Kansas legislators to women- no abortion for you, it causes... cancer?

Quote from charles052 : I never called him a liar. I merely question his motives for retracting the study after all this time. Given the political and controversial atmosphere of the study, it's only logical to assume there's something else behind the retraction.

No it is not. What kinda "logic" would that be? Because my logic tells me that it is possible that he honestly realized the mistake or felt remorse and fessed up.

Alas I think you know no logic. Certainly you have never shown that you understand even elementary logic.

Quote from charles052 : I never called him a liar. I merely question his motives for retracting the study after all this time. Given the political and controversial atmosphere of the study, it's only logical to assume there's something else behind the retraction.

But he also declassified homosexuality as a disorder, which later in your post, you seem to think is a mistake. So, to me, it seems to be confirmation bias on your part. You're picking and choosing what studies (and I use that term loosely ) to believe in, regardless of how bad its methodology is.

Quote from charles052 : I still don't know for sure either. I'm either not looking in the right places or no one wants to talk.

Fair enough.

Quote from charles052 : However, the fact that the APA was influenced by gay activist groups is obvious. Even former President Dr. Robert Perloff said the APA is "too politically correct, too bureaucratic, too obeisant to special interests."

But it's not obvious he was influenced by it and we don't even know what these "groups" actually are? 5 people? 500 people? 50000 people? There are no specifics on these groups, much less any evidence that they influenced his decision to retract his study.

Things were also quite different during Perloff's time. There's a reason he got angry and said the argument of "political correctness," but things have changed quite a bit during his time. Here's the thing, psychology (as well as other sciences) have been reformed many times over and over. The rules, the standards, the statistics, etc. They've been "polished" many times over in order to come to ethical and more accurate ways of collecting data. Psychologists now no longer have the ability to perform certain studies that they could do back in the day, due to ethical guidelines. I doubt you have any idea what it takes to get an article published by a credible journal these days. There's a long list of processes that you have to go through before you can even start a study. Some could easily call this bureaucratic, however, a lot of other people (including myself) look at it as a refined process in order to make sure that participants of a study don't actually become harmed in the process. The political correctness could also easily be tagged in the psychological community, since psychologists work to great lengths in order to safeguard people and protect those who may be easily picked apart in society. Even Perloff was recognized for his leadership in social justice and sticking up for those very same people.

I understand Perloff's argument; however, the ultimate question about conversion/reparative therapy is not does it work. The question is: Does it do more good than it does harm? The answer is, overwhelmingly, no. Does a therapeutic practice actually work if it is only effective less than 1% of the time? No. It's statistically insignificant. Now, on the other hand, what harm has it done? It frequently leaves the participant with less self-esteem and frequently with depression. I can give you all the studies if you'd like to back up this argument.

Quote from charles052 : And then said this about conversion therapy: "It is considered unethical....That's all wrong. First, the data are not fully in yet. Second, if the client wants a change, listen to the client. Third, you're barring research." http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec01/...tions.aspx

See above.

Quote from charles052 : You may call it a garbage site, but I found the above quote from the former APA president by following a reference from a NARTH article. Seems to me that NARTH does an excellent job in naming it's sources and one such as myself can find the origin of their findings rather easily. So, could it possibly be that NARTH is considered a 'garbage' site, not because it's unprofessional, but because it believes in reparative therapy?

Let me rephrase as I did a poor job with semantics. Narth isn't a garbage site. A lot of Narth's studies are methodologically flawed; however, they use it to justify it as PROOF of what they believe. The other problem with Narth is who they're associated with and who helps finance them. It's much more difficult to give credibility to an organization that gets financially backed by people who profit from the "results" of these so-called studies.

Quote from charles052 : Point of information, remarks such as 'most of the scientific community' would bring about such idiotic responses from certain childish members here and would resemble something like: "Really? What does the Neurology community think about it? Or the astral physics community?" Usually followed by a LMAO smiley.

Homosexuality has been studied by the neurological community, but I get your point.

Quote from charles052 : In any case, Spitzer himself said that his study desperately needed to be followed up on. Unfortunately, the APA had no intention of ever following up on it. So much for being unbiased and scientific.

Aren't the best words out of Chambers' own mouth that their goal is only accomplished 0.1% of the time? Now what about those other 99.9%? What happens to them? The studies show they're left with lowered self-esteem and depression. As I said before, condoning the studies takes out the ethical principles that the APA now holds. You absolutely can no longer do studies that can harm patients anymore, whether it be mentally, physically, or emotionally.

Quote from charles052 : So which of his subjects had financial reason to lie?

