Gay Cabal Replaces Science, and Soon, the Constitution Itself via DOMA & Prop 8

Further evidence of the paranoid conspiracy thinking. I can't speak for the other members posting here, but no one called me to the thread and I didn't contact anyone else about it, either. I'm a wholly independent operator. But for someone who believes there is a 'gay cabal' operating in the APA and our legal systems, it wouldn't be much of a reach to make the false assumption that there's a 'gay cabal' operating on Political Forum as well. Heck, it probably extends to all forums and blogs on the web, too. For all one knows, we may be watching all y'all through your web cams.

LOL!

 

"reinforcements!" LOL

 

and the OP article you cited said no such thing happened.

 

Yes, but the subsequent articles [see top of this page] DID say that's what happened. You read the interview with Cummings the past president of the APA right? Did you hear what he said about how the ruling scientific principle disappeared without a trace and can't be found on the APA website? Your comments on his observation? [Not mine]...

 

That's moving the goalposts off the football field and onto the baseball diamond.

 

OK Perriquine. That's called diverting the question to a strawman. And against forum rules too. I'll ask you again.... Your comments on the following and if you think it's proper that "new political internal forces" at the APA were acting appropriately when they dissolved the ruling scientific principle there without an up or down vote by the governing board?

 

I'm convinced that you don't understand what a strawman is.

Link us to the rule that you think applies and/or report it to a mod.

You mean for the first time, since it wasn't addressed to me specifically. And there's a reason for that: You would have needed to quote what I said, which was too damaging to your claims.

Once again, your article doesn't support your claims.

1) per Cummings, "The principle was never withdrawn". 'Dissolving' it would have required some formal action, which Cummings says wasn't undertaken. His claims that "politics rules at the APA" are not evidence. They are only unsubstantiated claims. Though I can understand your confusion, since it's your regular practice to present claims as if they were evidence. I would also not consider Cummings to be an unbiased observer.

2) Let's consider your source: The New American. Which is a publication of the John Birch Society. So, also not unbiased reporting, but quite the opposite. The John Birch Society is a radical right wing political advocacy group. So we should expect anything coming out of 'The New American' to be the propaganda of the John Birch Society.

3) Regardless, the fact remains that your other source quotes someone with firsthand knowledge who states the exact opposite of your thread's principle claim: That a 'gay cabal' exists within the APA, and that it apparently extends to our legal system as represented in your thread title's claim that a 'gay cabal' will soon "replace the Constitution". You have nothing credible to support these claims. It is apparent that you think ignoring these points and reposting the original claim will be persuasive "evidence" (< sneer quotes intended) of its validity.

It is not. You have nothing. Concede that your claim is not supported by your sources. Concede that your source for Cummings' comments is biased and little more than the propaganda mouthpiece for the John Birch Society.

Or don't and continue with 'business as usual'. Either way, I think the claims made in this thread have been sufficiently debunked.

 

Another attempt at a strawman. My, you are creative.

Tsk tsk...you know that another rule is not to cite specific rules to try to get other people to comply. Trying to get me in trouble, banned and therefore silenced?...lol...

If the past President of the APA, Cummings, says the ruling scientific principle was removed without any formal action, I'll tend to believe HIM over YOU [who are you anyway?] saying his findings as to such are "only unsubstantiated claims". If a past-president of the APA is not to be believed, who is? The current cabal only? And as such, you realize that reinforces the cabal image right?...lol..

You don't consider Cummings to be an unbiased observer? Clearly and succinctly state why that is. And give credible unbiased links to back up your assertion.

 

My, but you are not.

Meanwhile back to the topic:

Who are YOU anyway? No one of importance, as far as I am concerned. Which is not to say that I consider myself to be someone of importance either. You're welcome to believe whatever you like. My point was and remains that the rest of us don't have to give it credence.

You'll believe Cummings because it suits your purpose, which is to demonize gay people. Just to be clear, I haven't said that he's mistaken. I've simply said the claim isn't substantiated. Until it is, the claim remains in doubt. Since it won't be substantiated, it is moot, and any debate about it is merely academic.

Is he to be believed just because he's the past-president of the APA? Is he to be believed just because you find him credible?

...which hasn't been shown to exist, and whose existence is denied by your other source.

Not in the least.

No links needed, as I've already stated quite clearly why - it's the source you provided; quoting him as part of the propaganda machine for the John Birch Society.

 

Since this thread is already absurd, I figure this as good an excuse as any to post this Bond/Silva clip:

[video=youtube;3OfpsKemIWI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OfpsKemIWI[/video]

 

Well, Bond is British, so he is basically already half gay anyway.

 

Very nicely done.

Thumbs up.

