Update of Wednesday, February 12, 2014 starts here.
Update 2 of Wednesday, February 12, 2014 starts here.
Update 3 of Thursday, February 13, 2014 starts here.
Update 4 of Tuesday, February 18, 2014 starts here.
The following is a discussion on this article-post on the Washington Times: "Court upholds California ban on 'sexual-orientation change' therapy Therapists' lawyer plans Supreme Court review."The conversation is not copyright protected. It is in the public domain. I am including it here because I've had extensive such discussions on the Internet with homosexuals and pro-homosexuality activists and supporters only to have those completely disappear, be deleted, etc., by the pro-homosexuality sites (censorship). I'm not claiming that the Washington Times is pro-homosexuality. It could though change its site at some point or archive things, rendering the discussion inaccessible. Ironically and to its own detriment, NARTH has done that to itself. Many links to old NARTH content are now broken, and Google and other searches for the material on narth.com come up empty. Whether its intentional or not, I can't say. I suspect they don't have a consistent webmastering policy to assure that old urls point to where materials have been moved.
Ted Lieu and his ilk don't give a damn about children who are homosexually abused into homosexual attractions that those youths do not want.
Such abuse definitely imprints upon children. It is physical and mental conditioning. They need help to break it. Lieu couldn't care less.
I have yet to hear, see, and read one homosexual advocate stand up for the rights of children to get that help, no coercion, no drugs, no electrical shocks ..., just typical talk therapy.
There are many people who had homosexual attractions that they thought were overwhelming and might never even diminish only to discover upon seeking help that they could experience huge diminishment in such attractions and turn their lives around from the largely promiscuous homosexual lifestyle fraught with very real risks for health and safety and not due to heterosexuals "stigmatizing" homosexuals.
"Reparative therapy" has been proven time and again to be nothing but abuse. That is what you advocate.
Tom to godlessveteran
"... the literature regarding youth as related to alcohol and cigarettes is extensive, with studies numbering in the thousands. With such a sizeable database, one could reasonably expect that observations relative to the harms of cigarettes and alcohol among youth reflect reliable scientific information that has been replicated in numerous ways. These results, then, form the standard by which we can evaluate the volume of scientific literature from which any claims about SOCE and youth are based.
"Since SOCE is a relatively new term in the literature, I also conducted searches utilizing the terms "reparative therapy," "conversion therapy," and "sexual reorientation therapy," which were in use long before SOCE was coined. My extensive search of the databases to identify scientific literature supportive of Sen. Lieu's comparison yielded the following findings: ..."
Christopher Rosik, Ph.D., found nothing to support your claims. You may read his statement here: http://www.realliberalchristia...
Let me remind you that we are talking about talk therapy. NARTH is, and has been, openly opposed to abuse and coercion.
From their site:
"The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) has become aware of recent reports of abusive sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) alleged to be occurring in China and other international contexts. These accounts have highlighted the use of electric shock or pornography exposure interventions to change sexual orientation.
"NARTH is on the record and repeats again here that aversive therapies such as those utilizing electric shock as well as the introduction of pornography are not effective and have no place in the professional care of clients with unwanted same-sex attractions and behaviors. NARTH reminds professional mental health practitioners in these contexts that assistance can be offered to those with unwanted same-sex attractions through conventional talk therapy."
billJohnson19D (hereafter "Bill")
This law does nothing to prevent those who have suffered sexual abuse from getting help. Sexual abuse does not lead to one being gay, it may be accompanied by some sexual confusion but that is not what SOCE is about. SOCE is about attempting to change ones sexual ordination from gay to heterosexual and blaming ones sexual orientation on some past trauma even if said trauma doesn't exist.
It appears that you are ignorant and a product of false propaganda issued by the homosexual movement.
"Childhood Sexual Abuse is Correlated with Male Homosexuality
"Results of this study underscore the importance of a need for increased understanding of the effects of sexual abuse in the development of adult male homosexuality. Dr. Dickson's findings are congruent with those of Finkelhor (1984) which found that boys victimized by older men were four times more likely to be currently involved in homosexuality than were nonvictims. All of the respondents in Dr. Dickson's study reported their molestation as having occurred by a male perpetrator; none reported female abusers. This finding, perhaps one of the most significant of Dr. Dickson's study, suggests that sexual abuse should be considered in evaluating etiologic factors contributing to the development of adult male homosexuality. He Dickson stated, 'An experience of sexual abuse could possibly contribute to the sexualizing of the unmet needs for male affection, attention, and connection.'"
You're quoting NARTH to me???? Seriously???? NARTH would be a joke if the nonsense they put out there wasn't so damaging to families and individuals. Put simply they are a shell organization, with only one individual on salary, pushing completely discredited psychiatric thought that is a couple of decades old. Put simply their theory is that a boy who is "prehomosexual" and experiencing a lack of male relationships, and then sexual abused, will eroticize
that abuse and see it as a good thing because it gives them a relationship with someone of the same sex.
They back up this nonsense by citing the reports from their own client base, and yet we know that they pressure their clients into fitting with this model, often convincing clients that they have some repressed memory of abuse if they don't report any. When faced with clients who don't report any abuse or any negative relationship with their parents NARTH thinking says that the individual either doesn't remember or doesn't want to report past abuse in
order to protect their family. They have their theory and they are sticking with it, even if there are zero facts to back it up. Forget unreliable, NARTH is downright deceptive and again let me remind you, it is nothing more than a shell organization with only one individual on salary.
If you want more studies done on SOCE then perhaps the organizations that push it should actually open up to research. Most of these groups won't even let a reporter into their meetings; much less participate in a study on the effectiveness of their methods. Secondly if there isn't enough data on SOCE to ban it then there certainly isn't enough data for these people to be experimenting on kids with unproven methods. What you see is ex-gay groups deliberately shutting down any outside efforts to study what they do and then claiming that there isn't enough research to regulate the practice, oh well how convenient for them.
"When faced with clients who don't report any abuse or any negative relationship with their parents NARTH thinking says that the individual either doesn't remember or doesn't want to report past abuse in order to protect their family."
NARTH does not make that claim about abuse. You're simply making up falsehoods or repeating falsehoods stated by others before you.
As for homosexuals self-reporting no environmental issues concerning upbringing, it is well documented that there are people who have repressed memories. To suggest that suspecting repression might be present with a given client is an inherently bad practice is rather shallow thinking on your part.
Anyone who accepts your positions without checking for accuracy is being naive and gullible.
Show us one instance where NARTH has shut down any study of Reparative Therapy. You can't because there is none.
You come off as an activist troll filling this thread with wholly unsubstantiated and insupportable, even wildly ridiculous, claims.
It is the APA's that have shut down studies on Reparative Therapy, not the other way around. NARTH asked to do joint studies but was rebuffed by the pro-homosexuality controlled APA's.
In addition, every therapy starts somewhere. They aren't all born fully developed. Besides, RT has been around a long, long time, and there were zero formal complaints lodged against it, and I mean the type of treatment accepted by NARTH, before the legislation in CA was introduced.
So you start of by disputing that NARTH thinking promotes
the idea of repressed or unreported memories of abuse when faced with clients who don't report such trauma, and then you turn around and defend that position anyway saying that repressed memories could be present in those who don't report such abuse. You're better off going with the second position, NARTH's theories on homosexuality demand that some trauma exist in order to turn the "prehomosexual" youth into someone who is same-sex attracted, so if that trauma isn't reported then NARTH's theories demand the belief that the trauma is actually there but just repressed or non-reported. Basically the default position is to question and doubt any statement from a client self-reporting no environmental issues concerning upbringing.
Secondly the idea of repressed memories is not well
documented and actually is a highly controversial question with many professionals believing that the attempts to "recover" these "repressed memories" actually is responsible for creating false memories, (see information on False memory syndrome). The practice of recovering repressed memories is even more questionable when the therapist involved as an invested interest in "uncovering" the alleged memories, a vested interest that is clearly there for any therapist operating on the theories that NARTH promotes.
Oh please, a joint study with NARTH on reparative therapy
would be like doing a joint study on the effect of smoking with a tobacco company; NARTH is dedicated to lobbing for, promoting, and selling reparative therapy so they are about as far from unbiased on this subject as you could possibly get. Besides as I mentioned earlier NARTH is just a shell organization, only one guy on salary, so they aren't in the research business, rather they exist to defend the work that their member therapists do. I am talking about outside critical research which requires access that these ex-gay organizations don't want to give.
You say I am making unsupported claims and yet the fact that access to observe SOCE programs is extremely hard to come buy is well known to anyone who follows this issue closely. Heck in the court case in California the clients aren't even named, this therapy is supposedly great for them and yet don't want to be identified with the case that would allow the practice to continue for minors. That's a largely unrelated example but you see the same problem with access to programs, just look at how closely access to the conferences for these groups is controlled. I would hazard a guess that much of this restriction on access is due to the fact that Information on what these groups do typically makes their methods look bad. For example the video of the cuddle therapy, or hitting a pillow with a tennis racket from IHF or information about love in actions residential program.
Are you ever confused. Notice the period there.
You read in things that just aren't there.
I was referring to abuse in the first instance. Maybe you'll comprehend it if I say that my point was, and is, that NARTH does not hold the position that all homosexuality comes from abuse. In fact, if you'd bother to become at all educated about NARTH and its positions, something I have done at length, you will discover that abuse is way down on their list relative to parenting and other factors (absent abuse, per se).
Regardless, homosexual sexual abuse of children does result in homosexual conditioning in theretofore heterosexually oriented youths.
As for repressed memories, there are repressed memories and then there are repressed memories. It doesn't take much to get some people to face what happened to them when they are looking for help and seek out a Reparative therapist, as many have and will continue to do. It doesn't take any evil manipulation or planting of false memories.
Any adult who thinks there is no such thing as a repressed memory is not only ignorant but rather stupid and shouldn't have a license to treat anyone for mental problems.
You say NARTH is biased, too biased to work on a joint study. I said that it is the two APA's that have blocked unbiased research because each has been overrun by biased homosexuals (on purpose: ideological, often sexual libertines/anarchists, not scientific). Even still, NARTH is willing to work with those organizations on research where everyone involved would be able to fully critique the work as it is happening, etc.