I already told you: the ex-gay directors of Exodus International that participated in the study.

Quote from charles052 : I never cited Throckmorton. Every quote came from Spitzer.

You cited Throckmorton's site as well as linking to an interview that was between Throckmorton and Spitzer.

Quote from charles052 : Did you know that there were blacks in the KKK [salon.com]? So I guess that means that the KKK was not a bigoted white supremacist group?

See above.

Quote from charles052 : Yes, I do believe it's a mental disorder.

What classifies it in your mind as a mental disorder? What makes it a mental disorder? What's the definition of mental disorder?

Quote from charles052 : And the reason it needs to be treated is simple, because it'll show that we do have control over ourselves! Right now, we're living in a 'body over mind' mentality. Whatever our body says, our society believes it should heed to.

Why not focus first on things like credit card debt? Obesity? Smoking? Gambling? I'd agree with you on those issues, however, we don't even have the building blocks to understand WHY people are gay. How are we going to understand a solution when you don't even understand the cause of the "problem?"

Quote from charles052 : Thus, we are slaves to our body. But the fact is that our minds control ever aspect of our body. When someone believes they are sickly in nature, they constantly get sick. When someone believes they are impervious to illness, they get rarely get sick.

Ehhhhh, yes and no. What you're referring to is considered the placebo effect, which only goes so far.

Quote from charles052 : Mind over matter works wonderfully and medical professionals pay close attention to the mental health of their patients for this very reason. A happy go lucky person has a much better chance at getting well than a person who is depressed or cynical.

There's a reason the placebo effect is named as such. If you really believe the PE as an effective solution to problems, then you may want to go research how effective it actually is.

Quote from charles052 : So by ignoring the likelihood that homosexuals can be converted, we are limiting not only their potential, but our own as well.

See above.

Quote from charles052 : Don't you wonder if it was peer reviewed?

No, I honestly could care less about that particular study. I've read other studies that are much more credible that support the same hypothesis.

Side note: Enjoying the dialogue still.......

Quote from charles052 : Well, frankly, it really doesn't matter. If you disagree, then I suggest you spend a whole lot of time making friends with neo-nazis. Only then can you have any authority to judge them.

It frankly does matter. You wouldn't have your opinions if you knew a good number of them.

I never judged neo-nazis, so your point doesn't make any sense. By definition, "Neo-Nazism borrows elements from Nazi doctrine, including militant nationalism, fascism, racism, xenophobia, homophobia and anti-Semitism" link [wikipedia.org]. That's why there is a lot of negative attitude toward them as your post implies.

By definition, a homosexual is just someone who is sexually or romantically attracted to someone else of the same sex in the same way a heterosexual is to the opposite sex. Nothing more. You opinion of homosexuals is just based on your unfamiliarity with and, as a result, fear of them. Acknowledge this and stop judging them erroneously. You're just demonstrating pure stupidity at this point.

Quote from ASimpleMan : But he also declassified homosexuality as a disorder, which later in your post, you seem to think is a mistake. So, to me, it seems to be confirmation bias on your part. You're picking and choosing what studies (and I use that term loosely ) to believe in, regardless of how bad its methodology is.

Confirmation bias on my part? Funny how I can keep coming up with evidence to support that so-called 'bias', huh? In fact, the more people question and prod, the more I come up with just by for sake of curiosity.

I do not have confirmation bias. I have confirmation, period.

That said, Spitzer simply had his eyes opened by those who wanted to change and has changed. He was a psychiatrist with an impeccable record who's reputation suddenly went straight to hell as soon as he took on such a controversial subject. Suddenly his methodology, which once was superb, is now crap?

This is a case of politics taking over the APA, pure and simple.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr6T4ka7TxU

Quote from ASimpleMan : But it's not obvious he was influenced by it and we don't even know what these "groups" actually are? 5 people? 500 people? 50000 people? There are no specifics on these groups, much less any evidence that they influenced his decision to retract his study.

Many of them are in the APA! So the APA itself can be considered much to be an activist group.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/...n/07062201

Former APA president Nicholas Cummings called them simply 'the gay lobby'.

http://narth.com/docs/insiders.html

And said

Quote : In the current climate, it is inevitable that conflict arises among the various subgroups in the marketplace. For example, gay groups within the APA [American Psychological Association] have repeatedly tried to persuade the association to adopt ethical standards that prohibit therapists from offering psychotherapeutic services designed to ameliorate "gayness" on the basis that such efforts are unsuccessful and harmful to the consumer. Psychologists who do not agree are termed homophobic. Such efforts are especially troubling because they abrogate the patient's right to choose the therapist and determine therapeutic goals. They also deny the reality of data demonstrating that psychotherapy can be effective in changing sexual preferences in patients who have a desire to do so.

http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=176

Now, that's 3 renowned psychiatrists, 2 of them former presidents of the APA, that have publicly stated that APA is compromised by gay activist groups. Do you need any more evidence?

