Bachmann’s clinic protested by dancing, glitter-throwing ‘barbarians’

[Hastrman]

There must be a reason why the goverment funds his clinic.

I wouldn’t be so sure, the government throws around a lot of money without any real rationale.

That said, opposition to homosexuality is not the “theocratic”, faith-based position; support for it is. Leaving the statistics of STDs, alcoholism, abuse, and suicide among gays to one side, the entire scientific community considered homosexuality a mental illness…until one day they didn’t. What new study changed their minds?

None. Unless you count gauging prevalent opinion among the elite as a study.

Homosexuality was just declared normal, on faith alone—after all, a bunch of East Coast writers couldn’t possibly be wrong on mortals, right?

 

[He_Man]

Shows to go you that praying the gay away is not working, thusfar. I guess they can keep getting federal money in hope that it does.

Actually, unless each of the barbarians was a former patient there, or you have so statistical link showing success rates for this sort of therapy, then your post really has no point.

 

[ProVobis]

I like Michele Bachmann, I’d even vote for her, but I wonder sometimes what kind of history books she’s been reading. If she’d go back far enough, she’d realize that the heritage of Angloshere is actually barbaric. But as she prides herself in being one of the few politicians who can actually speak English well (and I don’t dispute that), I won’t make it a major issue that she’s calling some protesters “barbarians.”

 

[Hastrman]

I like Michele Bachmann, I’d even vote for her, but I wonder sometimes what kind of history books she’s been reading. If she’d go back far enough, she’d realize that the heritage of Angloshere is actually barbaric.

“Far enough”? You mean like 1921 and the Black and Tans?

Then again I’m Irish and French, and my definition of “American exceptionalism” is “the only good thing the Saxon dogs ever did”.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

What kind of counseling do they do for people if not asked specifically to reverse homosexuality? And why should tax dollars fund it?

Oh, I don’t know----suicide prevention, disemination of natural forms of contraception, celibacy advocacy, general health screening, psychiatric help from a Christian perspective?

That kind of help?

There should not be government tax dollars for that?

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

…or you have so statistical link showing success rates for this sort of therapy…

There’s never been a scientifically documented case of anyone changing their sexual orientation. There is anecdotal evidence, all self-reporting, that 0 - 0.5% of homosexuals who enter into this “therapy” successfully changed their sexual orientation but no scientific proof that this was anything more than a change in behavior. In other words, this “therapy” has an established failure rate of 99.5% and an established success rate of 0.

 

[Cristiano]

There’s never been a scientifically documented case of anyone changing their sexual orientation. There is anecdotal evidence, all self-reporting, that 0 - 0.5% of homosexuals who enter into this “therapy” successfully changed their sexual orientation but no scientific proof that this was anything more than a change in behavior. In other words, this “therapy” has an established failure rate of 99.5% and an established success rate of 0.

So, is your idea of scientific proof is only evidence that concurs with your ideology?

Anecdotal evidence and self-reporting are quite used in science, the main issue associate with its limited statistical significance. However, in a yes/no experiment one data-point can be sufficient.

I also think that your statistical extrapolations are quite erroneous.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

So, is your idea of scientific proof is only evidence that concurs with your ideology?

My idea of scientific proof, as it relates to this subject, is an FMRI scan for self-proclaimed “ex-gays.”

Anecdotal evidence and self-reporting are quite used in science…

Indeed they are but they are also never touted as scientific proof and are never used alone to support any scientific conclusions because they are unreliable and often wrong.

I also think that your statistical extrapolations are quite erroneous.

The statistical extrapolations are from scientific studies on participants of this “therapy.”

 

[meltzerboy]

There’s never been a scientifically documented case of anyone changing their sexual orientation. There is anecdotal evidence, all self-reporting, that 0 - 0.5% of homosexuals who enter into this “therapy” successfully changed their sexual orientation but no scientific proof that this was anything more than a change in behavior. In other words, this “therapy” has an established failure rate of 99.5% and an established success rate of 0.

I basically agree with this. It becomes clearer if one asks a straight person whether they could change their orientation to gay (in prison, perhaps). However, behavioral change repeated often enough may influence internal thoughts, feelings, and desires. Change can work from the outside in, as well as from the inside out. Further, in the case of sexual orientation, what means of measurement is used other than self-reporting, anecdotal evidence?

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

I basically agree with this. It becomes clearer if one asks a straight person whether they could change their orientation to gay (in prison, perhaps). However, behavioral change repeated often enough may influence internal thoughts, feelings, and desires. Change can work from the outside in, as well as from the inside out. Further, in the case of sexual orientation, what means of measurement is used other than self-reporting, anecdotal evidence?

Unfortunately self-reporting and anecdotes have been the only means of measurement used in the studies on this subject. What we need are FMRI scans of participants in this “therapy” to determine whether or not the change in this 0 - 0.5% group are just behavioral. Frankly, I’m surprised that no one has attempted it but, then again, the number of self-identified “ex-gays” may be too small to provide an adequate subject group.

 

[Cristiano]

Unfortunately self-reporting and anecdotes have been the only means of measurement used in the studies on this subject. What we need are FMRI scans of participants in this “therapy” to determine whether or not the change in this 0 - 0.5% group are just behavioral. Frankly, I’m surprised that no one has attempted it but, then again, the number of self-identified “ex-gays” may be too small to provide an adequate subject group.

Can you please provide scientific evidence that an FMRI scan can indicate the sexuality of an individual?

 

[Rence]

A flash mob at Bachmann & Associates, a Christian counseling clinic run by Michele Bachmann and her husband Marcus, protested the clinic’s acceptance of state and federal money Thursday and poked fun at allegations that the clinic performs therapy to “cure” homosexuality. The mob, dressed as barbarians — a nod to one of Marcus’ comments about LGBT people — danced a choreographed routine to Lady Gaga’s “Born This Way.”

