Psychologists Repudiate Gay-to-Straight Therapy

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
142

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
LOL! If you knew how much effort goes into serious trolling, you’d shudder. I’ve kind of mellowed lately, not planting things in the female sections or on other boards. But I’ll never top Zap Branigan and his raid on a quilting board (search it here). Pure and classic T-Nation! And I sure do miss the Zapster.
[/quote]

To be honest, I’ve enjoyed your more serious posts in the Ayn Rand thread. You may be losing your trolling touch, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing :wink:

143

[quote]ds1973 wrote:
I thought this fit the topic nicely.

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=155

One reason why conversion might be so difficult is that the brains of gays may be different from their straight counterparts. For example, a couple of studies have been done that show that the brains of gay people are different than those of straight people. And that gay people respond to pheromones differently than straight people.

This isn’t surprising, sexual attraction resides in the brain. But where do these changes come from? Are they destined by genes, is it something in the environment or a combination of the two?

The best evidence points to the environment and genes both playing a role.

He then talks a bit about twin studies, very interesting stuff.

A number of studies have looked at homosexuality in twins, all with similar results. For example, in one study, if one identical twin was gay, the other was also gay 50% of the time. If they were fraternal twins, they were both gay 22% of the time. And if one was adopted, the chances fell to 11%.
…
This strongly suggests that there is a genetic component - there is something in their genes that makes them more likely to be gay. Genetics, though, isn’t everything.

If it were, then identical twins would both be gay 100% of the time. And this clearly isn’t the case.

And if it were all environment, then identical twins would both be gay as often as fraternal twins. Again, this isn’t the situation.

So the interplay of environment and genes probably results in homosexuality. By environment, I don’t just mean how someone is raised (although that is sometimes part of it). I mean the effect the environment can have on how the brain is hardwired very early on.

Now I know someone’s going to say that twins are identical, so it must be a choice, but identical twins may come from the same egg/sperm combo, however from womb development on, their environments can be different. Apparently, even in the womb, one can receive more nutrients than the other.

It’s interesting. Height is also something that is both genetic and environmental. I work with a girl who is an identical twin and she’s actually a few inches shorter than her twin sister. They grew up in the same house, same schools, etc. Could have been anything in the environment that she was exposed to and her sister was not, virus, bacteria, radiation, worse nutrition, etc…

Identical twins genes not identical:

Why Identical twins are different:

My grandmother and her identical twin look a lot different now at 83 than they did as teens. One married, had kids and quit smoking early in life (30s) while the other never married, smoked into her late 60’s, early 70s, and now has emphysema. She’s also the one I mentioned earlier who we’re pretty sure is a homosexual.
[/quote]

Excellent post, thanks for sharing. I agree with the conclusion that sexual orientation is probably developed as a result of both genetics and environment. The twin studies provide pretty compelling evidence on that point.

I read a study that just came out this week, showing how certain parts of the brains of gay men are more similar to women than to straight men. Gay men still have parts of their brains similar to straight men, but certain areas like the facility for language and emotion are more similar to women. We know the brain becomes sexualized through hormonal secretions in the womb, so this seems to be part of the puzzle as well.

144

The trouble with accepting what the APA says is that they also say that IQ is determined genetically, for the most part. There’s another thread here with a link I posted wrt that.

So…if we accept their conclusions with regard to THIS thread, should we accept their connecting race with IQ?

145

You don’t have to take the APA’s word for it. The same conclusions on homosexuality are reached by every other major medical and mental health organization.

146

[quote]forlife wrote:
You don’t have to take the APA’s word for it. The same conclusions on homosexuality are reached by every other major medical and mental health organization.[/quote]

x11! Goebbels would be proud.

147

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
x11! Goebbels would be proud. [/quote]

I’ll keep making the point until people acknowledge it. Lame attempts to dismiss these scientific conclusions in the name of political bias, as if every single one of the medical and mental health organizations is corrupt, underscore the desperatism of the anti-gay agenda.

It must drive you nuts that all of these organizations say you are wrong, so I don’t blame you for not wanting to hear it.

148

[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
x11! Goebbels would be proud.

