I still believe that your discussion of "The Baha'i Faith and Homosexuality" is rather biased and skewed to make Baha'is seem "intolerant." The homosexuals and their allies hide behind pseudo-science and exaggerated pathos much like the the eugenicists of the 20s did, who tried to show whites were superior to blacks through "science." You can do the same for the reverse: trying to prove an abnormal condition as being normal.
There are many indications out there that homosexuality is an abnormal condition (or response) to inadequate parenting, as with many disorders. There is much evidence out there that homosexuals are at greater
risk for pathology than heterosexuals. Even this fact is undisputed by homosexual allies themselves. Anyone in the mental health profession knows that mental disorders are usually comorbid
with other mental disorders. So what is the response from the "allies"? Here it is: that homosexuals are at higher risk for psychopathology because they are "made fun of" and society doesn't accept them. Yeah right. A summary by the National Association for Research and Treatment of Homosexuality (NARTH)—who you cite in your article—of a recent journal article, states:
"The findings of a study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry (December 2003) suggest higher incidences of illegal drug usage, alcoholism, psychological problems, and violence in the gay community than in the general population.
"'Gay men and lesbians reported more psychological distress than heterosexual women, despite similar levels of social support and quality of physical health,' the researchers reported (p. 556)."
Despite the fact that "lesbian participants were the most frequent victims of physical intimidation and violence," the article warns the reader about jumping to conlusions based on this, as it states:
"But bullying at school, the study noted, was reported no more often by gay men than by heterosexual men. Reports that gay men and lesbians are disproportionately vulnerable to school harassment "are often taken at face value," the researchers noted, with researchers failing to draw a comparison to heterosexual students, who--at least in this study--were found to suffer similar high rates of school bullying and harassment."
Among the important finding of this study:
"Gay men were almost ten percentage points more apt to suffer mental disorder (44% to 35%) than heterosexuals, with almost the same relative rate for lesbians compared to straight women (44% to 34%)
Again, at least for the gay men this increase in psychopathology is not
a result of "bullying" or "teasing" as heterosexual men are subject to just as much harassment.
There are many other important finding, for instance that homosexual men are much less stable in their relationships than their heterosexual counterparts (48.4% to 38.9%)—a fact that in fact has been common knowledge, but which now is confirmed.
Note that this article doesn't jump to the conclusion that because of these findings homosexuality is a disorder, but it also doesn't jump to the exaggerated conclusions made by homosexuals that the increase is pathology seen in homosexuals is solely due to the bullying/teasing and harassment of homosexuals, which was disproved in the article. It shows you how much less biased this research is compared to that research conduced by lesbian pseudo-psychologists and other allies with an agenda.
Also, the claim that "The best estimate that we have been able to derive is that reparative therapy has a success rate below 0.5%" is flawed. Even the window that opens up when you click hyperlink on your own site
"A variety of studies have shown that between 25% and 50% of those seeking treatment experienced significant improvement."
One thing we have to keep in mind is that while it is difficult to cure homosexuality, such is the same with other disordered people, such as certain sex offenders, especially the pedophiles. They get "treated," but as I was reading in my psychology text the other day, treatment is largely ineffective and the pedophiles, usually after being released, go and rape children again. Do we say, then, that their "orientation" toward kiddies is "God-given" and that since therapy is ineffective, that proves that their lust for children is natural and unchangable? No, we try through research to find more effective treatments and we see the inability to change them our
shortcoming in terms of threatment methods. So why not see homosexuality in the same light? Because feminists and homosexuals have in a large part successfully brainwashed people into thinking that homosexuality is "normal" and not modifiable, and therefore we should give these behaviors "civil rights," etc.
It is should be noted that "gender identity disorder" is still in the D.S.M., and that "gender identity disorder" increases the risk of transexuality, but usually the desire to be the opposite sex converts to homosexuality—yet this is seen as a "good thing" and not for what it is, a manifestation of a disorder that was not successfully treated in childhood, when action should have been taken. (Such behavior in men these days is in fact encouraged! That's part of the problem.) Research shows that if effeminate behavior manifested in boys is corrected in childhood, then a heterosexual identity is likely. One way to correct it is to let the child have a role model who displays masculine behaviors for the child to learn. One example is the case of Carl, who received this treatment and after it, correctly learned proper masculine behavior:
"This training was combined with what are called 'companionship therapy' in which a relationship was established between Carl and a male psychology student who modeled appropriate masculine behaviors and took Carl on numerous trips to the park, beach, and for tumbling lessons.
"Twelve months after this additional program, another clinical evaluation was made of Carl's adjustment. Once again, no evidence of feminine behavior or cross gender identification were found. He was found to be normal in emotional and social adjustment."
The research finds after a six year follow-up, he is still emotionally stable.
