As Jason has noted, you can only argue with a crazy person so much before you start making yourself crazy.

Quo, as I have said many times before, get help to deal iwth your self hatred. but not from Old Nick. As always, when Old nick says he is going to help someone, he usually means he is going to help himself.

EXACTLY like the ‘systematic bias’ against creationism, the ‘systematic bias’ against tobacco being healthy, the ‘systematic bias’ against homeopathy…

Remember, all of those ‘theories’ that are only held by a handful of fringe groups are true. The ONLY reason over 90% of real scientists laugh at them is because of ‘systematic bias’.

Not because they’re full of crap and completely unwilling to live up to serious scientific standards.

Except that the entirety of the mainstream medical and psychiatric community do not and CANNOT share a single political agenda. Also, the consensus of the medical and psychiatric fields in this regard is hardly limited to the U.S. To claim as you do, QUO, is to imply that there exists some global conspiracy of scientific organizations and universities. Paranoid much? It is also rather irrational (and insulting) to suggest that the majority of legitimate scientists rely on the same unethical practices as NARTH and AIG.

“NARTH is neither perfect nor above criticism, but the mainstream perspective has become so extreme and distored that they really look pretty good by comparison.”

That statement is totally nonsensical. How can the mainstream perspective be “extreme”? By definition, if it is mainstream it is NOT extreme.

“I don’t think (and wasn’t implying) that there’s a conspiracy among mainstream psychological organizations to reject NARTH’s views about the causes of homosexuality. The organizations are guilty of systematic bias, yes, but not conspiracy, since that refers to something done in secret.”

You may not have intentionally implied a conspiracy in the scientific community, but the only reasonable alternative to that would be to suggest a serious flaw in the scientific method itself. Is that what you meant?

I would also like to point to the results of a recent study that clearly show the psychological harm posed by not accepting the sexual orientation of LGBT teens.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/200901/surprise-families-matter

Not fantasy at all, it follows directly from your statement that “we do not own our bodies”. If you do not own your body on what basis do you deny anyone the right to shove their hand down your pants, rape you, or kill you? Based on your statement they have just as much a right to your body as you do.

Oh, it makes a difference to me, and to most people all right, but it does not make a difference under the presumption you operate under – that one does not own one’s body. Under your scenario its irrelevant whether or not one is a child or an adult, one has no basis upon which to be free form being forced to do anything.

I don’t think (and wasn’t implying) that there’s a conspiracy among mainstream psychological organizations to reject NARTH’s views about the causes of homosexuality. The organizations are guilty of systematic bias, yes, but not conspiracy, since that refers to something done in secret.

Priya,

It does make a difference whether one is talking about children or adults. They have different capacities, and the law recognizes this by treating them differently.

I refrain from commenting about the rest of what you wrote about morality and rights, other than to note that your remarks about my views are fantasy.

I can’t read through any of his posts now on any subject without thinking about how strenuously he argued that parents have the right to sexually abuse children. I don’t think that will ever change for me. That is just how disturbing I felt his posts were.”

Agreed. The other point that I think is just as strong is when Quo said that he does not believe that people own their own. That ties directly into his point that it’s perfectly acceptable for parents to force sex upon their children.
This is also why I’ve resolved not to respond to, or acknowledge his posts anymore.

And allow you to spread your immoral ideas without my opposition? Doesn’t sound like a good idea to me. Sticking one’s head in the sand when encountering evil rarely makes the evil go away.

Quo said “Also, if you read Jim’s post above more carefully, you’ll see that the issue is actually forced therapy for adults, an altogether different issue from adults forcing their children into therapy.”.

Irrelevant. Doesn’t matter if its children or adults, when you believe people don’t own their bodies there is no basis upon which to assert anyone has a right not to be forced to do anything. When thats your attitude all your left with is a “Might makes right” morality – if you’re powerful enough to force your will on others then its okay, too bad for you if your not powerful and someone rapes or kills you.