Quote from ASimpleMan : Things were also quite different during Perloff's time. There's a reason he got angry and said the argument of "political correctness," but things have changed quite a bit during his time. Here's the thing, psychology (as well as other sciences) have been reformed many times over and over. The rules, the standards, the statistics, etc. They've been "polished" many times over in order to come to ethical and more accurate ways of collecting data. Psychologists now no longer have the ability to perform certain studies that they could do back in the day, due to ethical guidelines. I doubt you have any idea what it takes to get an article published by a credible journal these days. There's a long list of processes that you have to go through before you can even start a study. Some could easily call this bureaucratic, however, a lot of other people (including myself) look at it as a refined process in order to make sure that participants of a study don't actually become harmed in the process. The political correctness could also easily be tagged in the psychological community, since psychologists work to great lengths in order to safeguard people and protect those who may be easily picked apart in society. Even Perloff was recognized for his leadership in social justice and sticking up for those very same people. I understand Perloff's argument; however, the ultimate question about conversion/reparative therapy is not does it work. The question is: Does it do more good than it does harm? The answer is, overwhelmingly, no. Does a therapeutic practice actually work if it is only effective less than 1% of the time? No. It's statistically insignificant. Now, on the other hand, what harm has it done? It frequently leaves the participant with less self-esteem and frequently with depression. I can give you all the studies if you'd like to back up this argument.

The problem with that is that withholding such treatment from those who wish to change from gay to straight is considered unethical, which is why reparative therapy is still going today, and likely, will remain for the far future. Regardless of your opinion about reparative therapy being harmful, the desire to change in many homosexuals is so strong, that denying such treatment is possibly more harmful than you imagine the therapy to be.

Quote from ASimpleMan : Let me rephrase as I did a poor job with semantics. Narth isn't a garbage site. A lot of Narth's studies are methodologically flawed; however, they use it to justify it as PROOF of what they believe. The other problem with Narth is who they're associated with and who helps finance them. It's much more difficult to give credibility to an organization that gets financially backed by people who profit from the "results" of these so-called studies.

And I can use that exact argument for the studies that help advocate homosexuality. It is well known that scientific studies help dictate social issues, which is why the gay lobby groups have worked so hard to control the field of psychiatry. So it's no wonder NARTH is constantly under attack so often.

Reparative therapy is a direct threat to their political agenda. If gays could just 'change', then why would anyone help them fight for what they want?

Quote from ASimpleMan : Aren't the best words out of Chambers' own mouth that their goal is only accomplished 0.1% of the time? Now what about those other 99.9%? What happens to them? The studies show they're left with lowered self-esteem and depression. As I said before, condoning the studies takes out the ethical principles that the APA now holds. You absolutely can no longer do studies that can harm patients anymore, whether it be mentally, physically, or emotionally.

That's not what Chamber's said. He said,

"The majority of people that I have met, and I would say the majority meaning 99.9% of them have not experienced a change in their orientation or have gotten to a place where they could say that they could never be tempted or are not tempted in some way or experience some level of same-sex attraction. I think there is a gender issue there, there are some women who have challenged me and said that my orientation or my attractions have changed completely. Those have been few and far between. The vast majority of people that I know will experience some level of same-sex attraction."

You're probably taking that quote far out out of it's intended context, as many others have, intentionally, done. Allen Chambers himself admits to some homosexual attractions, but he is still a success, is he not? Or is even a little attraction to the same sex considered 'full blown gay'? If so, isn't that an unfair standard?

As far as reparative therapy being harmful? Spitzer disagrees. In fact, he suggests that being told that change is impossible causes even more harm!

Quote : The majority of subjects reported moderate to severe depression before they went into therapy. And a marked change, very few were depressed after therapy. So that was an important finding, I think, that depression was, you know, there was a tremendous conflict over homosexuality, and many were very depressed that they had made previous efforts, that was another interesting thing, was many of the subjects reported that they had gone to mental health professionals and were told, just, you know, accept it, that there’s no way to change. And they were not satisfied with that, and were very depressed thinking that they could not, you know, change.

Perhaps many of these gay suicides are not from any kind of peer discrimination, but from their inability to accept that they cannot change and be who they truly wish to be! I'd bet even a 30-50% change in their heterosexuality would make them happier.