If NARTH is so secretive for the reasons you apparently think, then why is it that NARTH is prepared to do open research with the other organizations while those others are not?
Your analogy with tobacco companies actually works against you, as if they had been open and had conducted joint research with those who believed that smoking was unhealthy, those tobacco companies would have had to stop lying about their products long before they did.
Knowing that, you should be screaming for NARTH to do open research with the others rather than just badmouthing NARTH out of your deep ignorance about them.
Have you ever talked to anyone in NARTH about these matters?
You blame NARTH that minors aren't identified in a court case? Well, there are other court cases where they are identified. Your statement is irrelevant.
You mention someone hitting a pillow with a tennis racket, but do you take every member of both APA's and select just one and then paint both organizations in their entirety with that one brush? If so, you'll have deep problems with them, as there are still members in both who do not agree with all things APA vis-a-vis homosexuality.
Frankly, your positions on these matters are very immature.
You'd probably benefit from Reparative Therapy.
Oh I am well aware of the fact that NARTH doesn't say all
homosexuality comes from abuse, although your right, I could have been clearer in the wording I used. NARTH thinking dictates that homosexuality came from some developmental problem, and their favorite model is saying that failure to properly identify with ones gender because of an overbearing mother or absent father causes male homosexuality. The point is that their thinking demands that some past problem exist and when one isn't reported the assumption automatically is that there is some problem that isn't being reported, perhaps because the memory has been repressed. The possibility that the individual is just naturally homosexual and that there wasn't some developmental problem isn't even entertained and this is why any statements regarding repressed memories are highly problematic. When the topic of repressed memories comes up in reparative therapy it isn't an honest attempt to see if they exist but rather an attempt to fit the client under one of NATH's theories about what causes homosexuality.
If NATH were to say that some people naturally are
homosexual while saying that others have unwanted SSA because of some development problem that would be one thing but instead they try to say that all homosexuality comes from some developmental problem ignoring all gay people
who had no developmental problems in their past.
First off if I may what exactly is your connection to NARTH?
In what capacity did you talk with them?
Secondly I didn't just mention someone hitting a pillow with
a tennis racket, I mentioned the leader of IHF doing this, and IHF has close ties to NARTH. Indeed Chris Doyle how works for IHF has presented at NARTH conferences and is admin on NARTH's facebook page. The two are closely linked and again the undeniable fact is that these groups all are very protective with how much access they grant to outside observation, and again I think this is because outside observation typically makes them look bad.
Finally I did go through reparative therapy, and it was 100%
nonsense. There are zero developmental issues in my past and so I had direct experience with the line of "well if you don't remember anything then there must be a repressed memory of the problem that led to you being gay" My position is one of direct experience with how absurd these practices are, how harmful they can be and is a position that falls in line with the experiences of most people who go through reparative therapy. If they want to operate without the current level of opposition they need to stop subjecting minors to this stuff and they need to admit that not all gay people have some developmental problem that "caused" their homosexuality.
Well, good for you that you can acknowledge that you could have been clearer. I think you're understating the degree of your error to unnecessarily save face, but will accept your statement nevertheless.
As you should be aware, NARTH is not a monolith. There are many different personalities involved with divergent views. You mention Christopher Doyle in another message that I will address shortly. He does not say that all homosexuality is intrinsically disordered, that homosexuality is a mental disorder. I know this because I asked him directly.
Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, with whom I have also communicated directly on these matters, believes that his Reparative Therapy (RT) understanding explains absolutely all homosexuality. I don't agree with that but do believe that it explains a great many homosexuals, the vast majority. Without more careful studies, it is impossible to say just what other dynamics work and to what degree. For instance, you don't believe that homosexual childhood-sexual abuse causes any homosexuality; however, assuming it does, than what influence does the parenting of the child have to do with whether the child ultimately accepts or rejects (to use very general, sweeping terms for the sake of brevity) same-sex attractions the otherwise result of physical conditioning? In the end, it may be that Nicolosi is right. I'm not closed to it.
Why not design studies where methodologies are generally acceptable to both NARTH and both APA? If you've read the back-and-forth debates, which I have, you should recognize that much of it hinges upon almost splitting hairs where such splitting could easily be designed out of the studies/research. To me, it is a lack of willingness by homosexuals within the APA's that blocks the APA's in whole from working things out in panels focus solely upon the scientific method rather than any ideology whatsoever.
You see, you come with a personal bias that you had no developmental problems but that you were born homosexual. Identical-twin studies do not support the "born that way" meme. Neither does epigenetics if you are tempted to appeal to that. The vast body of studies shows that environmental influences are at least mostly responsible. Even both APA's openly state that same-sex attraction is fluid: comes and goes. For some, it stays longer, even to death; but still ....
After we get beyond the first wave of homosexual-activist propaganda, the discussion usually turns to amorality and certainly to the exclusion of science.
You may (likely) believe that there is nothing wrong with homosexual sex, that some homosexuals don't engage in the riskiest of behaviors, etc., therefore society has no compelling interest in instructing the children that such activities do pose grave risks. I believe this is the slippery slope on which society is largely being dragged by a great many homosexuals who are rather helter-skelter in their thinking, interested first and foremost in getting society as a whole to accept and embrace an anything-goes world of sexual behavior and the negative consequences be damned or that society should consume itself with a Band-Aid approach inherently including masking over deep-seated problems.
You see, I strongly believe that males sodomizing each other is a plain symptom of mental disease. I also believe that as one backs away from that behavior and looks at so-called lesser behavior such as oral sex, that same thing continues to apply until one reaches the point where it is understood that all sexual activity of males with males is disordered and undesirable for the sake of humanity and every individual, including you.
Males sodomizing each other is the easy first target because it is so obviously fraught with gigantic risks and negatives some of which can never be avoided (but those some are often still too subtle for many if not most to see). The shallower the thinker, the less that one will be able to connect the dots from one behavior to another until the bigger picture is seen that homosexuality is a fundamental error: unhealthy.
Could more, better studies and research either prove or disprove my positions? Yes. Am I afraid of such studies/research? No.
The real issue is whether people want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Would you be willing that society look at the so-called hard questions and then change your life accordingly, or are you too locked into your lifestyle and don't want to have to face dramatic changes?
I have no "connection" to NARTH in the sense you mean. I'm not a member, never have been, and have never acted in any formal or informal capacity for them.
I talked with them in the capacity of myself. I don't know what you think is necessary there.
I addressed the issue of Christopher Doyle in my earlier reply. The tennis-racket idea is tied to the notion of getting one's aggressions out: taking out one's frustrations on an inanimate object. It comes on the heels of discovering that one's mother was smothering, etc., in a narcissistic triad that includes a distant father. It isn't something I would encourage because the line could be blurry for some who might be unnecessarily tempted to act out directly against his mom, which many sick people do.
As for NARTH's closeness, I am for more openness on their part but don't have a problem with them holding off what would be an overwhelming flood of activists with no interest at all in reasonable, rational dialogue. There are people who are only interested in being disruptive rather than on finding the truth.
Outside observation doesn't make them look bad. They video their conferences. I've seen many hours of such videos, training, panel discussions, interviews, etc. They sell their books openly. What they don't do is allow themselves to be flooded with trolling, venomous, commentary. I have no problem with that, though they are tighter than I would be. I haven't been on the receiving end to the extent they probably have though, so maybe it's easier said than done.
They don't need homosexual activists storming them with bullhorns as some did to the church in Boston. Are you aware of that event? It's far from the only example. Shouting down and drowning out NARTH members is not the method of those seeking truth. It is the method of those who want the truth hidden.
Without knowing who conducted your RT and for how long and your own attitude going into it and during it, there's not much I can take away from your statements about it.
You say you are a homosexual. I say that there is a reason for that and that it is highly likely that you weren't born that way. I also say that it is an unhealthy thing for the reason I gave earlier.
If you substitute "environmental" for "developmental," then I agree with anyone telling you that you are mistaken to automatically conclude that nothing happened to you after you were conceived that caused you to be same-sex oriented where you wouldn't have been, where you would have been exclusively heterosexual.
Chris Doyle and the IHF sent out an email with this
headline: "Announcing THE END OF HOMOSEXUALITY" it goes on to state "We at IHF have developed solutions to end homosexuality" So if he said that he don't see all homosexuality as intrinsically disordered then quite frankly he was lying to you because the emails they send out to supporters makes it clear that Doyle and the IHF in general see their mission as working towards creating "solutions to end homosexuality"
You can believe that Nicolosi's nonsense explains why the
vast majority of gay people are gay but it's simply not true and the theories have been widely discredited and rely on decades old psychological thought that has also been discredited and abandoned. The vast majority of studies most
certainly do not say that environmental influences are at least mostly responsible for sexual orientation, your just repeating the nonsense these anti-gay/ ex-gay groups put out as if they reflect some scientific consensus when in fact everyone else is saying the exact opposite.
But then of course we get to the root of the problem, you believe that homosexuality is a disorder. Well of course you do, if homosexuality wasn't some form of disorder or consequence of developmental problems then there would be no need to attempt to change ones sexual orientation. The problem is that there is no reason to assume that homosexuality must be some form of disorder unless you start with the assumption that homosexuality is wrong. This religious belief leads people to attempt a justification of the belief by saying that homosexuality is a disorder that needs fixing but again there is no secular medical reason to label homosexuality as a disorder and additionally the efforts to "fix" homosexuality fail miserably as evidenced by the abysmal track record of these ex-gay groups.
I was just curious as to why you have spent so much time
researching and communicating with these reparative therapy groups and advocates. I wasn't trying to demand any information, I was just trying to get a better idea of where you were coming from in the conversation.
Beyond that I will just say this, if you want to take a shot
at explaining why I am gay and what could have happened to prevent me from being exclusively heterosexual then by all means give it your best shot. I promise I will be completely honest about my past and as you can already guess no there was no distant father, no overbearing mother, no problems identifying with my gender, and no sexual abuse or harassment of any kind. Also there was no early exposure to sexual imagery and no deficiency in friendships with kids of either gender. The point is if you can't explain it, then you can't act like it must be caused by some problem that can be fixed. If you're going to say "it's a disorder" then you need to come up with a working theory for why I am gay.