You find find more info here: http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/rekers.html
and several journal articles are cited.
Also, on the NARTH website (http://narth.com/
), you can find many other summeries of journal articles, and then you can go find the journal articles themselves. NARTH are considered the experts on homosexuality and its treatment as far as I know (they have many prominent psychiatrists/researchers).
You say, on your site:
"A fundamental belief of the Baha'i Faith is that true science and religion cannot be in conflict. Sexual orientation continues to be studied by human sexuality researchers. In the West, a social and scientific consensus is being developed that
*homosexuality is a natural, normal, unchosen, and acceptable variation of human sexuality for a minority of adults, and
*an adult's sexual orientation is unchangeable or can only rarely be changed."
I should point out first of all that there is no clear evidence showing that homosexuality is genetic or environmental. The APA has a statement saying that it has not been proven adequately either way. (APA=American Psychiatric Association; there is another APA, American Psychological Association, which states that it is genetic.)
What you state is not true, that "homosexuality is a natural, normal, unchosen, and acceptable variation of human sexuality for a minority of adults"—as I pointed to you, the debate is still well and alive, and you can see this debate at NARTH and other such organizations, and even many past and many recent journal articles (from prominent journals I may add).
[Keep in mind too that liberal politics has a big
influence on research, and there are also many other influences. Who's going to fund research that isn't pro-gay? Not many compared to that of the pro-gay research. Let's take a simple example. Do you think Eli Lilly pays just anyone
to do research on their new line of antidepressants, or do they pay the researchers who they know give them the positive results
they want? If researchers find many flaws in the drug, and that it substantially increases the risk of suicide, etc. (as far as I know antidepresents are the only class of psychiatric drugs that have to have a suicide warning label for children on the front of the container), then they will never receive funding again from the drug company. So there is incentive to be deceptive and show the drug as being effective.]
So sure, the APA doesn't anymore think homosexuality is a disorder per say
. But their conclusion is based on politics, not science. If you read about the history of the removal of homosexuality and then "ego-dystonic homosexuality" from the APA's DSM, you will see that it was all political. Homosexuals bombarded psychiatric conferences and protested, infiltrated their conferences and on one occasion a homosexual stole the microphone and declared open war on the APA until they removed homsexuality as a disorder. The vote that took place to remove it included no discussion whatsoever on research, since almost all research back then pointed to homosexuality as being a disorder. You can read about the "vote" on the NARTH website and how laughable it was as there was no discussion whatsoever, which is always preceded by the vote—especially one of such magnitude. (There were even homosexual psychiatrists who were quite vocal regarding the removal of homosexuality as a disorder from the DSM.) From all sides there were political forces that forced the APA to submit from the intimidation. It was never based on science. And we still see research today in prominent journals showing that homosexuality is an abnormal condition, so it is obvious that the debate has not been resolved as pro-homosexual researchers would like to make you think.
Yet student textbooks at liberal colleges only cite the pro-gay research, and little, if any, finding that homosexuality is a disorder (because they can't refute it, the less sophisticated ones usually counter by saying that those researchers are trying to "impose their values" on them. Wait—who's trying to impose values on who?
) In fact, they don't even want you to know that there is a debate out there, otherwise it will make you question homosexuality's status of being a "normal" sexual variant, and they don't want that.
So, Sikhsm, the debate is still going on and it is incorrect to say that Baha'is are not following their teaching of "harmony of science and religion" just because they don't agree with homosexuality. If you say so, you are ignoring the fact that science has been and still is motivated by political interests—a lot of which is flawed.
GO to the journals themselves and you will see. Don't let feminist/lesbian researchers convince you that homosexuality is normal with their pseudo-science. I will point you to the article "'Science' Games Lesbian Psychologists Play" on the NARTH website, which shows you how full of holes pro-homosexual research is filled with. http://www.narth.com/docs/play.html
. Read it and see how flawed their research really is. (The title got changed from "'Science' Games Lesbian Psychologists Play" to "'Science' Games Activists Play"; I have the original PDF of the article.) You will see in the article that in fact—in this case lesbians—homosexuals are lacking in emotional maturity!
You will find that lesbian/feminist researchers come up with all sorts of myths, like 10% of Americans are gay, children in homosexual families are just as well adjusted as kids from traditional families, etc. All of which are disproved on the NARTH website.
I encourage you to continue with your site (it looks like it can be very useful for those investiaging religion), but I also encourage you to not be biased and suggest that Baha'is don't follow their teachings just because of "research" out there supposedly proving homosexuality to be a normal sexual variant. You should indicate that there is still a debate, which is unresolved, and not ignore it, which makes the Baha'is seem intolerant, and that science has somehow reached a consensus that homosexuality is not a disorder.