APA's nonsense "Resolution on...Sexual Orientation...Change Efforts"

"[N]egative self-image," what is that? Does the American Psychological Association (APA) define "negative" there?

Here it is in their context":

Although sound data on the safety of SOCE are extremely limited, some individuals reported being harmed by SOCE. Distress and depression were exacerbated. Belief in the hope of sexual orientation change followed by the failure of the treatment was identified as a significant cause of distress and negative self-image (Beckstead & Morrow, 2004; Shidlo & Schroeder, 2002). (Resolution on Appropriate Affirmative Responses to Sexual Orientation Distress and Change Efforts)

"...some individuals reported being harmed by SOCE." The APA defines harm there as exacerbated distress and depression. No thought is given there to the reasons for the failure or the basis upon which that self-image is to be deemed negative rather than the sign of at least somewhat of a working conscience?

Whereas those operating from religious/spiritual traditions are encouraged to recognize that it is outside their role and expertise to adjudicate empirical scientific issues in psychology, while also recognizing they can appropriately speak to theological implications of psychological science (APA, 2008b);

"[E]mpirical scientific issues in psychology" are in question. The APA has leveled many criticisms against those who do not accept the APA's stated opinions on homosexuality, which criticisms when turned around and applied to the APA, show the APA to be guilty of shoddy science and research and reporting, etc. The NARTH, the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, website (http://narth.com/) is loaded with documentation showing the APA's gross hypocrisy.

Therefore be it resolved that the American Psychological Association affirms that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality regardless of sexual orientation identity;

How can sodomy be deemed positive? The APA is in denial. The APA's official position is a sign of mental disorder. I do not find the APA secularly scientific (such "science" being its stated basis). How can they say that a males penis up someone's rectum is a positive behavior and healthy? It's prima fascia insanity, self-evident. There is no science that will ever prove otherwise.

Be it further resolved that the American Psychological Association reaffirms its position that homosexuality per se is not a mental disorder and opposes portrayals of sexual minority youths and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation;

How can sodomy not be deemed a sign of mental illness, a mental lapse at best but disordered for sure?

Why should anyone who fails to overcome it in feelings, thoughts, words, and deeds not continue to have serious self-image problems?

Rather than caving into the error and deeming it positive and healthy, I say to the APA to overcome its own denial and work directly with the SOCE community to get to the bottom of same-sex attraction and to devise treatments that will be successful in all cases as the goal.

See related recent posts:

  • Subscribe
  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.