I'm not an apologist for Christopher Doyle. Some won't understand the use of the term apologist there. I'm not a defender of Christopher Doyle. What he did was refuse to state emphatically that homosexuality is a mental disorder. It wasn't something I simply asked in passing or just once or where he was the only one hearing me put the question to him. If he believes it to be a mental disorder, then of course he should states so openly. I made it perfectly clear to him that I would take a non-answer or silence as attestation by him that he does not believe homosexuality to be a mental disorder. Perhaps you will think that unfair of me, but so be it. I don't think it was unfair or unnecessary.
You, however, are concluding that had he said flat out that it is not a mental disorder that in the face of the email headline, he would have been lying. That, however, is illogical of you. Changing anyone's sexual orientation doesn't necessitate that where it was, was disordered relative to where it ends up. In fact, as I've said, children have been changed from heterosexually oriented to homosexually oriented via homosexual childhood-sexual abuse. I also stated that such sexuality is fluid and recognized as such by the APA's and NARTH.
Doyle's focus appears to be on allowing people who want to change, to change and with or without the help of practitioners and regardless of age. He is not opposed to laws banning clear abuse. He doesn't believe that what he does is in any way abusive. I must say, I can't see how it is abusive when the teenagers want the help.
You might complain that some parents have been too coercive, even brutally so. That, however, is no justification for banning other boys and girls from receiving the non-coercive treatment they want to change their orientation or to diminish same-sex attraction, especially when it happens in the social environment anyway: scientifically determined to be fluid by the very people you claim completely reject all of NARTH's position.
The differences between the APA's and NARTH are far from as distant as you portray them. In some cases just one word in many pages separates them. I've read quite a bit of the competing literature concerning the same studies.
As for Nicolosi's findings, he has been in practice a long time, has had many clients of various ages, and has had them inform him as to what they feel about the outcome of the treatment. It's the exact same thing done by non-SOCE practitioners in the APA's. He has said openly that some third leave very satisfied, a third a satisfied, and a third unsatisfied.
You say it doesn't work at all. You are denying the people who have gone through RT and other forms of SOCE and now self-identify not as homosexual or bi-sexual but heterosexual. They aren't interested in sex with the same sex anymore. Many of them fully see that Nicolosi's familial dynamics had been at work in their lives.
It makes no sense for you to claim that none of that is valid when the APA's state that orientation is fluid and also base their studies on such practitioner and client reporting. Nicolosi and others are simply helping others to see things that they didn't see before.
The idea that no mother is smothering and needy and wants to raise a good little girl of a boy to a father who is distant, is just a non-starter. The idea that, that sort of environment doesn't, and even can't, form a boy's mind along confused lines lacking the proper reinforcement from both parents to come up as heterosexual is not a position that has been proven by any study or research done by either APA. You look for something that definitively discredits RT, that has no obvious methodological (design) flaws, show it to us, and I'll be more receptive to your position. I've looked and haven't found anything. Until then, you're just spewing homosexual false-propaganda.
You say there is no reason to label the behavior as disordered. I mentioned the huge risks. There is ample documentation showing that homosexuals engage in much greater percentages in extremely risky behavior even when they know full well that it is very dangerous. I doubt very seriously that you are not aware of that even while you go about defending homosexuality as plain vanilla as safe as the general heterosexual behaviors, even with heterosexuals also engaging in risky behaviors. There is a huge difference in percentage of each statistical population. The difference is so large that it clearly states that homosexuality comes with much greater risk. It's that simple.
That you claim these things about you doesn't prove that you aren't forgetting something.
That, however, is not the salient point.
The issue isn't that RT and/or abuse can or can't explain you but whether they can explain anyone and more importantly, many.
As I've already stated, many people have gone through RT and have said that it fit their circumstances perfectly.
As for you in particular, why are you sexually attracted to males rather than females or hopefully one special female in your life who would be your wife and the mother of your children?
Remember, I didn't say that I had embraced RT as the sole explanation or that overt abuse would have to be the cause in the absence of RT's position.
I'm open to people being as you claim about yourself while I can still maintain that the lifestyle is generally overwhelmingly dangerous. Many die from it and its often commonly attendant practices and quite early.
Who first raised the concept of homosexual sex with you?
Was it couched in positive or negative terms?
If negative, when was it first raised as positive and by whom?
How did you overcome the thought that your penis doesn't belong where homosexuals put theirs: anal intercourse with each other, etc.?
If you really want to answer these things openly here, do it.
Actually the issue is whether RT can explain me and those
like me. As you have already admitted Nicolosi says that his understanding explains absolutely all homosexuality and then you have the IHF talking about working towards the end of homosexuality. These groups and individuals aren't saying "we can change some people", no they are saying that everyone with homosexuality can and should work to reduce same sex attraction and move towards heterosexuality. So because they make these universal claims, because they paint their therapy and theories as something that can or should apply to everyone who is homosexual the salient question becomes those who don't fit under their theory. I mean if Nicolosi is going to say that his theories apply all gay people then it's not enough to just say, "well it works on some people". No, he needs to be able to explain someone like me, or he needs to stop pretending that his understanding of homosexuality applies to all of us.
To answer your questions: The first time I was aware of the
concept of homosexuality it was in the context of "those people" who were attempting to force society to accept their lifestyle. I was raised in a very conservative Christian home so it was couched in negative terms. I didn't hear about it in positive terms until I sought out information from others who were gay because I knew I was attracted to the same sex. So basically I knew that I found guys to be sexually attractive and that I didn't find girl to be sexually attractive long before I ever accepted for myself the idea that I was gay or homosexual. I am in a committed relationship with another man, so no, I didn't "overcome" the idea of being in a relationship with someone of the same sex.
My opinion of reparative therapy aside Doyle is just
dishonest so I certainly wouldn't want you to feel that you must defend of him. I think your question was a fair one and his refusal to give a clear answer says a lot, basically that he wants to remain vague about what his goals are publically
in order to remain open to a larger client base. Clearly he was okay with you assuming that he doesn't believe homosexuality to be a disorder and yet the way he talks about homosexuality to his own supporters makes it clear that he sees it as a
problem that needs fixing. He sells what he does as just allowing those who want to change to change but when you dig deeper the position is clearly that homosexuality is a problem and that ideally everyone who is gay would attempt reparative therapy.
You attempt to draw a distinction between coercive and non-coercive entry of juveniles into reparative therapy but I would argue that there is no clear way to distinguish between the two. This is the exact same concept we see with age of consent laws, we find that we can't distinguish between coercive and non-coercive sexual relations between adults and minors so we simply say that minors are two young to give consent. Well the same principle applies here, minors are two young to legally consent to reparative therapy, the parents are the ones that sing the consent form, so these bans would simply say that the individual must be old enough to legally consent to reparative therapy themselves before they enter into it.
When talking about success rates it is important to differentiate between immediate reports of success and long term reporting. The list of ex-gay leaders who said that the program works only to latter admit that they didn't change and that it didn't work for others is a long one. In many cases you have people who were held up as an example of change for years before they went back to identifying as gay. This suggests that SOCE can be effective in repressing
ones same sex attractions for a time but that it is not successful in generating lasting or change in ones sexual orientation itself. My position is not that reparative therapy has never worked for anyone, rather my position is that those who advocate for reparative therapy are dishonest about the chances of success, dishonest about the potential for risk, and also overstate the population that their theories could potentially apply to.
As for greater risk in homosexuality much of that comes in disparities in sexual education between heterosexuals and homosexuals and disparities between social support for committed and open relationships. When you have comprehensive sex ed that is inclusive of gay people you have greater knowledge about the importance and application of proper protection. The second part is social support, when gay people don't feel like they can be open they have short term, hidden relations with people of the same sex. This means more sexual partners because the partner can never actually become a permanent part of their life. When you have social support then gay people can have open relationships and these relationships last longer, decreasing the number of sexual partners and encouraging monogamy. So acceptance, marriage, and comprehensive sex ed all go a long way in equalizing sexual risk between gay and heterosexual couples.
Look, in case you've lost track, the issue here is whether minors have the right to receive RT and/or other (non-abusive) SOCE if those minors want it. The issue is definitely not whether Nicolosi's version of RT can explain in the way you insist all homosexuals who self-report that they never fit the description of those who become homosexual in the manner Nicolosi says they do. Nicolosi must believe that you are in conscious or subconscious denial.
RT does not rise or fall wholesale on the sole issue of denial.
That there are some 1/3 who are treated by Nicolosi who do not leave satisfied is absolutely no justification for denying Nicolosi's efforts to the other 2/3's. If you think it is, I suggest you may have sinister motives.
You have said that RT doesn't work; however, I've said that it does and done so based upon the people who've stated openly that it worked for them and who have lives to show it and based also upon practitioners reports concerning their clients.
You are attempting to alter the subject by creating an impossible hurdle for RT when you would not do that concerning all other psychological or psychiatric treatments.
Tens of millions of people have been through various therapies/treatments that are not designed to address homosexuality but rather some other issue(s) and who fail to gain relief or what have you. Such treatments are not discarded based on those who don't gain but are rather retained based upon those who do gain.
To set an entirely different standard for RT is a cheap ploy set up by a group with a mind set to cause the world to drop all natural inhibitions, which would lead to more of the moral degradation society is clearly experiencing.
Where is the line to be drawn concerning other sexual activities if the same logic you are attempting to use is applied?
The "normalization" of pedophilia and to a degree, all forms of sexual activity, is well under way based exactly upon the rationalizing used to "normalize" homosexuality.
Going down that path is a recipe for utter disaster. People argue that they should be "free" to choose utter disaster if they want to, but the rest of us say that the health of society at-large is too important to embrace such an "anything goes" philosophy.
It won't matter whether you in particular agree with the complete libertines. If you don't agree with them, that is no assurance to us that those libertines won't prevail if we simply stop objecting.