I’ll keep making the point until people acknowledge it. Lame attempts to dismiss these scientific conclusions in the name of political bias, as if every single one of the medical and mental health organizations is corrupt, underscore the desperatism of the anti-gay agenda.
[/quote]
Not what I said. That’s in your head, not mine. The APA’s report (again, actually read it) discusses all of the lobbying done by various organizations and their attempts to reconcile the demands of both.

[quote]
It must drive you nuts that all of these organizations say you are wrong, so I don’t blame you for not wanting to hear it.[/quote]

Actually, forlife, the APA report agreed with me a hell of a lot more than it agreed with you. For you, the answer is to just keep repeating that the scientific consensus agrees with you when this is not actually the case. A lie repeated often enough, and all that. The first rule of good propaganda is to keep repeating what you want believed over and over again.

149

I’ve read the APA’s report, including the actual conclusions that they made based on the research that has been conducted. Just because you disagree with their conclusions doesn’t make them any less valid.

Why are you confusing the methodology discussed by the APA with the conclusions that they have drawn based on that methodology? They have considered the LIMITATIONS of that methodology, and have still drawn the CONCLUSIONS that are warranted based on what we actually know.

Like it or not, every major medical and mental health organizations says your statements about homosexuality are flat out WRONG. Homosexuality is not a mental disorder, people don’t choose their sexual orientation, they can’t change it, and attempting to do so can be damaging. Sorry if you don’t want that to be true, but it doesn’t change the data upon which those conclusions are based.

150

x12. You’ve gotten your average up to 2 times per page now.

I think we’ve passed the point of useful discussion now, forlife. You’re just sort of mindlessly repeating yourself, and I don’t feel the need to do a bunch of copy-and-paste jobs of rebuttals I’ve already given to your tired propaganda. Thanks for the opportunity you’ve given me, though.

151

That’s right, the conclusions of every major medical and mental health organization (x13) are nothing more than tired propaganda. Here’s some of that propaganda for you in case you missed it earlier:

[quote]The most important fact about ‘reparative therapy,’ also sometimes known as ‘conversion’ therapy, is that it is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers, together representing more than 477,000 health and mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a ‘cure.’

…health and mental health professional organizations do not support efforts to change young people’s sexual orientation through ‘reparative therapy’ and have raised serious concerns about its potential to do harm.[/quote]

According to the American Medical Association:

The American Academy of Pediatrics in its policy statement on Homosexuality and Adolescence states:

The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Promote Sexual Health and Responsible Sexual Behavior (2001) asserts that homosexuality is not “a reversible lifestyle choice.”

American Psychiatric Association:

National Association of Social Workers:

[quote] Social stigmatization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people is widespread and is a primary motivating factor in leading some people to seek sexual orientation changes. Sexual orientation conversion therapies assume that homosexual orientation is both pathological and freely chosen. No data demonstrate that reparative or conversion therapies are effective, and in fact they may be harmful. NASW believes social workers have the responsibility to clients to explain the prevailing knowledge concerning sexual orientation and the lack of data reporting positive outcomes with reparative therapy. NASW discourages social workers from providing treatments designed to change sexual orientation or from referring practitioners or programs that claim to do so…

The increase in media campaigns, often coupled with coercive messages from family and community members, has created an environment in which lesbians and gay men often are pressured to seek reparative or conversion therapies, which cannot and will not change sexual orientation.

No data demonstrate that reparative or conversion therapies are effective, and in fact they may be harmful.[/quote]

American Psychological Association:

[quote]Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?
No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?
No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.[/quote]

152

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:

Actually, forlife, the APA report agreed with me a hell of a lot more than it agreed with you. [/quote]

lol. 'cept that damn pesky “conclusion,” right?

I’m sorry if I missed it, can you demonstrage a single organization that disagrees with him? (that crazy place that Zeb keeps linking to that talks about the Illuminati doesn’t count). I’ll bet you can’t.

[quote] A lie repeated often enough, and all that. The first rule of good propaganda is to keep repeating what you want believed over and over again.
[/quote]

Is that why you’re still posting here?

153

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:

Actually, forlife, the APA report agreed with me a hell of a lot more than it agreed with you.

lol. 'cept that damn pesky “conclusion,” right?

For you, the answer is to just keep repeating that the scientific consensus agrees with you when this is not actually the case.

I’m sorry if I missed it, can you demonstrage a single organization that disagrees with him? (that crazy place that Zeb keeps linking to that talks about the Illuminati doesn’t count). I’ll bet you can’t.