Quote from ASimpleMan : I already told you: the ex-gay directors of Exodus International that participated in the study.

I've done a lot of research, but I have no idea of what role they partook in the study or if they were really part of the results.

In any case, both members used to be gay and did qualify for the study, so I cannot see what the problem is. Monetary gain is just as legitimate a reason to change as a religious one (though, not as noble).

Quote from ASimpleMan : What classifies it in your mind as a mental disorder? What makes it a mental disorder? What's the definition of mental disorder?

Skipping this one. I've already made a case in previous threads and I don't care to repeat myself.

Quote from ASimpleMan : Why not focus first on things like credit card debt? Obesity? Smoking? Gambling? I'd agree with you on those issues, however, we don't even have the building blocks to understand WHY people are gay. How are we going to understand a solution when you don't even understand the cause of the "problem?"

And we never will as long as the APA is governed by gay lobbyists who hinder scientific progress.

Quote from ASimpleMan : Ehhhhh, yes and no. What you're referring to is considered the placebo effect, which only goes so far. There's a reason the placebo effect is named as such. If you really believe the PE as an effective solution to problems, then you may want to go research how effective it actually is.

No, I'm not referring to the placebo effect at all. I'm talking about the brain having control over our body, our emotions, our thoughts, and our habits.

Quote from ASimpleMan : No, I honestly could care less about that particular study. I've read other studies that are much more credible that support the same hypothesis.

I'm sure you've read lots of studies where successful middle class lesbians have children, which were planned, who do better in per-determined criteria compared to lower class households who had unplanned pregnancies.

Quote from CyberGuy : It frankly does matter. You wouldn't have your opinions if you knew a good number of them. I never judged neo-nazis, so your point doesn't make any sense. By definition, "Neo-Nazism borrows elements from Nazi doctrine, including militant nationalism, fascism, racism, xenophobia, homophobia and anti-Semitism" link [wikipedia.org]. That's why there is a lot of negative attitude toward them as your post implies. By definition, a homosexual is just someone who is sexually or romantically attracted to someone else of the same sex in the same way a heterosexual is to the opposite sex. Nothing more. You opinion of homosexuals is just based on your unfamiliarity with and, as a result, fear of them. Acknowledge this and stop judging them erroneously. You're just demonstrating pure stupidity at this point.

Lets see...

One homosexual molested me when I was 11. He ended up shot to death somehow.

Another used to be my boss and tried every way in the world to fire me for some unknown reason (I didn't even know he was gay). He ended up in a coma after his boyfriend tried to kill him with a claw hammer to the head. He fully recovered.

Tim was a good guy. I didn't spend much time with him outside of work, but I genuinely considered him a friend.

Josh was just weird.

Had another gay boss who was black no one could tolerate.

A few scary-as-hell lesbians and bi's here and there, but that's about it.

So I've known 1 homosexual I'd call a genuinely good person.

Quote from charles052 : Confirmation bias on my part? Funny how I can keep coming up with evidence to support that so-called 'bias', huh? In fact, the more people question and prod, the more I come up with just by for sake of curiosity. I do not have confirmation bias. I have confirmation, period.

I'll leave this alone since there's no reason to argue this.

Quote from charles052 : That said, Spitzer simply had his eyes opened by those who wanted to change and has changed. He was a psychiatrist with an impeccable record who's reputation suddenly went straight to hell as soon as he took on such a controversial subject. Suddenly his methodology, which once was superb, is now crap? This is a case of politics taking over the APA, pure and simple. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr6T4ka7TxU

Wait, so his record was "impeccable" and he declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder, which you disagree with..... So you disagree with him declassifying homosexuality. You agree with his flawed methodology of one of his studies in 2001 and cite him in 2004, but you disagree with Spitzer admitting that his study was flawed in 2012. You're simply picking and choosing at this point.

Quote from charles052 : Many of them are in the APA! So the APA itself can be considered much to be an activist group. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/...n/07062201

I don't see how this is any different than what you're complaining about? NARTH's funding is FROM groups like Exodus International. There's a huge conflict of interest. Now on the other hand, you have the APA, who has "pro-gay" as you claim them to be, could easily be a result of the studies, not despite the studies. On your side you have a defined monetary conflict of interest. On the other side, you only have allegations of conflict of interest. Which side has a better standing?

Quote from charles052 : Former APA president Nicholas Cummings called them simply 'the gay lobby'. http://narth.com/docs/insiders.html And said http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=176 Now, that's 3 renowned psychiatrists, 2 of them former presidents of the APA, that have publicly stated that APA is compromised by gay activist groups. Do you need any more evidence?

See above.