In addition, the term "committed" is applied by many homosexuals who actual live in "open" relationships. That may or may not apply to you, but it is a fact that is suppressed by the homosexual movement in its front.
I don't go so far as to say Christopher Doyle is being dishonest. I say his approach is politically weak. NARTH used to take the stance that all homosexuality is disordered. As far as I'm concerned, they should never have backed away from that.
However, that is still not the immediate point here. The immediate point is whether youths should have the right to the treatment.
In addition, Doyle's thinking may have evolved since his interaction on the subject with me.
NARTH though does say that homosexuality appears to bring with it many problems/risks and regardless of education. A huge number of homosexuals who know all about so-called "safe" sex still deliberately avoid it. They do so regardless of the social "acceptance" of homosexuality.
Look, you can't have it both ways concerning Doyle, saying that he wants to appeal to a large client base (anti-homosexual) while secretly thinking that homosexuality is not a disorder. The larger client base is the one where homosexuality may or may not be a disorder but that individuals, both minors and adults, should be free to choose.
Regardless, even if you were right, it doesn't sink RT for minors. RT works for some minors. Some youths have left homosexuality and grown up and gone through adulthood without looking back, without falling back into homosexuality. RT and SOCE doesn't rise or fall on whether anyone falls back into homosex. You don't apply the standard that if anyone slips back that the treatment is bad and should be banned. Plenty of people undergo treatment for other things where those people slip back. Where is the movement to do away with all such treatments? Be consistent.
The reason for age-of-consent laws is that the act itself, the act of sex, is risky for a whole host of reasons that I should not have to list here. Your burden is to show how non-abusive RT is risky over and above whatever is deemed risky that is still to be allowed and allowed for minors and even where the parents make the choice. You have it exactly backwards, as it is homosexuality that is by far the riskier.
You claim that children should be taught methods to reduce risk and that, that education I assume would be mandatory where the parents could not opt-out the children; but at the same time, you deny both the parents and the children the same concerning RT and even though the issue is risk in both cases and where RT is helping many children to avoid risks altogether. It amazes me how compartmentalized you are in your approach, perhaps your exact criticism of Christopher Doyle.
Now, I don't know about you, but I'm not a professional activist with nothing else to do but counter homosexual false-propaganda on the Internet.
I have clearly refuted all of your objections to RT for minors. I have clearly refuted the CA law banning such for minors.
That law is stupid and should be shot down as such.
The issue of banning RT to minors does not depend on this issue of explaining people who fall outside the theories pushed by those who push RT, that is not the point in this argument and I will address that point again in the other conversation. However if you-/these advocates of reparative therapy say that homosexuality is a disorder/a result of some developmental problem then they need to be able to provide an explanation for why someone like me is gay. If they can't offer any explanation then they need to back of the universal language. It's not that I have created a entirely different standard, it is that the advocates of reparative therapy have created a high standard by making claims like the one Nicolosi made when he said his understanding and theories apply to absolutely all homosexuality.
I mean you're saying that homosexuality is a disorder yet even after answering your questions you can't explain why I
am gay. Furthermore your justification for saying that homosexuality is a disorder is based on negative health impacts and yet I have none and instead I am in a health committed relationship (yes monogamous not open). So I am still left scratching my head wondering what in my life allows you to say that m y sexual orientation wasn't naturally occurring and is a problem?
To clarify I don't think that Doyle secretly believes
homosexuality to not be a disorder, rather I am saying that he clearly operates on the assumption that homosexuality is a disorder, even if he refrains from outright saying that when taking to an audience beyond people on his mailing list.
Now focusing back in on the law to Ban SOCE to minors let's
look at the justification. The movement to ban RT to minors doesn't rely on the low success rate of reparative therapy alone, the harm from reparative therapy alone, or the fact that the minors can't legally consent alone, rather the movement to ban RT to minors relies on these three points in concert. We know that there is a low chance of success and that for those who do report success that reported change is often short term. This point is important because it means that it doesn't take much harm to balance out the small chance of success. Now we move on to harm. We know that there is clear risk of harm from RT ranging from the nature of many of the techniques, to strained family relationships, to exasperated personal conflicts. This potential harm was demonstrated in both California and New Jersey and federal courts found that the evidence provided was compelling enough to give the state a compelling interest to intervene. The final point is
that the minors are two young to legally consent for themselves. This in an off itself is a harm because it opens up the possibility of people being coerced into RT that simply isn't there if the individuals must be old enough to legally consent to the practice themselves. Additionally the fact that the law deals with minors means that there is a much lower threshold for state action. We know that smoking is harmful while still allowing adults' to smoke but with minors the state takes a different approach and prohibits the sale of tobacco products to minors. This is because the threshold for protecting minors from potential harm is lower than it is for adults.
The courts have upheld this type of legislation in California
and New Jersey and I expect that trend to continue. You may not like the position of the relevant professional organizations but the law is going to take their position into consideration and if the advocates of reparative therapy want that position to change then they should start by clearing up their own act.
Thanks for the conversation.
You are confusing me with Nicolosi. I said that I don't embrace his position. I did explain my position, which is open to other and new information.
You claim that if I don't explain to you why you are sexually interested in males rather than females that what? It just simply is not relevant to the legal issue here.
I did not dissect you. I didn't say that if you answer a first round of questions that I would then provide you with some answer(s) that would either satisfy you or convince you.
I didn't address your answers because they were quite general. I have also not ruled in or out that you are forgetting or denying.
Either way, there are exceptions that make rules.
You should be aware that there are, for instance, some people who reportedly had HIV but who are clear of it and via no medication. The fact that they exist (if they do) in no way renders HIV/AIDS harmless, per se. HIV/AIDS is far from the only such example.
It is just strange that you think that by latching onto this thing you are insisting that you will somehow prevail in a logical debate concerning whether youths should be banned from receiving RT/SOCE. If your position were to fly with the general public, then it would be a clear indication to me that the general population has been severely dumbed down, to say the least.
As for naturally occurring, are mental illnesses naturally occurring? They certainly occur in nature.
As for your health, you are self-reporting. People think themselves healthy all the time and die the next day from some disease they weren't aware they had. It's no guarantee that you are healthy just because you say you are.
Why is it that the main homosexual-activist spokespeople who like to enter into the longest conversations on the Internet like this are invariably the ones who say they are not sleeping around, are perfectly healthy, never had any problems in their upbringing, weren't abused, didn't have smothering mothers, and didn't have distant fathers, etc.?
You act as if you are in some majority with the population of homosexuals when you know damn well that you aren't (provided you are even telling the truth about yourself).
Homosexuals experience many more problems per capita than do heterosexuals (as screwy as heterosexuals can also be). You know this. I know you know it.
A male putting his penis up another male's rectum is absolutely obviously confused. There's just no debating it. It doesn't matter what males and females do together. It doesn't matter what some likewise confused animals may or may not do. It is just an absolutely fundamental mistake. It is not a healthy activity. It also doesn't matter that there are some males who engage in homosexual acts but stop short of anal sex. Male-on-male anal sex is wrong.
It's men treating each other's rear ends as if they are vaginas. Your anus and rectum are not designed for that. You can't engage in it for any length of time without artificial interventions to prevent the onset of symptoms arising rather quickly. The same can't be said for normal vaginal intercourse between a likewise faithful, healthy, heterosexual couple.
Your position completely ignores the reports of many of those who have changed and remained so and have benefited immensely, including where they sincerely maintain that the treatment saved their lives. It also ignores the large risks inherent in the homosexual lifestyle, which often life-or-death risks are not all mitigated by the means you suggested: simple "education."
There is no conclusive evidence that the type of RT practiced by Nicolosi, for instance, has resulted in any more risk or harm than the average therapy dealing with other unwanted mental states.
People undergoing therapy have to work at it, want the results, and not quit prematurely. It is not the responsibility of the therapist to make sure that the client or patient does those things. It is up to the client/patient.
It is not for you to block a minor from receiving the help he or she wants where so many other children have benefited, including in lasting and permanent ways.
You have completely ignored that in the US, we have free exercise of religion and that a religious tenet for many is anti-homosexuality.
Forcing a boy or girl to continue on for year after year confused, not wanting to be attracted to the same sex (possibly the product of homosexual rape), and lacking professional counseling from a trained, educated, licensed, non-coercive, non-abusive SOCE expert is rather mean spirited, and that's putting it mildly.
My position does not ignore the report of those who have
changed, it simply acknowledges that these reports make up a small minority of those who go into the program and that the vast majority of people either never report any positive change, or report positive change only to find that that change was only temporary and that they are still homosexual. Again I am weighing their reports against the reports of the individuals who found the practice to be harmful in addition to not working. Yes I do ignore your claims of the "large risks inherent in the homosexual lifestyle" because quite frankly there are none, or at least none that don't also exist in heterosexuality. As I said before health disparities between gay and heterosexual individuals exist largely because of education and social support differences which lead to riskier sexual behavior for gay people. Basically you have created a vicious circle in which you say we must view homosexuality as dysfunctional-this causes health disparities for gay people-and then you use those health disparities as for why we must view homosexuality as dysfunctional.
The law in California does not prevent individuals from
saying that homosexuality is wrong and it doesn't prevent un-licensed religious figures from promoting the idea that gay people should attempt to change, rather it says that licensed therapists cant engage in a particular practice (SOCE) with minors because that practice has been found to carry to much risk for minors to be subjected to it and because the practice has been found to carry to much rick for the child being entered into the program against their will by their parents that we must regulate the process for those who are old enough to consent to the practice themselves.
The state does have a responsibility to move to protect
minors and the problem of minors being coerce into RT and the risk of harm from RT is very real, for example consider the harm caused by RT telling parents that their child can and should change and that they should accept the idea that there is a problem with their child being homosexual. Well according to a study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, LGBT teens who experienced negative feedback from their family were 8 times more likely to have attempted suicide, 6 times as vulnerable to severe depression, and 3 times more likely to use drugs (Caitlin Ryan, San Francisco State University, June 2009). What kids need is family support, not some therapist telling parents that their child can and should change their sexual orientation. The courts at the district court and appellate court levels have found that this
law does not violate the freedom of the therapists or those seeking therapy. This is the reregulation of a practice, not a religious belief and those able to legally consent to the process are still able to do so.
