Three wise former gays

It is disturbing for me to see special interest groups distort my scientific observations to make a point against homosexuality. The American College of Pediatricians pulled language out of context from a book I wrote in 2006 to support an ideology that can cause unnecessary anguish and encourage prejudice. The information they present is misleading and incorrect, and it is particularly troubling that they are distributing it in a way that will confuse school children and their parents."

Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D.
Director

You seem to have missed the point of my post which is that the American College of Pediatricians is a disreputable organization as evidenced by its misrepresenting the research of others to further its agenda. This was the organization referred to by the head of the Family Research Council in his attempt to lend credence to his claim that homosexuality poses a danger to children. You've repeatedly cited the Family Research Council in your attempt to claim that homosexuals are more of a danger to children than heterosexuals. Your claim is false.

If your intention is to invalidate any and all reference to the Family Research Council, I don't see why I should.

If you object that "special interests" activity may be found in their numbers that is absolutely no reason why on those grounds I should not reject any and all research done by your group who has a support policy towards LGBT activists.

In other words, I will reject any attempt to show one way only bias.

You have not proved to me overall false claims. You've indicated that some statistical findings are arguable.

It proves that someone wanted very badly to distance himself from some other people who made reference to some of his work. That can happen at any time. " I do not want to be associated with the philosophy of this group which used some of my research. "

Ie. New Testament textuaral critic Dr. Bart Erhman wrote a book "Misquoting Jesus" that new atheists loved as well as his other books. They used his name to argue that Jesus probably never existed. Dr. Erhman strongly disassociated his name and work with that extreme position. The siting of his work to establish that claim was protested by him as beyond what he intended to criticize.

The Poverty Law Center has done some effective work in identifying extremist groups. But they are not above all suspicion of being over zealous at times. An old civil rights worker told me just yesterday of his admiration of the Southern Poverty Law Center yet admitted they have been criticized too on occasion.

So, it is going to take me some time to sort through these "unreliable source" objections you have made. I do not regard them as proving lies were told without more extensive research. But for someone to say that they just hated that their numbers were referred to by some people whose conclusions that person disdains, is not necessarily an indication of dishonest utlilization of the objector's research.

He could just be annoyed (or afraid even) that his name was associated with conclusions that he does not share.

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] It is disturbing for me to see special interest groups distort my scientific observations to make a point against homosexuality. The American College of Pediatricians pulled language out of context from a book I wrote in 2006 to support an ideology that can cause unnecessary anguish and encourage prejudice. The information they present is misleading ...[text shortened]... e annoyed (or afraid even) that his name was associated with conclusions that he does not share.

sonship, robbie. do you think a lesbian woman and a homosexual man living together as a sexless couple would raise a child just as well as a straight couple?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
sonship, robbie. do you think a lesbian woman and a homosexual man living together as a sexless couple would raise a child just as well as a straight couple?

NO Gay propaganda please, we're Russian!

As for your ludicrous bat crazy imaginary hypothetical scenario, the ultimate in parenting is a loving heterosexual stable married couple, your scenario is just another contrived and artificial one.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
NO Gay propaganda please, we're Russian!

As for your ludicrous bat crazy imaginary hypothetical scenario, the ultimate in parenting is a loving heterosexual stable married couple, your scenario is just another contrived and artificial one.

what would be the negative effects of this scenario be?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
what would be the negative effects of this scenario be?

Gayness

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Gayness

the effect would be gayness? in what way?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
the effect would be gayness? in what way?

hard to predict the extent of gayness in your bat crazy scenario and i am not permitted to say anymore since your friend googlelord grassed me up to the moderators

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
hard to predict the extent of gayness in your bat crazy scenario and i am not permitted to say anymore since your friend googlelord grassed me up to the moderators

and i am not permitted to say anymore

why, do you think your opinions maybe offensive?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]and i am not permitted to say anymore

why, do you think your opinions maybe offensive?[/b]

Not to me, but who knows what hyper sensitive namby pamby politically correct hetrophobe might be listening.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Not to me, but who knows what hyper sensitive namby pamby politically correct hetrophobe might be listening.

No one has an issue when you talk about homosexuality, it's when you resort to calling people 'Gaylord' that people take offence. It's a gay slur, and breaks the ToS.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
No one has an issue when you talk about homosexuality, it's when you resort to calling people 'Gaylord' that people take offence. It's a gay slur, and breaks the ToS.

Correction.

I take quite a lot of issue when robbie [and any other homophobe] 'talks'
about homosexuality.

I think just about every part of robbie's position on it is offensive.

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] It is disturbing for me to see special interest groups distort my scientific observations to make a point against homosexuality. The American College of Pediatricians pulled language out of context from a book I wrote in 2006 to support an ideology that can cause unnecessary anguish and encourage prejudice. The information they present is misleading ...[text shortened]... e annoyed (or afraid even) that his name was associated with conclusions that he does not share.

Let's see. In an earlier post you pretended that the only issue brought up against the American College of Pediatricians is its small size when the fact is that there was more being said about the ACP. As such it seemed more than a bit underhanded of you to have responded as if it were otherwise.

Here you've structured your post as if only Francis Collins of the NIH was the only one to have accused the ACP of misrepresenting their findings. The fact of the matter is that more than Collins has accused the ACP of this. You also went the further step of pretending as if Collins' only objection was that he "hated that [his] numbers were referred to" by the ACP. The fact is that Collins clearly states that his scientific observations were "distorted" by they ACP. Again this is more than a bit underhanded of you.

Listen I get it. It seems that you believe that reputable organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association and the National Institutes of Health are apologists for the homosexual community. The fact of the matter is that they were founded as professional scientific organizations that have no reason to distort research findings.

On the other hand, the organizations that you have cited such as the Family Research Council and the American College of Pediatricians owe a very large part of their existence to the promotion of an anti-homosexual agenda. The fact is that several individual researchers have accused the ACP of misrepresenting their research findings in an effort to promote that agenda. The fact is that the FRC has cited the ACP as the source of their claim that "the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a danger to children".

Seems that being underhanded comes with bigoted agendas that have no basis in fact.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Correction.

I take quite a lot of issue when robbie [and any other homophobe] 'talks'
about homosexuality.

I think just about every part of robbie's position on it is offensive.

yes you supergrass! 'wah wah mr moderator, robbie called me a name, wah wah, ban him please', slither slither grass grass

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes you supergrass! 'wah wah mr moderator, robbie called me a name, wah wah, ban him please', slither slither grass grass

if a poster had used the 'n' word do you think it would be being part of the 'politically correct brigade' to complain to a moderator?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
if a poster had used the 'n' word do you think it would be being part of the 'politically correct brigade' to complain to a moderator?

it depends if it was a black guy calling another black guy wouldn't it, they are allowed to do it, aren't they, oh but not if your white, there is a different set of rules for what you can say, do i get offended when someone calls me a white cracka! or a honkey? or a ghora (Hindi for whitey) or a jock, or an ignorant ****, no i just laugh at it because i am not a hypersensitive namby pamby politically correct liberal social worker and I know its not a reflection of me, but of the person issuing it. I wouldn't grass them!

I resent your attempts to make gayness akin to racial characteristics!