A lie repeated often enough, and all that. The first rule of good propaganda is to keep repeating what you want believed over and over again.

Is that why you’re still posting here? [/quote]

I’d really like it if guys like you and forlife would start reading. When did I say I supported an aversion form of reparative therapy? When did I say I favored beating people over the head with guilt during SOCE? In fact, I said the exact opposite. I don’t favor it for the same reason I don’t favor electrotherapy for anxiety and depression as was used in the 60s and 70s. Get it?

Whether the “major medical organizations” consider homosexuality a mental illness is irrelevant to my argument. Most people desire to live a life of “telic congruence,” and this can’t be done if you actually believe most major religions and are a practicing homosexual. Forlife’s resolution to this problem was to ditch his religion in favor of something else that affirmed his lifestyle. Great. Many other people actually want to keep believing.

Moreover, homosexuality as it is ACTUALLY PRACTICED could arguably be called a form of self-harm to many people. The rampant disease, the promiscuity, etc. Forlife attempts to create this dichotomy between sexual irresponsibility and homosexuality that is not extant in reality except in a minority of cases, as everyone knows. Some people, telic congruence or no, simply do not want to live that lifestyle despite their proclivities. Forlife wants everyone to think and act like him, though. Dammit if they don’t!

Since I’m able to write more than a sentence at a time, I don’t think a discussion between you and I will be profitable either.

154

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Most people desire to live a life of “telic congruence,” and this can’t be done if you actually believe most major religions and are a practicing homosexual.[/quote]

Sure it can. Believers do it all the time, 'cept their incongruent lifestyle choices are ones that are either a little too inconvenient for everyone to actually abide by (so they aren’t cherry picked for ridicule) or have been deemed too barbaric for our modern tastes so they are labeled outdated or erroneous. Homosexuality is icky enough and confined to a small enough population that most everyone else can rally behind what their good book says while ignoring all the shit that goes on in the paragraphs above and below.

And most of these “believers” manage to sleep just fine at night.

155

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I’d really like it if guys like you and forlife would start reading. When did I say I supported an aversion form of reparative therapy? When did I say I favored beating people over the head with guilt during SOCE? In fact, I said the exact opposite. I don’t favor it for the same reason I don’t favor electrotherapy for anxiety and depression as was used in the 60s and 70s. Get it? [/quote]

The medical and mental health organizations recommend against ANY kind of reparative therapy, aversive or otherwise. People cannot change their orientation and attempting to do so can be damaging. Get it?

The best advice of these organizations to religiously conflicted gays is to honor telic congruence by either a) choosing celibacy, or b) finding a religion that doesn’t consider homosexuality to be a sin.

People are free to choose a sexually responsible life, irrespective of whether or not they are gay. Quit confusing the issue. You can’t change whether or not people are gay, you can only encourage them to live with integrity and responsibility.

156

[quote]anonym wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Most people desire to live a life of “telic congruence,” and this can’t be done if you actually believe most major religions and are a practicing homosexual.

Sure it can. Believers do it all the time, 'cept their incongruent lifestyle choices are ones that are either a little too inconvenient for everyone to actually abide by (so they aren’t cherry picked for ridicule) or have been deemed too barbaric for our modern tastes so they are labeled outdated or erroneous. Homosexuality is icky enough and confined to a small enough population that most everyone else can rally behind what their good book says while ignoring all the shit that goes on in the paragraphs above and below.

And most of these “believers” manage to sleep just fine at night.[/quote]

Really? Do you hear of many philanderers amongst the “believers” who say to themselves, “At least I’m not a practicing homosexual, so I can sleep easy tonight?” Generally, therapists refer to such people as “sociopaths.” How about murderers? Know a lot of murdering “believers” who sleep peacefully? Thieves? Liars? I don’t think many psychologists would treat these forms of telic incongruence as anything but problematic. Guilt is a pretty psychologically damaging thing.

157

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:

Actually, forlife, the APA report agreed with me a hell of a lot more than it agreed with you.

lol. 'cept that damn pesky “conclusion,” right?

For you, the answer is to just keep repeating that the scientific consensus agrees with you when this is not actually the case.

I’m sorry if I missed it, can you demonstrage a single organization that disagrees with him? (that crazy place that Zeb keeps linking to that talks about the Illuminati doesn’t count). I’ll bet you can’t.