We are addressing the legal issue in the other exchange. If
you only want to address the legal issue then there is no reason to respond to this exchange because it is not focused on the legal but rather the related question of matching up what these reparative therapy advocates claim about their program and reality. Namely we are comparing their claims that their theories can explain all homosexuality to the reality that it clearly can't. You say that you won't rule out that I am forgetting or denying, well that's exactly the same BS that they turn to when someone doesn't fit their theory. "Well if your background doesn't match with some version of what I believe it should look like then you must either be forgetting or denying, as for my answers being general well so were your questions so I don't know what you were looking for or what the point even was if you don't have any alternate theories about what causes homosexuality. Again by "latching on to this" I am not making an argument for banning SOCE to minors, that argument is made in the other exchange, this point is about showing how much of what RT advocates say doesn't match up with reality.
Why is it that LGBT advocates who enter into these
conversations don't have developmental problems, are healthy, were never abused, and are monogamous? Well perhaps because we are much more common in the gay community then you think. You take these negative stereotypes of gay people's past and assume that they describe a majority of the population, well they don't, nor is there any evidence to suggest that they do. The most common from your list will be promiscuity and that again is due to a lack of social support for long term relationships. I mean marriage only recently even became an option for gay couples and seeing how monogamy is tied to marriage it is not at all shocking that gay people would be less monogamous. Again as I mentioned in the other response you have created this vicious circle in which you say that we must reject homosexuality, this rejection then leads to deficiencies in education and social support that leads to negative health outcomes for gay individuals, and then you use those negative health outcomes to justify saying that we must reject homosexuality.
The reason there are two replies from him and then two from me is because they are two subthreads off my main comment on the article. It's easier for you to follow the whole train of thought by seeing both at once. I'm addressing the entirety of what he's saying in my replies. I'm not walling off each subthread.
You have no evidence that it's a "small minority."
You ignore the statistics showing all the problems you mentioned still existing even where the society has generally accepted homosexuality in the way you appear to think would make the problems you mentioned disappear.
You also ignore, repeatedly, that homosexuals still engage in extremely risky behavior even after the education you appear to think would prevent that risky behavior.
You also ignore the clear health problems caused by male-on-male anal sex. You appeal to nature, but to try to reduce the damage, homosexuals use artificial means because that form of sex is not meant to be. It is a mental error.
You don't have any evidence that the practice of RT as being practiced by those who've sued to overturn the law has been found to carry too much risk. I said that it doesn't carry any more than for other therapies that you are not seeking to ban.
Regardless, the argument that parents and others should not tell children that homosexuality is risky because some of those children will become emotionally frustrated is an argument that could be used against all parental control of children. It's a moronic argument.
The new gauge of the APA's is simply where the individual self-reports as feeling good about himself or herself. Any sociopath could report that. That doesn't make sociopathy an acceptable thing. It doesn't render it not a mental disorder. It certainly occurs in nature, and telling a sociopath that he or she can't have his/her way certainly can "upset" that one.
Homosexuals on average, unlike sociopaths, are inclined to hypersensitivity, hence the over and wrong reaction to being informed that homosexuality is an error.
What's not a religious belief? Of course it's a religious belief. There are children who have a religious belief that homosexuality is seen by their God as an error and that they should seek to overcome it. The fact that they want to pursue it via a licensed practitioner trained in RT or some other SOCE that is not abusive or coercive (and parents can force their children into other therapies with which others may not agree; but RT practitioners won't accept those children, at least they don't now) is not for you, who wants personal validation at the expense of those children, to control via a fascistic state law.
"You say that you won't rule out that I am forgetting or denying, well that's exactly the same BS that they turn to when someone doesn't fit their theory." Don't you think before you write? No one doesn't forget things. No one doesn't have things happen to him at an age when later in life, he can't recall them. No one doesn't simply have a subjective view about his upbringing, etc. I don't remember everything that ever happened to me. If you remember everything, you're one of a kind or some sort of extremely rare savant. You aren't.
I don't feel the necessity for unfolding to you an overarching theory of homosexuality that will satisfy you. I think homosexuality is an error for reasons stated. I believe many things are errors. I don't know the fine details of every way every error comes about and neither do you.
The research supports that most such homosexuals are well aware of sex-ed and "safe sex" and HIV/AIDS and monogamy, etc., but still engage in risky behaviors regardless of whether or not any non-homosexuals have supported them in their homosexuality. The major problems are most prevalent where the largest clusters of homosexuals are, where they have the most "support."
So, you think your penis was designed and intended for your homosexual partners anus and that his anus/rectum was designed and intended to receive a penis? What's your sperm for? What do you have to do to have anal sex without problems that don't occur when men have natural sex, as intended, with their wives?
In one ear and out the other?
You can reply to this and the other subthread here. I've been addressing the entirety of your replies with each of my replies regardless of the subthread.
You claim that all SOCE's are by and large rejected, but many people go into psychology and psychiatry to find out first what is the matter with them. I more than suspect that a large number of therapists don't want to see their own problems as such but rather use their positions (self-reinforcing educations and certificates issued to them by likeminded individuals) to self-validate and to obscure whatever there is that confirms their personal problem(s). The fox guards the chicken coop. In this case, the homosexual therapist walls off his homosexuality from reality and conjures up nonsense to validate himself. He suffers from cognitive dissonance. He refuses to face the prima facie (self-evident) evidence that his penis does not, and never will, belong being sexually stimulated by a fellow male. He rationalizes this away in every conceivable way. He uses wild speculation and endless "if only" scenarios in the endless process of not simply facing the obvious.
You claim that the reason so many homosexual activists on the Internet don't fit the research by NARTH members and those to whom NARTH points is because most homosexuals don't fit it. I say that the reason is because most do fit it, by far, and that it is a spoken and unspoken understanding within the homosexual movement that it is better that a false front be out front in the homosexual movement. I've had other conversations with homosexuals. Many of them occurred before the pattern was so well established on the Internet where it was clear that such a front was forming and was simply moving from the methods in use off the Internet to the Internet.
Many of us who have bothered or had, or made, the time to look into this matter have readily seen where homosexual spokespeople have deliberately lied to turn heterosexuals away from what is obvious (obvious to the un-brainwashed) to what is patently false. A major case in point was the meme started decades go and repeated and repeated ad nauseam that homosexuals made up 10% of the general population so it must be "normal" and ought to be accepted. That 10% figure was made up out of whole cloth and used solely as false propaganda while the vast majority of homosexuals knew it and said nothing and little if anything since. Why? Lying is a useful method. Don't point to it once caught. They'll forget it. Besides, we have so much remaining propaganda that is more subtle, etc. If all else fails, just appeal to "liberty" and "freedom" and regardless of competing points, such as that allowing children to head off down the path of temptation (sexual depravity) with the blessing of the adult population is the slippery slope to ruination for most.
You claim that there are higher rates of problems within homosexuality because homosexuality is viewed as a problem itself and that if only homosexuality were widely accepted and homosexuals widely educated to not be promiscuous, etc., those problems would go way down to match rates of problems in non-homosexuals. You further claim that the reason such education hasn't worked is because the lack of acceptance overrides the power of that education.
I say that the reason as many as do fall out of remission is largely due to both the difficulty in overcoming conditioning and because of the now hyper-homosexualization in the culture. If all the temptation would end, homosexuality would go way down and the rate of those who fall back into it would likewise go way down and with it all the problems, problems not due to people opposing homosexuality.
Rather than do away with RT for minors, minors who slip back toward homosexuality need booster treatments and other treatments, not duped, caving adults.
Your false propagandists repeated and repeated that homosexuality is genetic. When that failed, they glommed onto epigenetics. Regardless, it doesn't matter that humanity is visited by the sins of the fathers etched into the flesh itself for generations. Unhealthy and risky behaviors remain as such, and it is never the best idea to work to mask over them via artificial conjurings.
Shallower and more selfish-thinking heterosexuals are caving into and embracing and celebrating homosexuality. Society will become more and more obviously degraded as a direct result. People will continue rationalizing it away. The sky will proverbially fall (figuratively to start but even actually if humanity continues down the path of hedonism and self-licensing to grave error).
If you don't see the degradation that has occurred in just the last fifty decades, you're blind. The celebration of lots of errors was there in some circles fifty years ago, but much of it was kept out of the mainstream. Unfortunately, the people didn't continue down the path of clearing away the errors but the errors that remained only allowed those errors that were held further away to approach and enter.
You say you were raised in a Christian household where you were instructed per Christianity that homosexuality is an error but turned your back on that while claiming you had no developmental problems.
"Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire." (Matthew 7:17-19)
That's Jesus stating what I just stated. Being cast into the fire, having the sky fall, being cast out into outer darkness, etc., are metaphors; but metaphors don't preclude that there are people who burn by fires on account of making moral mistakes. These things can overlap.
"When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation." (Matthew 12:43-45)
So you think you had no developmental problems. You found yourself clean, but you can't rest until you're accepted. You argue for homosexuality (acceptance and education) glossing over those of homosexuality who, if you take yourself seriously, laugh at you but are glad there are heterosexuals foolish enough to fall for what you're claiming. You will end up worse than you thought things were on account of the evil spiritual wave that's right behind you entering into your house with you, which house you think is so fine.
Rather than having rejected your parents' teaching because perhaps your parents were not perfect, you should have delved deeper into righteousness and more thoroughly embraced the teachings of Jesus.
I will mainly reply to the other exchange but I will say a bit here.
I do have evidence that RT carries a high level of risk. That evidence was presented to support the California law and found to be sufficient by the courts. The same thing goes for evidence that RT only works for a small minority and that evidence comes from both old supporters of RT and those doing outside evaluation. For example Alan Chambers said that 99% of those Exodus worked with did not experience any sexual orientation change.
No one is saying that people shouldn't tell children that homosexuality can be risky, indeed we also tell children that heterosexuality can be risky. What we are saying is that it is harmful to tell a child that a normal and natural part of who they are is a disorder and is something that they must change.