Quote from charles052 : The problem with that is that withholding such treatment from those who wish to change from gay to straight is considered unethical, which is why reparative therapy is still going today, and likely, will remain for the far future. Regardless of your opinion about reparative therapy being harmful, the desire to change in many homosexuals is so strong, that denying such treatment is possibly more harmful than you imagine the therapy to be.

It's not my opinion of it being harmful. There's leaps and bounds of evidence of it being harmful in COMPARISON to it being "successful." That's the problem with reparative therapy. It does more damage than it does good and that's why it's unethical. Would you want me performing open heart surgery when I have a success rate of 0.1%-5%? No, of course you wouldn't.

Quote from charles052 : And I can use that exact argument for the studies that help advocate homosexuality. It is well known that scientific studies help dictate social issues, which is why the gay lobby groups have worked so hard to control the field of psychiatry. So it's no wonder NARTH is constantly under attack so often.

There's a huge difference. The APA has to answer to the scientific community, whereas NARTH does not. NARTH is held accountable by absolutely no one.

Quote from charles052 : Reparative therapy is a direct threat to their political agenda. If gays could just 'change', then why would anyone help them fight for what they want?

Prove it. I have yet to meet one gay person that didn't see their own lives as being easier if they were straight.

Quote from charles052 : That's not what Chamber's said. He said, "The majority of people that I have met, and I would say the majority meaning 99.9% of them have not experienced a change in their orientation or have gotten to a place where they could say that they could never be tempted or are not tempted in some way or experience some level of same-sex attraction. I think there is a gender issue there, there are some women who have challenged me and said that my orientation or my attractions have changed completely. Those have been few and far between. The vast majority of people that I know will experience some level of same-sex attraction." You're probably taking that quote far out out of it's intended context, as many others have, intentionally, done. Allen Chambers himself admits to some homosexual attractions, but he is still a success, is he not? Or is even a little attraction to the same sex considered 'full blown gay'? If so, isn't that an unfair standard?

Actually, Chamber's arguments back my argument that sexuality is based on a spectrum, which you disagree with anyways. Once again, you're picking and choosing what you want to believe even from your own sources.

Quote from charles052 : As far as reparative therapy being harmful? Spitzer disagrees. In fact, he suggests that being told that change is impossible causes even more harm!

Wow, so now Spitzer has credibility again. Let me paste something I quoted before:

Quote : Exodus International also paid Spitzer to find potential interview subjects. In the same book, it is said, "Spitzer talked about his feeling that side from the ministry and workshop leaders, most of the men and women at the conference were not succeeding in changing their sexuality." Once again it also said (the interview), "Over lunch, he had admitted to experiencing difficulties in finding respondents for his study, and he had warned ex-gay leaders that if they did not refer more people, he would be unable to write a positive study for them." When interviewed again, he said in the Wall Street Journal (May 23, 2001), "He acknowledged that complete change was uncommon and wrote that no one should use his study to justify a denial of civil rights to homosexuals or as support for coercive treatment." Furthermore, he later wrote in an editorial, "The assumption I am now challenging is this: that every desire for change in sexual orientation is always the result of societal pressure and NEVER the product of a rational, self-directed goal."

Your stances:
1973: Disagree - Spitzer declassifying homosexuality from the DSM.
2001: Agree - Publishes his study.
2001: Disagree - He makes the statement that gays shouldn't be denied rights based on this study.
2004: Agree - With an edited video of Spitzer saying Homosexuals can change.
2012: Disagree - Spitzer retracts his study, admitting the faults of methodology.

See where there's a problem. You don't even give credibility to your best advocate on the subject.

Quote from charles052 : Perhaps many of these gay suicides are not from any kind of peer discrimination, but from their inability to accept that they cannot change and be who they truly wish to be! I'd bet even a 30-50% change in their heterosexuality would make them happier.

Sure, but what would it matter if they were gay unless they were being discriminated against?

Quote from charles052 : I've done a lot of research, but I have no idea of what role they partook in the study or if they were really part of the results. In any case, both members used to be gay and did qualify for the study, so I cannot see what the problem is. Monetary gain is just as legitimate a reason to change as a religious one (though, not as noble).

See my quote above.

Quote from charles052 : Skipping this one. I've already made a case in previous threads and I don't care to repeat myself.

Actually, I looked all around and this is all I could find before your previous post:

Quote from charles052 : I still think it's a choice, but it could also be a mental disorder.

You now stated it's a mental disorder. So please, I'm really curious about your answers to these questions:

What makes homosexuality a mental disorder? What are the criteria that makes a "condition" a mental disorder?