 

Please feel free to post this person's [the OP quote author] credentials to weigh against the past president of the APA. For my money, I'll tend to believe the past president of the APA vs ...? Well he's not as knowledgeable about the APA as a president would be, is he?

 

So who do we believe? Some guy who wrote the quote in the OP link who describes a cabal to "T" but in the same article claims it isn't so, or the past president of the APA who describes a cabal and laments the discarding of science for gay politics ruling the APA?

Which one is more credible?

Meanwhile, I wonder if the Justices had read this thread and the APA president's comments on what happened to the APA, considered what happened recently to Pope Benedict & had any cause to muse about it? It's all part of the new phenomenon. It's good to read up on new things and fully understand them. Like micro technology. It's so hard to understand tiny circuitry without a powerful magnifier..

 

How do you know he's not as knowledgable as an APA past-president? Based on the title alone? In my experience, the higher up someone rises, the less they tend to know about the details of what's going on below, because they get the information filtered through several levels of administrators and tend to be more focused on the big picture, the organization's public image, it's relationships with other organizations, etc.

I'm seeing that very thing happen where I work, as the highest of the high is heading up a move to recentralize and cut people providing "redundant commodity services". That person is oblivious to how we actually work because they're completely focused on marketing and rebranding our group as part of the recentralized organization and the great accomplishments they expect it to produce. That person doesn't understand why we aren't inspired by the propaganda coming from that office, or why no one will cooperate by providing input on the best way to accomplish that office's goals as part of the recentralization. Those of us doing the actual work keep saying "Die Anschluss kommt!", because it feels like we're being annexed by the most clueless of the clueless.

But I digress. The point is, it's clear to me that the guy at the top doesn't necessarily have superior knowledge of what's happening within the organization; they largely only know what they control.

 

Neither one calls it a cabal - that's all you, and your sources don't provide you with any credibility for that claim.

The idea that the justices would spend their time reading a forum populated by anonymous people, most of whom are more interested in hearing themselves bellow than in having insightful conversations, strikes me as delusional.

 

Nice spin Perriquin. Did you work all night on that one?...lol..

So a president of the American Psychological Association, who climbed the ranks over the years, but not after obtaining his doctorate in psychology and the admiration of his discerning doctorate-peers, elected to head arguably the most influential medical institutions in the US, is somehow less qualified than the hack from the OP who admits the APA was taken over by a cabal in his precise description of just that...but because he lies in his own statement saying [paraphrased] "oh, but BTW this in no way was a cabal" is someone you feel is more qualified to weigh in on the matter than Dr. Cummings?

Wow. Got any more?...lol..

 

It's not question of who has more qualifications as a psychologist / administrator, but who is better positioned to know what's going on within the organization. Neither of us is in a position to say which person in reality knew more about this specific situation. My point is this: Your arguments imply that being a past-APA president automatically makes Cummings more knowledgable on the matter than Spiegel. I find that to be a ridiculous assumption on your part. Being at the top doesn't necessarily equate to being better positioned to know whether or not there's a cabal infiltrating the organization. Trumpeting Cummings qualifications doesn't alter that, nor does characterizing Spiegel as a hack.

And it remains that neither one says there was a gay cabal operating within the APA, let alone in the legal system, for which claim you have provided zero support.

I hate having to repeat myself, but reposting the same quoted claims over and over again won't improve your argument. Calling something a cabal just because you infer it from those claims, and despite your own quoted source saying the opposite, doesn't make it so.

Come up with something new. This one's a dead horse. No point in pulverizing to the extent that the molecules break apart, allowing the atoms to go their separate ways.

 

Oh, there's a point in reminding people that the one insitution they turn to for "expertise" on gay issues is corrupt. We're right on the cusp of gay activists trying to normalize homosexuality via marriage. Their pitch is "Gay is OK, the American Psychological Association says so!". I think people need to know a bit more about that stamp of APA approval and its history. Live horse and I'll keep whipping it.

 

Dead horse, and I'm back to ignoring you.

 

You do that a lot perriquin. But you always come back when rahl, Sadistic Savior, SFJeff, JeffLV etc. need reinforcements when they're losing the debate. Like with this thread. Have you noticed the "definitely strange" category creeping up in the poll? I have...

 

Lol, how are we losing the debate? The title of this thread has been proven to be a lie. What have we lost exactly?

 

I have lost alot of interest. I have lost patience.

Meanwhile we all agree- Silhouette just makes stuff up like her Gay Cabal claim that her own source said didn't exist.

 

He says that homosexuality is not a mental disease- and he supports gay marriage.

You disagree with him on both issues.

As you point out- he has impressive credentials- why don't you believe him?

 

LOL, you think we are losing the debate. When your own sources support our position?

That is adorable.