I don't care if you believe homosexuality to be wrong, this isn't about personal validation, it's about protecting children from a practice that we know makes them vulnerable to harm and open to coercion into the program against their will. Courts have upheld these laws as not violating the rights of anyone and I fully expect that trend to continue.
Sorry for the delayed response, this was the earliest I could get back to this conversation.
I could do a point by point response but honestly I don't need to because you just confirmed the exact critique I was making against these ex-gay groups. Specifically the critique is that when the facts don't fit the theories the assumption is that the gay people must be lying about their own pasts, or simply unable to remember things from their own past because the theory couldn't possibly be wrong.
You can no more explain why I am gay then any of the groups pushing SOCE but instead of saying "hey perhaps these theories really don't work to explain homosexuality" you all just say "well obviously our theories do explain homosexuality and they just aren't being honest/don't remember enough from their past to know that the theory is right." To quote Sherlock Holmes your side operates by twisting facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. No gay people didn't get together and decide to collectively lie about our pasts to trick heterosexual people into believing we are normal. You can believe in that absurd conspiracy theory all you want but that doesn't change reality and this reality is why the ex-gay industry is falling apart.
There is a term for what your side is doing, it's called confirmation bias. Basically you only consider evidence that supports your theories about homosexuality being a disorder/ or the causes of homosexuality while ignoring all the evidence to the contrary. Confirmation Bias allows people to cling to theories that have no real support but again it doesn't change reality. Until you are ready to consider evidence that doesn't fit with your pre-conceived narrative RT will continue to pull the wool over your eyes, convincing you that it is a legitimate practice when really it is based on nothing but flawed assumptions and practice.
Obviously, I disagree.
Furthermore, I've read the court opinions in total, and they were not about this: "I do have evidence that RT carries a high level of risk. That evidence was presented to support the California law and found to be sufficient by the courts."
The cases actually should have been fought over, among other things, risk with RT versus risk with other non-challenged treatments. However, the issue is primarily freedom of speech, which does come into play, but to my mind, was not the strongest reason to void the law.
In addition, Virginia's legislature didn't allow the law out of committee and the 9th Circuit has the CA law on hold pending higher review. That's the most "liberal" court, and the decision for the law was not unanimous.
We shall see how this turns out. If speech doesn't impress the Supreme Court enough, it will be fought over other grounds as others bring more cases to fight this fascistic, nonsensical assault on free choice.
Your burden is not to compare outdated methods including abuse and coercion with today's RT, but to compare outcomes using today's RT, which has been in use for many years.
Dr. Nicolosi's old patients have not kill themselves in droves. Have any even committed suicide? If so, at what rate relative to the general population and more importantly, relative to the patients of other non-RT therapists?
The truth is that your criticisms of my statements apply to your own. That was my point.
I held off giving my views as to why homosexuals who don't fit your personal description of yourself let your claimed type be at the forefront (the false front) exposed to the rest of the population (the non-homosexual population). You, however, lost no time leveling all sorts of biased charges against everyone who disagrees with your position. It was where you nearly started.
I see it. I trust others here, honest readers, can see it too.
Also, you didn't answer my question about what your sperm is for. Nothing? Don't tell me it's for pleasure. What's it for? Why does it exist in the first place?
Well to be clear yes there are two issues here should SOCE be banned to minors and can SOCE be banned to minors. The legislature is primarily concerned with the first question and the courts are primarily concerned with the latter. Still the question of "did the legislature have a compelling interest in intervening" was part of the equation and that's where evidence regarding the potential for harm or abuse comes into play.
Overall I am confident on both questions; that SOCE should be restricted from use on minors and that legislatures can legally take such action. I was in the room when the Virginia legislature didn't let the bill out of committee. That hearing was a joke with the decision being made after only 5 people had been allowed to testify and with the vote coming down on partisan lines. That was expected but the bill will come back again in the future. Yes the law is on hold pending the appeal to SCOTUS, that's how the federal courts work and it would be more surprising if the ruling hadn't been placed on hold.
My burden is to show that SOCE can be harmful to minors and that minors may be coerced into SOCE. There is documentation for both of these points. Additionally because this is only being placed on minors the imposition on those who may not need protection is not great, wait a couple years and then do SOCE as an adult if that's what you decide you want to do. Again in a simple risk/benefit analysis the need to protect kids outweighs any imposition of restricting access to an already questionable practice for a couple of years, especially when there are other options in the interim.
Not at all, I am comply willing to take into consideration evidence that doesn't support my potion, that's why I talk about weighing evidence against SOCE against evidence in favor of the practice. On the other hand your side is the one making wild conspiracies about how a majority of gay people fall under your theories regarding homosexuality but just don't admit it. The fact that your position can't stand up without this conspiracy that we know we are disordered but just don't admit it and put out a false front says all people need to know about your position.
Sperm is the product of male ejaculation, which plays a role in human reproduction if the ejaculation happens during reproductive sex. So it does have a reproductive purpose but there is nothing to say that it must be used towards a reproductive end. Producing sperm without ever using it for reproduction is in no way is harmful to the individual.
I will reply via the other sub-thread to consolidate further comments into one stream.
This comment joins both sub-threads here in which we've been replying back and forth.
You claim that the vast majority of homosexuals are as you claim to be about yourself: not the product of any abuse, smothering mothering, or distant fathering; having never had any developmental issues; and in a closed, long-term (I assume), relationship. You claim that, that's the reason so many homosexual activists in comment sections come off as you do. However, we know that "bathhouses" are still very common. Homosexual-orgy parties are common. We know from homosexuals themselves that most sleep around and quite a bit, to put it mildly. We know that despite extremely common and frequent "sexual education," there is still an epidemic spreading HIV amongst young males because promiscuousness is a very prevalent, inherent symptom of especially male homosexuality. We know that in societies where homosexuality is nearly fully embraced as a sociological process that, nevertheless, homosexuals still have much higher rates of mental problems: anxiety, depression, abusing each other, etc.
You further claim that while you readily admit that homosexuals can and do change as a result of SOCE's, particularly Reparative Therapy, that such change is short lived even though I've seen no study backing up that statement where reversion is any more common after RT than with other therapies.
At what rate does this reversion occur? How many do not revert? Why don't they revert? Also, why did even Alfred Kinsey state that homosexuality is fluid, and why do both APA's (American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association) still state the same thing: it's fluid? If people and minors fluidly change without SOCE's, why is changing with them to be banned even where the given SOCE is non-abusive and non-coercive (where the therapist won't treat the youth if the youth doesn't want it)?
You also claim that there are so many instances where RT, etc., has caused too much harm to allow it. However, you have failed to differentiate between the various types of treatments or efforts. You seek to ban them all for minors as practiced by those who have licenses to practice mental care rather than banning only those aspects of efforts where even NARTH as a whole would agree that they ought not be done concerning even consenting youths.
I happen to believe that aversion therapy can be done where it crosses no ethical boundaries, but that's a bit deep for this discussion. There are also therapies that rather than introduce a negative concerning homosexuality, they introduce positives regarding heterosexuality. Regardless of your view concerning minors, adults should be allowed in any case to decide whether they want either or both: negative and positive "reinforcement" or positive punishment.
In addition, you harp on that SOCE, and again, in particular RT, does not explain you and that therefore RT is a fraud or something. You haven't been clear about it. You say that even while you admit RT changes people, albeit in your view, short term. You continue to insist that some theory must be given explaining your homosexuality to you, or you won't accept any of it. Again, you haven't been clear/consistent. Is the short-term nature (you merely claim about RT over other treatments) where RT rises or falls, or is it that RT doesn't explain just your supposed type or case to your personal satisfaction?
There are many types of cancers. When one says what causes cancer, one must necessarily stop at some level of specificity or begin to discuss types of causes of cancers. You want the general reason encompassing all instances of homosexuality. Cancer, per se, is not rendered harmless just because the top 10 cancer scientists in the world disagree about what "causes" all cancers. One must first define the terms. Getting beyond semantics is no easy thing.
You've asked me to supply an overarching "theory," or you won't accept much of what is said about RT by its adherents. I, however, look at it knowing the difference between the mundane science versus the spiritual (untestable). They certainly overlap, but it is the spiritual that is over the mundane, not the other way around and not that the spiritual doesn't even exist. To the unspiritual mind, the mind closed to the untestable revealing itself, my spiritual beliefs concerning your homosexuality won't satisfy or even be entertained. This is why I don't just quote versus and leave.
Is your homosexuality reducible to flesh and experience? It is, but the ultimate "why" concerning your homosexuality is spiritual. No amount of atheistic "scientific method" will tease that out or disprove it. How then can I tell you about the very spiritual essence of error and why it manifests itself in humanity?
I did say that homosexuality is, nevertheless, reducible to flesh and experience, but I'm not saying general genetics but do allow for epigenetics while maintaining that error is still the root cause. Long before I ever heard of epigenetics, I said that behavior changes heritable traits. This was heresy to the Darwinists, but I was right. I came to my understanding by spiritual means, not testing. I can't draw a bright line for you in your present state of mind. No one can.
You admit that your sperm is for procreation, that if not for humanity being design to procreate to continue existing on this plain anyway, there would be no sperm. Yet, rather than seeing that observation as a profound statement against your entire worldview that is formed in homosex, you instantly appeal to there being no harm. Of course, you mean nothing mundanely observable to you that you are willing to accept as constituting harm.
If you have a city of a million and no one within it litters, generally, there will be very little litter. The litter that there is will still be a negative. If we had, had a closed city of a million and no one within it ever used his sperm to procreate, what would have happened to the population of that city? If you are a nihilist, you might find the outcome a blessing. As a Christian, nihilism (flesh and soul extinction) isn't salvation.
What's the natural and right ordering of things? The question isn't simply what's "natural" unless you want endless hair splitting.
How can homosexuality be the right order of things? I find it astounding that there are those who think it is. To me, any healthy, right thinking person would see the light and give it up, letting his changed behavior remake his very flesh and mind. It does that. Science is coming around to it. I've been there for decades.
