The insurance company determines it. Then they don’t let their dollars go there. That’s their job.
But the insurance companies get their statistics from a onesided apa. If the apa would not consider their data conclusive, which it can’t be since it hasn’t studied the whole population, then insurers might be open to other opinions.
Check out the work by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi for research that seems to show the opposite of what you’re saying above. Dr. Robert Spitzer did research that suggested that at least 30% of individuals with same-sex attraction can fully recover their heterosexuality and another 30% can make great strides towards doing so - motivation and an understanding of the natural law and the true purpose of sexuality is a key ingredient, however. Either way, the Catholic church doesn’t necessarily encourage anyone with same-sex disorder to do reparative therapy - they only demand chastity and abstinence. See info on support group Courage.
No study uses the whole population. There are too many of us.
Spitzer found a total of 274 people who claimed success in reparative therapy. He had such a hard time finding them that most of his subjects were referred by reparative therapy organizations.
Again we have the problem of a “cure” looking for an illness. There is no such thing as “same-sex disorder” in the psychological literature. I think we are talking past each other. Religious tradition and science should not be confused. The Catholic church may require its members not to be gay or have gay relationships. But that has nothing to do with the scientific conclusion that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality present in all human cultures throughout history. Not a mental illness such as schizophrenia.
It’s not a normal variant of human sexuality. It may not be officially classified as a psychiatric disorder in the DSM but it is disordered in the sense that it’s not ordered to the natural order of things. There are two complementary sexes and only through procreation of opposite gender individuals can a new life be created naturally (this excludes the unnatural means of doing it like in vitro,etc.). Even though homosexuality exists in 2% or so of society, it doesn’t mean it ought to exist - something has gone wrong. Even from an evolutionary standpoint, there is no natural advantage to being homosexual - if we all were then the species wouldn’t perpetuate. It’s likely that it still exists because of some psycho-social factors coupled with a predisposition to some gender identity disorder. By the way, the Catholic church doesn’t require that it’s members not be homosexual, it just requires that they don’t act on their same-sex attractions.
What does homosexuality have to do with heterosexual reproduction? Why is that an issue?
Because there’s an evolutionary mandate to procreate so that the species can continue. Homosexuality is against that natural order of things including the mandate to procreate to continue the species. At the risk of being too pedantic, I’m trying to point how heterosexuality is natural because of the natural means of reproduction and how homosexuality artificially thwarts that.
Heterosexuality is a natural means of reproduction. I completely agree. How does homosexuality prevent heteroseuals from reproducing?
I know a girl who thinks the same about her red hair. Does her opinion of herself define red hair as a disorder for the rest of humanity?
Let me explain further.:banghead: I’ve only dated women, had a crush on a girl in seventh grade, have only desired the normalcy of heterosexual marriage. I was not born homosexual so don’t compare it to red hair, blue eyes or anything else. It is a disorder and despite whether modern science says it’s not it will continue to be so.
OK. How do you know you weren’t born homosexual?Let me explain further.:banghead: I’ve only dated women, had a crush on a girl in seventh grade, have only desired the normalcy of heterosexual marriage. I was not born homosexual so don’t compare it to red hair, blue eyes or anything else. It is a disorder and despite whether modern science says it’s not it will continue to be so.
I think I just explained that.:whacky: If I was born homosexual there would be no heterosexual desire. And since there is no genetic proof as yet, I don’t believe anyone is born that way. Rather I believe that the more this insane society fosters the idea of gay is good more will be lost to the lifestyle. While there may not be fire and brimstone like Sodom and Gomorrah, the fact that the behavior is deadly is proof enough that it is something to flee from, much like Lot and his family did.
Clinical psychologists can offer treatment to people conflicted about their sexual orientation. Usually, they counsel coming to terms with the orientation. That does not mean therapists advocate having sex. Rather they try to help conflicted individuals come to terms that their orientation is not going to go away. It is a permanent aspect of their lives. Perhaps you can explore this type of therapy.
And that is still under the assumption that it can’t be changed. I don’t listen to a darn thing clinical psychologists say anymore because they set themselves up to be some new religion. There is no gay gene discovered yet and until then I’ll work on changing what I believe can be changed.
If you have an attraction to the same sex you may wish you did not have that attraction, but how do you know you weren’t born with it?
It doesn’t but that wasn’t the original question or concern. I was responding to someone who said that homosexuality was a normal varient of sexuality. I disputed the assertion that it was normal and showed why visa vie a link with heterosexuality and the normal way of procreation.
What’s wrong with religion?