A lie repeated often enough, and all that. The first rule of good propaganda is to keep repeating what you want believed over and over again.

Is that why you’re still posting here?

I’d really like it if guys like you and forlife would start reading. When did I say I supported an aversion form of reparative therapy? When did I say I favored beating people over the head with guilt during SOCE? In fact, I said the exact opposite. I don’t favor it for the same reason I don’t favor electrotherapy for anxiety and depression as was used in the 60s and 70s. Get it?

Whether the “major medical organizations” consider homosexuality a mental illness is irrelevant to my argument. Most people desire to live a life of “telic congruence,” and this can’t be done if you actually believe most major religions and are a practicing homosexual. Forlife’s resolution to this problem was to ditch his religion in favor of something else that affirmed his lifestyle. Great. Many other people actually want to keep believing.

Moreover, homosexuality as it is ACTUALLY PRACTICED could arguably be called a form of self-harm to many people. The rampant disease, the promiscuity, etc. Forlife attempts to create this dichotomy between sexual irresponsibility and homosexuality that is not extant in reality except in a minority of cases, as everyone knows. Some people, telic congruence or no, simply do not want to live that lifestyle despite their proclivities. Forlife wants everyone to think and act like him, though. Dammit if they don’t!

Since I’m able to write more than a sentence at a time, I don’t think a discussion between you and I will be profitable either.
[/quote]

lol. You said some very silly stuff, then get angry when I don’t “take you seriously!!!1!” Give me a break. Answer my points instead of creating a sideshow and maybe I’ll change my mind.

For example you said: [quote]For you [forlife], the answer is to just keep repeating that the scientific consensus agrees with you when this is not actually the case. [/quote]

I said: [quote]I’m sorry if I missed it, can you demonstrate a single organization that disagrees with him? (that crazy place that Zeb keeps linking to that talks about the Illuminati doesn’t count). I’ll bet you can’t. [/quote]

Then you say: [quote]Whether the “major medical organizations” consider homosexuality a mental illness is irrelevant to my argument. [/quote]

lol

158

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
anonym wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Most people desire to live a life of “telic congruence,” and this can’t be done if you actually believe most major religions and are a practicing homosexual.

Sure it can. Believers do it all the time, 'cept their incongruent lifestyle choices are ones that are either a little too inconvenient for everyone to actually abide by (so they aren’t cherry picked for ridicule) or have been deemed too barbaric for our modern tastes so they are labeled outdated or erroneous. Homosexuality is icky enough and confined to a small enough population that most everyone else can rally behind what their good book says while ignoring all the shit that goes on in the paragraphs above and below.

And most of these “believers” manage to sleep just fine at night.

Really? Do you hear of many philanderers amongst the “believers” who say to themselves, “At least I’m not a practicing homosexual, so I can sleep easy tonight?” Generally, therapists refer to such people as “sociopaths.” How about murderers? Know a lot of murdering “believers” who sleep peacefully? Thieves? Liars? I don’t think many psychologists would treat these forms of telic incongruence as anything but problematic. Guilt is a pretty psychologically damaging thing.
[/quote]

Well, I was speaking more towards the people who choose to eat shellfish, wear garments of different cloth, plant two different seeds in the same field, get tattoos, and cut the hair at their temples/edges of their beard… things of that nature.

All that silly stuff that is mentioned in Leviticus alongside the homo passage. People don’t seem to care about any of that, but I’ll be damned if those queers don’t raise their hackles.

159

Actually religious people should be creaming in their holy pants if homosexuality had a genetic component to it; with genetic screening a recombinant DNA technology you never know what implications this would have for rabid homophobes!

160

[quote]phil_leotardo wrote:
Actually religious people should be creaming in their holy pants if homosexuality had a genetic component to it; with genetic screening a recombinant DNA technology you never know what implications this would have for rabid homophobes![/quote]

Why just religious people? Wouldn’t the pro-choice atheist be just as likely to take advantage of said technology? And why would it be homophobic? I mean, if you can line up the fetus’ orientation with respect to it’s reproductive organs, thus giving it the option of having children the old fashioned way with a future mate, why not?

Edit: In fact, I wouldn’t be shocked if a large number of homosexuals opted for heterosexualization of their surrogate born children.