When was the moment of decision for you, forced on you or otherwise? You apparently claim no such knowledge. You also reject that it could have occurred early enough that you don't remember. You go so far as to reject the whole of RT based upon the possibility of just that: you don't remember. Do you remember everything? You'd have to remember to rule out all of the things SOCE's even touch upon, let alone those things that hit the nail right on the head for so many who've undergone the full treatment, left satisfied, and have not reverted.
No, those who have railed against RT (no matter how non-abusive) have not presented the world with irrefutable, preponderance of evidence supporting their call but have rather cherry picked, distorted wholesale, and ignored countervailing facts.
There are children who have been homosexually sexually abused who are confused and don't want what wasn't there before, sexual conditioning arousing them by their same sex. They exist. There are many who have now grown up and come out publicly about it to help others become aware and to stop the disease from spreading, degrading society and deeply harming individuals and families.
Dealing only with the sexual abuse and not the same-sex aspect of it is sinister on its face. It's evil. Anyone in favor of it is magnifying a clearly wicked thing and should be thoroughly ashamed, repent, and not backslide. That means you, Bill.
It is not a mere imposition to make a suffering, confused child wait until he is an adult. Time drags for children, and waiting can make restoration more difficult for many. You want heterosexuals to feel for bullied homosexuals (and many do, including me), but you show zero compassion for homosexually sexually abuse/imprinted children who were naturally heterosexually inclined before the abuse.
Okay first of all I said the vast majority of gay people are "not the product of any abuse, smothering mothering, or distant fathering; having never had any developmental issues" the second part "in a closed, long-term (I assume), relationship." Is a separate issue entirely so I do want to separate the two. Going back to mental heal issues, No, we don't have any evidence that in areas that accept gay people rates of health issues remain high. On the flip side we do have evidence showing that substance abuse, suicidal ideation and homelessness all go up in cases where gay people don't have family support.
As I said before if you're concerned about the levels of monogamy for gay couples then the obvious solution would be to promote monogamy and that means giving marriage recognition to gay couples.
Success rates of RT: "From the available data, four studies reported a "success" rate during conversion therapy of 0.4%, 0.0%, 0.5 and 0.04%. That is, conversion therapy has a failure rate in excess of 99.5% during each study." (Looking at the eventual outcome) http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_exod1.htm
If you want info on reversion just look at the long list of ex-gay leaders who know speak out against the practice.
As far as specific types of practice I agree that adults should be able to engage in whatever form of SOCE that they want to. Adults can consent to SOCE for themselves so if they face negative consequences from that treatment then it is on them for continuing with the program. On the other hand minors don't have the ability to decide for themselves. You say that therapists aren't going to do SOCE on unwilling minors but we have documented cases where that did happen so it is a real problem and possibility. Again think of age of consent, some minors may have non-coercive sex with an adult and may not experience any harm however we still ban all minors from having sex with adults because that's how we protect against coercion and harm to minors, we don't need to prove harm to all. And no, victims of sexual abuse don't need SOCE, they need therapy to deal with the abuse. Too completely different things.
I think I have been clear on the point regarding my story. Basically these people claim that their theories can explain all homosexuality and in reality they clearly cant. I am saying that their claim is a fraudulent one, and that they can only defend this claim by suggesting that those who don't fit into their theory are lying or forgetting something from their past. That excuse is just a cop out. Anything they suggest as a cause would either be remember by me or my parents and it just isn't there. And its not just me, there are many other people who report the same thing, proponents of SOCE can't explain why they are gay and yet they still claim that their theories can explain all homosexuality. Until they correct their claims their practice will remain fraudulent and brushing dissenting evidence away as people just forgetting or lying is not an acceptable answer.
Ps: there will always be hetro people so the "what if everyone were gay" hypothetical is irrelevant. Every individual doesn't need to reproduce to meet our collective need to reproduce. Plus we know can reproduce through artificial means so gay couple can reproduce with the assistance of ART's
You reference a website that says, "No long-term studies have never been done." He obviously meant to say that no long-term studies have ever been done. That's right. RT is being condemned on the basis of no long-term studies on it having ever been done. Stupid.
In addition, the definition of "conversion" totally precludes any degree of diminishment in attraction and that the longer one goes outside the lifestyle, the greater can be that diminishment, as with any dopamine-loaded habit. RT is not an all-or-nothing therapy. Nicolosi talks about people experiencing twinges due to re-experiencing some of the same situations that had before habitually resulted in seeking out homosexual sex. Someone who recently quit smoking or drinking will have a much harder time at the smell of smoke or the sight of alcohol, etc., than someone who has gone many, many years without either. That's a well-established fact.
So, you want me to accept what are called "crude estimates"? You want to go by Exodus International that did not practice RT? You want to ban Nicolosi from practicing on minors based upon Exodus, which didn't do what Nicolosi does?
In addition, all of the figures you cited fly in the face of the APAs' statements on fluidity.
You say to listen to "ex-gay" leaders who've spoken against RT. You ignore the people who've converted and stayed that way who are open about it all over the Internet for anyone willing to look. It's not Nicolosi's fault that there is a huge pro-homosexuality bias in the mass media that covers over those people. https://encrypted.google.com/search?num=100&newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=ex-homosexual+testimonies
Sure, Alan Chambers is listed, but former homosexual-activist leaders are listed as having become ex-homosexuals and still are. It cuts both ways. As the APA's have said, it's fluid. However, RT can greatly help to reduce recidivism.
By the way, there a NARTH members who do not claim that they know what causes all homosexuality. Nicolosi doesn't speak for all of them. He doesn't claim to either. Plus, plenty of religious counselors don't use RT but still have success with people who move out of the homosexual lifestyle and into a heterosexual one, get married, and have children and stay that way, happily, no regrets, no desires to return to homosexuality.
You are a broken record with your nonsensical insistence that anyone claiming to know the cause of all homosexuality must therefore be totally fraudulent in his or her ability to help anyone to move out of homosexuality. Honestly, Bill, your position is stupid. It's just really dumb.
"... we don't have any evidence that in areas that accept gay people rates of health issues remain high." That's false, and you know it. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/poor-mental-health-among-homosexuals-caused-by-lifestyle-itself-or-discrimi
You're statement that giving marriage to homosexuals will end the problems of promiscuity in homosexuality just isn't based upon what is known. Besides, I'm not interested in promoting error in marriage. That any homosexual thinks he is married to another male and may only have anal intercourse with that one doesn't eliminate the fundamental mistake, which remains unhealthy regardless. I do not condone homosexuality. I don't want it celebrated or condoned by anyone. I oppose homosexuality. I'm not forcing anyone though. That's not how I'm trying to operate.
I'm interested in people being given the real facts rather than crude, biased, rather dimwitted estimates. I'm interested in people focusing on the deliberate lies that the homosexual movement has told in order to proselytize, such as the "10% of the population" aspect I mentioned earlier, which you so conveniently ignored.
Finally, your postscript just is more of the same where you either completely miss the point or simply entirely ignore it. Here I laid out in this discussion an argument showing the artificiality of homosexuality but you don't even get it at all, if your comment is to be believed. My point wasn't that humanity needs you in particular to father children in the natural way. My point was and is that your sexual behavior is mistaken, is against the very design of your body. That goes right over your head though.
Legislatures must act based on the preponderance of the evidence that they have currently available before them. I agree that it would be great to have more evidence on this subject, especially to help adults make an informed decision about spending money to participate in SOCE but for now we have a real and current problem facing minors and so there is a need to act. You say RT is not an all or nothing practice and yet that is not what is being marketed to potential clients of SOCE. The idea is that one can change from homosexual to heterosexual, that the client will stop having same sex attractions and instead will build attractions to the other sex. If these groups want to be judged by simply effecting any level of change then they need to be clear that their methods don't lead to complete change in most cases. It seems very clear that they play up the chance of change in order to sell their product to potential clients and then play down the need for complete change when faced with critics of their work. Again what I am calling for here is more honesty.
Exodus international member ministries did practice RT and they used to sell RT materials in their bookstore until the renounced the practice, including selling books by Nicolosi. I would also point out that many of the non RT programs were still based on many of the same ideas about what "caused homosexuality" and as such they experienced many of the same problems. None of the figures I cite fly in the face of the APA's statement on fluidity and indeed the APA speaks out clearly against SOCE. The fact that some people experience some natural sexual fluidity does not mean that an artificial means to "fix" ones sexual orientation is going to have any ability to create any lasting change in ones sexual orientation.
I don't ignore the voices of those who support SOCE, I just note that it is a very small group, that many of those voices are bisexual and repressed same sex attraction while acting on existing attractions to the other sex, and that a large number of these people pushing stories of change make their living off of such a claim. For these three reasons the voices are comparatively week when compared to those who used to push RT and who know admit that it didn't work, often giving up their current job-and circle of friends to do so. Again I am weighing the statements from both sides and you have a small group with a financial interest in saying that change is possible on one side with a bunch of ex-ex-gay leaders and survivors on the other side saying that it doesn't work, is harmful, and is plagued by some serious problems.
My position in regards to the claim that they can explain all homosexuality is that it is dishonest. Again my call has been for more honesty, and yes I know that they don't all say they can explain all homosexuality but the main voices do make that claim and clearly the claim is a huge over-reach that they simply can't back up. Once again we are looking at dishonesty in order to sell the practice instead of a more honest limited approach that is more realistic.
That study by the Family Research Institute is completely bogus and you know it. I was hoping that you would try to use it and you didn't disappoint. First of all the Family Research Institute supports the death penalty for homosexuality and has said that homosexuality is a worse sin then murder http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/organizations/family-research-institute
[Tom's note: That rightwingwatch.org link is completely irrelevant to whether children should be blocked from obtaining authentic, non-abusive, non-coercive RT. Besides, a great deal of what the Family Research Institute says about homosex is true.]
Secondly that findings of those studies have been completely
[Tom's note: Did that boxturtlebulletin.com site offer an opportunity for Paul Cameron to give his refutation? Regardless, I didn't cite the lifesitenews.com post to substantiate deaths. I brought up depression and anxiety, etc. Bill acts as if only certain one-sided complaints about Cameron's "death" methodology shoot down the entire lifesitenews report. They don't.]