The barbarian outfits were in response to a radio interview Marcus Bachmann gave in 2010 that insinuated that LGBT people were “barbarians” who “need to be educated.” The dance troop also featured a fake Marcus Bachmann who was “baptized” in glitter during the stunt.

minnesotaindependent.com/86839/bachmanns-clinic-protested-by-dancing-glitter-throwing-barbarians

Ok come on, what did they expect? You annouce on a radio that LGBT people are barbarians, and you expect them not to respond? On the contrary, you should anticipate such a response It they would have been more charitable in their comments, the reaction wouldn’t have been so out there.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Can you please provide scientific evidence that an FMRI scan can indicate the sexuality of an individual?

ajnr.org/cgi/content/full/29/10/1890

 

[Cristiano]

ajnr.org/cgi/content/full/29/10/1890

That is no scientific evidence of what I asked, it simply shows a partial correlation between some stimuli and an image of the brain activity.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

That is no scientific evidence of what I asked, it simply shows a partial correlation between some stimuli and an image of the brain activity.

It is absolutely the scientific evidence you asked for. This study demonstrates that different parts of the brain are activated when heterosexuals and homosexuals are exposed to sexual stimuli. So, it stands to reason that if the sexual orientation of the subject has changed then so too will the results of the FMRI scan differ before and after “therapy.” If the “therapy” is successful then the left angular gyrus, left caudate nucleus, and right palladium won’t be activated.

 

[Cristiano]

It is absolutely the scientific evidence you asked for. This study demonstrates that different parts of the brain are activated when heterosexuals and homosexuals are exposed to sexual stimuli. If the sexual orientation of the subject has changed then so too will the results of the FMRI scan differ before and after “therapy.”

I think that you are coming short on the understanding of scientific evidence. The first red flag of the article is that it starts with the assumption of two and only two different classes under test, either heterosexuals or homosexuals, and then it looks at the correlation. The article does not show any evidence that the specimens that they used belong to either class, thus we can only assume that the sampling is based on self-reported or anecdotal information.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

I think that you are coming short on the understanding of scientific evidence. The first red flag of the article is that it starts with the assumption of two and only two different classes under test, either heterosexuals or homosexuals, and then it looks at the correlation.

All participants who identified themselves as homosexual had different FMRI results than those who identified themselves a heterosexuals. This confirms their hypothesis. This is a peer-reviewed scientific study published in a reputable scientific journal. Reject the study and you reject science. The fact that there is even a difference is proof positive that a change in behavior is, at best, insufficient to constitute a change in orientation.

The article does not show any evidence that the specimens that they used belong to either class, thus we can only assume that the sampling is based on self-reported or anecdotal information.

“Subjects were enrolled through advertisements on campus and in a homosexual club asking for participation in a study on central nervous processing of sexual stimuli. Twenty healthy men took part in the study, 10 homosexual (mean age, 26.50 ± 5.10 years) and 10 heterosexual (mean age, 27.90 ± 3.03 years). The sexual orientation of all subjects was assessed by using self-reported measures of sexual feeling (ie, sexual attraction and sexual fantasies). In a structured interview, we verified that participants had no history of substance abuse, sexual dysfunction, sex identity disorder, paraphilia, or sexual offenses.”

There is no problem with forming a study group via assessed self-reporting. The problem lies in basing the conclusion of the study solely on that self-reporting.

 

[Cristiano]

All participants who identified themselves as homosexual had different FMRI results than those who identified themselves a heterosexuals. This confirms their hypothesis. This is a peer-reviewed scientific study published in a reputable scientific journal. Reject the study and you reject science. The fact that there is even a difference is proof positive that a change in behavior is, at best, insufficient to constitute a change in orientation.

“Subjects were enrolled through advertisements on campus and in a homosexual club asking for participation in a study on central nervous processing of sexual stimuli. Twenty healthy men took part in the study, 10 homosexual (mean age, 26.50 ± 5.10 years) and 10 heterosexual (mean age, 27.90 ± 3.03 years). The sexual orientation of all subjects was assessed by using self-reported measures of sexual feeling (ie, sexual attraction and sexual fantasies). In a structured interview, we verified that participants had no history of substance abuse, sexual dysfunction, sex identity disorder, paraphilia, or sexual offenses.”

There is no problem with forming a study group via assessed self-reporting. The problem lies in basing the conclusion of the study solely on that self-reporting.

You are proving my point here! First you discredit self-reporting and then you use it as a proof for your theory. Second a sampling size of 10 and 10 for this kind of correlations is a joke, nothing more than anecdotal evidence.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

You are proving my point here! First you discredit self-reporting and then you use it as a proof for your theory.

Wrong. I said that self-reporting alone is not proof and cannot be used as the sole basis of a scientific conclusion. That isn’t what the authors of this study did. They formed a hypothesis, found subjects via assessed self-reporting and a thorough interview process, and based their conclusion on FMRI scans.

Second a sampling size of 10 and 10 for this kind of correlations is a joke, nothing more than anecdotal evidence.

Check out the supporting studies cited.

 

[He_Man]

Ok come on, what did they expect? You annouce on a radio that LGBT people are barbarians, and you expect them not to respond? On the contrary, you should anticipate such a response It they would have been more charitable in their comments, the reaction wouldn’t have been so out there.

So you defend bad behavior by worse behavior? How about a fair appraoch, like eschewing both the comment and the behavior?

Or do you think it is okay for Tea Party rallies to have people dressed up as terrorists, since that is how they were called by the Vice president?