Inspired by the famous "churches" thread here at USMB and excellent points by "Where_r_my_Keys":
Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 435 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
That thread has more than 33,000 views and sports one of the largest poll turnouts EVER at USMB. See how over 80% of the quiet majority voted..
Meanwhile this topic:
Upon the irrational premise that Sexual Abnormality is NORMAL. What's that based upon? 'WE ARE NOT "ABNORMAL PEOPLE"... therefore our sexuality is not Abnormal!' Their truth is Subjective... .
They claim that their position rests in "SCIENCE!" that they TRUST science... and, that opposition of their need is based upon RELIGION!, which they do NOT TRUST.
Yet the purely scientific position, which incontestably demonstrates that Homosexuality; not only deviates from the standard intrinsic to human physiology, but it deviates as far FROM that standard as can be deviated, where all participants are HUMAN. And they could not care less, they do not trust science... because their trust of science is Subjective... .
Judges are relying on the APA. It helps that gays stormed the American Psychological Association back in the 1970s and took over its ranks. The impact of that was GIGANTIC. And that is because virtually ALL "scientific" entities that have to do with the human mind or physiology take their walking orders from the APA. Gays began filling the ranks of the board of directors of the APA. The association used to abide by a ruling scientific principle called "the Leona Tyler Principle". It said that any position the APA took on a topic publicly HAD to be backed by hard science.
After gays took over the board of directors in the APA, that ruling scientific principle that had been the mooring of that institution for many many years was *disappeared*. There wasn't even an up or down vote on it by the Board. It just vanished. And in fact, a recent search for it on the APA search engines comes up with nothing.
This new relativism came to a head not too long after this coup by the gay cabal of the APA. It happened when Congress formally censured the APA at a hearing that had to do with protecting children from sexual predators. The neo-APA was arguing/urging its position which had become "sometimes it may be OK for adults to have sex with kids"...yeah...no kidding.. I think it was the first time ever that Congress voted to censure a "scientific" group's testimony.
Instead of the ruling principle based in science, that was subsequently *disappeared* by gay militants in the APA, we have this which is PRECISELY the relativism you are talking about. I just searched this today and my jaw fell in disbelief on how you NAILED IT...
Read, if you dare...straight from the APA approved books links. The "experts" call (CQR) research. It is "qualitative" (subjective group agreement) and not relying on numbers...silly numbers get in the way of "socially agreed conclusions" of the group-think. It is the ANTITHESIS of a ruling scientific principle.
You just can't make this stuff up:
Consensual Qualitative Research: A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena
Edited by
Clara E. Hill, PhD Consensual Qualitative Research A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena
"
This lively and practical text presents a fresh and comprehensive approach to conducting consensual qualitative research (CQR). CQR is an inductive method that is characterized by open-ended interview questions, small samples, a reliance on words over numbers, the importance of context, an integration of multiple viewpoints, and consensus of the research team. It is especially well-suited to research that requires rich descriptions of inner experiences, attitudes, and convictions.
Written to help researchers navigate their way through qualitative techniques and methodology, leading expert Clara E. Hill and her associates provide readers with step-by-step practical guidance during each stage of the research process. Readers learn about adaptive ways of designing studies; collecting, coding, and analyzing data; and reporting findings.
Key aspects of the researcher's craft are addressed, such as establishing the research team, recruiting and interviewing participants, adhering to ethical standards, raising cultural awareness, auditing within case analyses and cross analyses, and writing up the study.
Intended as a user-friendly manual for graduate-level research courses and beyond, the text will be a valuable resource for both budding and experienced qualitative researchers for many years to come.
Examine or adopt this book for teaching a course "
Let me just repeat the underlined parts above. The APA is advocating that their researchers rely on "words over numbers" in an "adaptive" style or "craft" and that they practice "auditing" each other to insure conformity to the non-scientific (words not numbers) principle of "doing research".
THIS is the data the activist-judges in the federal circuit are relying on "as fact". It is a cult dogma within a cloistered cabal and they have renamed it "science".
I urge that every person should read this book. It defines the root of the collective insanity we see justified today. You could literally rename this book "Where it all went wrong"...
You know who else "audits" (pressures its membership in real ways) for conformity to the dogmatic rule? Scientology.
We are dealing with a cult. They are as scientific and open-minded in their research as the Jim Jones Colony.
