Comments on: APA sexual orientation task force report: Analysis

By: Michael Bussee

Michael Bussee — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:18:46 +0000

David I got the point that NARTH exists partly because the APA only presents one side of the argument. But that does not explain NARTH’s mis-use of data to mislead the piblic or its afilliatiions with wackos and hatemongers. These are entirely NARTH’s responsibility.

By: concerned

concerned — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:18:16 +0000

David,

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. To me that is how the all important balance is being maintained. When one side is made to shut up and feel they no longer have a voice their voice becomes much louder and necessary.

By: David Blakeslee

David Blakeslee — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:24:45 +0000

Please examine all my opinions above and consider if the framework is rational to you…not an excuse for NARTH…but a partial explanation.

The other part is hubris, bias, a rescuing complex blended with passive disgust of SSA.

Splitting defenses, whether used to destroy an enemy, or to bolster ourselves; inevitably oversimplify and deceive…harming ourselves and others.

By: Mary

Mary — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 07:09:32 +0000

I kind of agree that NARTH could not have come to fruition had the APA acted responsibly in the first place and not allow the skewing of statistics to undermine it;s own “policy” making and “fact” finding.

By: Lynn David

Lynn David — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 05:24:28 +0000

The description may be “truncated, simplistic and distorted” but it is still truthful – though I meant 20 years… so sue me, I have a BS in mathematics and I still can’t add and subtract.