activism of a very militant attitude which has high jacked the American Psychological Association. And good scientists are leaving the organization to its detriment.
Maybe they could interview gays that had a relatively easy time with social acceptance and see how many of them abandon the lifestyle. If it's a lot less compared to gays that have had several social repercussions on account of their lifestyle, then the theory deserves consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But those who come seeking help should not be hounded as turncoats or as being coerced by an unfair society. Not all consider the movement a utopia. Rose colored glasses causes some people to think all such wanting to "come out of the closet" so to speak to get help for the destruction they are experiencing, are too often vilified as turncoats seeking change which they are doomed to be alluded by.
In essence " YOU HAVE TO STAY WITH US ! "
is the tone of these political activists. This is like the Mafia or a Islamic cult of forced life long membership.
17 Sep 15
Originally posted by FMFNo.
If you choose to label the observations and questions ~ that I insert into holes in the ghastly ideology that some religionists here peddle ~ as "wedges", all that really means is that you disagree with my views.
I've seen where all you're really after is to try to drive a wedge between believers.
You try to make them choose their pet topic and then use that topic to make them start pointing fingers at others, to have them declare what is and isn't Christian.
It's shameful.
17 Sep 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHello. It's a debate and discussion forum. Beliefs expressed here are diverse. Christians, in my view, probably should tackle - for example - the grotesque vocabulary-abusing nonsensical torturer God ideology that's suppurating in their midst. I find it poisonous, and so do many Christians. What they believe is up to them. Discussing it with them can be interesting. You calling me names has no effect on the discourse unless you think your letting off steam somehow does.
No.
I've seen where all you're really after is to try to drive a wedge between believers.
You try to make them choose their pet topic and then use that topic to make them start pointing fingers at others, to have them declare what is and isn't Christian.
It's shameful.