Lol your only defense is the fact that my link is biased? Come on, all the good info will come from those. And they listed their SOURCES. I mean where else would i find anti gay proof? Only from anti gay sites. Because if an honorable and respctable site posts it up Rosie Odonnel and her army of butch lesbians would trace them down and kill them!!
Sources? You mean, sources that are just as biased as the article?
The APA is a good source. It is unbiased research, readily available, easily understood. The article quotes the APA's research, and then "disproves" it with the "National Association for Research and
Therapy of Homosexuality" (emphasis mine). Research has already shown that homosexuality is not an illness and does not need to be "cured" through therapy. I expect an organization with a name like that to be biased.
Unnecessary bias is a perfectly good reason not to trust a source. Bias distorts information and portrays it often incorrectly. I wouldn't give a gay rights website as a source, simply because I expect that you would see that information as biased and therefore "uncorrect". That's exactly what you've already done, by deciding that these "urban legends" are too biased to be true.
Actually, in fact, the main "proof" that site uses for its research is either linked off it's own site, or that same National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, which is ONE source and is obviously going to be biased.
In that article, it misquotes and removes the context from many articles that do not have an anti-homosexual tone to give the appearance of one. And proof on homosexuality from "Catholic psychiatrists"? Pleeease.
Ugh. I actually find that entire site and many of the links from it
very offensive.