On marriage we come back to the vicious circle that I mentioned earlier. You don't want to give marriage to gay people because you are opposed to homosexuality. Your opposed to homosexuality in part because you say it is unhealthy and higher rates of STD's are in part due to more promiscuity-which is directly tied to a lack of support for more permanent relationships.
The design of our bodies gives us the potential to reproduce however not reproducing is not against the very design of our bodies. The fact that we reproduce sexually does not mean that our sex lives need a reproductive component to be natural or operating as designed. If anything it is beneficial to humans if a small percentage of humans don't have a reproductive urge, it provides a base of parents to raise kids when reproductive parents die and it also provides a base of individuals who can contribute more time to advancing community or society goals because they don't have kids to raise.
The following is an extensive excerpt. I suggest people visit the page and read the entire article giving it a fair hearing:
The RT therapist must go much deeper: he recognizes, for example, that a teen may believe he is gay for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with his core sexual identity. His sexual feelings may be rooted in a need for acceptance, approval, of affection from males, or may reflect his loneliness, boredom, or simple curiosity. He may engage in same-sex behavior for adventure, money, peer pressure; or to express hostility against male peers, or general rebellion. He may also find himself reenacting an early trauma of sexual molestation by another male (Fields, Malabranche and Feist-Price, 2008).
A higher-than-average percentage of homosexually oriented men were sexually abused in childhood by an older male. One study found that 46% of homosexual men compared with just 7% of heterosexual males reported homosexual molestation. The same study also found that 22% of lesbians reported homosexual molestation compared with just 1% of heterosexual women (Tomeo, et.al., 2001). In these cases where the person was molested in childhood, homosexual behavior reenacted in adulthood can represent a repetition compulsion.
Indeed, a teenager may become convinced that he is gay through the influence of a persuasive adult-- a gay-affirmative therapist, mentor, teacher, or even his own molester. Such influential adults could succeed in swaying an uncertain youth that homosexuality, is for him, simply inevitable.
Reparative therapy views most same-sex attractions as reparations for childhood trauma. Such trauma may be explicit, such as sexual or emotional abuse, or implicit in the form of negative parental messages regarding one's self and gender. Exploring, isolating and resolving these childhood emotional wounds will often result in reducing unwanted same-sex attractions.
Research shows that same-sex attraction is associated with particular types of negative peer and family experiences (Bieber at al, 1962; Green, 1996). When combined with a sensitive nature in the client, the consequent trauma can have damaging effects on both individuation and gender-identity development. The focus of treatment is identifying and resolving those traumatic experiences (Bieber,et.al.,1962; Greenson, 1968; Tabin,1985; Nicolosi, Byrd and Potts, 2002).
There is a substantial body of evidence supporting the understanding of at least some forms of homosexual orientation as based upon disturbances in gender-identity formation (Coates, 1990; Green, 1993; Horner, 1992; Fast, 1984; Coates and Zucker, 1988; Nicolosi, Byrd and Potts 2002). The fulfillment of those needs can reduce, and sometimes eliminate, same-sex attraction (Nicolosi, Byrd, and Potts, 2002).
I am not stating that I agree 100% with every word choice, etc., by Dr. Nicolosi. For instance, I would have to hear more about his ideas concerning "cause" and "fix" just to be sure of understanding exactly what he means, where he's drawing lines concerning those concepts within the context of Reparative Therapy. I believe I understand what he means but don't want to jump the gun. Regardless, I don't think those issues are material conditions. His work doesn't rise or fall on those two words and his nuanced view of them. His paper does though show that you are spewing falsehoods when claiming that he is not open about his position. "... they need to be clear that their methods don't lead to complete change in most cases." What does he say about it? Rather than making up stuff about him, why not just read and listen to him?
Basically, I find a great deal of merit in his work and explanations and find them highly reasonable.
He doesn't go into it there, but there is a point where one may learn to stop and self-analyze what otherwise would have remained a subconscious trigger mechanism (Nicolosi shows where it's something that offends the person, perhaps even very subtly, repeating the same pattern) and redirect himself to affirming his or her pre-problem, pre-unwanted same-sex attraction, self regardless of his or her parents or others. It is recognizing those points, the offense and then the down or blah feeling right before usually seeking out a same-sex sex act as a false repair, and turning the other direction, away from the false act to self-affirmation of the true self, not the person as painted by others (who are themselves typically completely in the dark as to the underlying dynamics and whether family members or otherwise). Turning back toward the true self at those pivotal moments and self-affirming that true self is the mechanism of true repair. It can be successfully applied to a whole host of bad habits too. I truly think it's great!
I use it very often. It's made my choices very conscious on my part, which then become more automatic and even fully automatic. It's made it easier to avoid overreacting and underreacting concerning all sorts of things and that have nothing to do with homosexuality. It's a universal tool.
Nicolosi doesn't push it as such. It's my personal finding, but I saw where another therapist found it useful for other issues besides unwanted same-sex attractions. Nicolosi confirmed her view as correct.
Some people are more self-analytical and open to new methods concerning that than are others. Perhaps they can learn but not very easily if the information is censored and disparaged before having even been examined at any length.
As for the idea that every study cited by RT proponents is flawed, this is the point you've been ignoring throughout: that both sides of the "debate" find methodological weaknesses in the other side's cited materials. NARTH openly acknowledges such weaknesses on both sides. The APA's do not and not because APA-cited research is all flawless. I called for joint studies. You pooh-poohed the idea by claiming that NARTH somehow blocks that from happening or wouldn't contribute in a truly collaborative manner or something. You weren't clear, and regardless, your position is the wrong one. Joint work is the right approach. If anything, it is the APA's that have been overtaken by ideologically bent homosexual activists who block truly well-formed research that would address the reasonable concerns on both sides, all sides. Dr. Nicolosi's site has information on that takeover too.
You continue to ignore the greater propensity for promiscuity inherent in homosexuality. Your chosen, claimed manner of living (a closed relationship) is not what a huge number of homosexuals want. They are fully aware that they could choose a closed relationship now, with or without a "license" and "certificate" from the secular state but choose bathhouses and orgies and such anyway. They are not living under rocks denying them the awareness of closed relationships of choice without "marriage" certificates. Young people likewise know the difference between having one boyfriend or girlfriend without what we called "cheating" back in the day. They are also taught about STD's and condoms, etc. Homosexual-experimenting or whatever youths who are readily accepted as such by family and school officials and teachers, etc., still are contracting HIV at a hugely disproportionate rate. That's because homosexuality itself causes this in them. It may be something you've learned to control, but you are not the rule, far from it. Regardless, your anal sex with your "partner" is a fundamental error that cannot help but inform your other decisions in a negative way. Your pattern of thinking is dangerous for individuals, societies, and humanity.
"The fact that we reproduce sexually does not mean that our sex lives need a reproductive component to be natural or operating as designed." To engage in sex that is not consistent with the design for reproduction is an unnatural, artificial construct and is harmful to the mind and spills over into other decision making in negative ways: as the bathhouses clearly show.
You are hyper-rationalizing your bad choice. You are taking your pigeonholed life and assigning your way as doable for all homosexuals while the risks and harms are rampant and complete avoidance is the intelligent course. You do this while pining about a narrowly selected number of confused youths while completely ignoring other equally confused youths who want to benefit from Dr. Nicolosi's type of work. You claim those youths with unwanted same-sex attraction can just wait until they are adults to obtain help while you create a huge sense of urgencies for those you claim don't want help with unwanted same-sex attraction. You are a hypocrite and relentless, confused, homosexual activist false propagandist. It will catch up with you though.
You are what I consider a dangerous person: Pied Piper. The sooner the better that people wake up to what you are up to.
I'm not interested in talking to you any further. You have brought only nonsense to this issue: typical.
Due to the Washington Times possibly censoring my comments (deleting some wholesale; the DISQUS commenting system on their site may be misconfigured or may have a bug) and holding new comments of mine in apparent moderation for over 12 hours now, this discussion has moved to the comment section below here on this post. However, major updates concerning the subject matter, those that are simply part of any back and forth with commentators, may yet be posted in the post body rather than the comment section.
Jack Fonseca of Campaign Life Coalition told LifeSiteNews.com that public nudity, sadomasochism, and mock sex acts in the annual Pride parade are all part of the "edge-pushing" inherent to homosexual activism. Public nudity at the Pride parade just scratches the surface of what is normative for many within the gay lifestyle, he said.
"Within that lifestyle, especially as far as the men are concerned, one finds mind-blowing rates of promiscuity, multiple partners and anonymous sex, in comparison with heterosexual relationships," he said.
Homosexual activist Patti Ettelbrick, former legal director for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, once said that "being queer" is "more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. ... Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex and sexuality, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society."
Now, Patti there flies in the face of pretty much everything Bill here has been alleging. Agreed? Every honest person about it will agree. Everyone with false-heartedness directing him or her on the subject will not agree. Fence-sitters on the subject are either stupid, woefully ignorant, false-hearted, or any combination of the three.
All of the homosexuals Patti is referring to are not uneducated about all the things Bill claims that mere sex-ed will transform. Those homosexuals know full well the problems surrounding them within their homosexual community, as they call it. I'm not referring to alleged problems from the outside in but problems inherent within regardless of the outside. That's what Jack Fonseca is talking about and what Patti Ettelbrick corroborated. Is that not an accurate quote of Patti Ettelbrick?
I have no reason at this point to believe Peter Baklinski or LifeSiteNews didn't fact check it or know firsthand of its factualness.
Of course, Bill would say those in the "Pride" parades do not reflect the "silent majority" of homosexuals.
Here's a great comment by Raymond Peringer (user name: RaymondPeringer) on the LifeSiteNews post:
The problem is our gay-obsessed media. They decry even the slightest objection to homosexual behaviour as hatred. I challenge the editors and publishers of our daily newspapers to bring their entire family to a homosexual parade. Have their picture taken with nude men and women, men simulating masturbation or men anal intercourse, and then publish it on the front page of your newspapers.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)