E
Elizabeth502
Guest
^ Totally no problem, brother.
I will join in apologizing for any harshness in my own reply.
I will join in apologizing for any harshness in my own reply.
- Status
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
@BigE
This is a follow up to my last post to you, more as an explanation than a concession to the point you made.
There is not an official alternative APA group to go against the original APA. When the group dropped the diagnosis of homosexuality as a disorder, treatment for it was and continues to be discouraged. It is therefore easy for the psychiatric and psychological professional organizations (those at the director level) to claim consensus that sexual orientation is unchangeable. Is it a wonder that reparative therapists who work with homosexuals who seek resolution of their SSA are exceptions? With no incentive or support in getting their results published in peer-reviewed journals, they have understandably less strength. What is there to do but rely largely on testimonials and anecdotes, which the official APA is of course quick to discredit? Their peers on the now majority side continue to field criticisms at them, e.g., they are party to the stigma, their methods are flawed, etc.
,
This is a follow up to my last post to you, more as an explanation than a concession to the point you made.
There is not an official alternative APA group to go against the original APA. When the group dropped the diagnosis of homosexuality as a disorder, treatment for it was and continues to be discouraged. It is therefore easy for the psychiatric and psychological professional organizations (those at the director level) to claim consensus that sexual orientation is unchangeable. Is it a wonder that reparative therapists who work with homosexuals who seek resolution of their SSA are exceptions? With no incentive or support in getting their results published in peer-reviewed journals, they have understandably less strength. What is there to do but rely largely on testimonials and anecdotes, which the official APA is of course quick to discredit? Their peers on the now majority side continue to field criticisms at them, e.g., they are party to the stigma, their methods are flawed, etc.
,
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
I would like to add to that sentiment ^ to say that there is a growing understanding of the unadvisability of focusing specifically on perceived sexual orientation as an explicit “end” of the therapy, but rather on uncovering all the wounds that are toxic to the patient’s happiness. That is not really different from standard psychotherapy which is sought for reasons not related to sexuality, but related to integration, maturity, self-concept, healthy relationships with others. When one explores, with the aid of a professional, one discovers often a lot of painful wounds, and depending on the courage of the patient and the skill of the therapist (not to mention the level of rapport), it may be a very slow process and not at all easy. The end of all therapy is to restore the patient to wholeness as much as possible within their willingness to face themselves. When a patient is possibly substituting real happiness for any lifestyle (not just an actively homosexual one necessarily), as a way of compensating for loss, frustration, emptiness, normal relationships, then it can be very, very difficult for him to come to terms with that. This is especially true if he has been validated by society in that compensation.
I think reparative therapy used to be approached as if it was a crash diet, but now true professionals see it very differently. Also, the social consciousness of the Church is beginning to focus on greater awareness by parents of the need for active affirmation of the young child and unconditional acceptance of the young child, particularly by fathers. Unconditional acceptance is something that most people just “assume” comes with parental love, but in fact it does not. the opposite, conditional acceptance, is not always shown in hostility, either, but sometimes just in apathy or emotional abandonment.
I think reparative therapy used to be approached as if it was a crash diet, but now true professionals see it very differently. Also, the social consciousness of the Church is beginning to focus on greater awareness by parents of the need for active affirmation of the young child and unconditional acceptance of the young child, particularly by fathers. Unconditional acceptance is something that most people just “assume” comes with parental love, but in fact it does not. the opposite, conditional acceptance, is not always shown in hostility, either, but sometimes just in apathy or emotional abandonment.
B
BigE
Guest
Grace,
Regarding the Homosexuality and Truth article:
- The Homosexuality and Truth article is written by an evangelical minister (Sy Rodgers) and a supposedly “recovered” homosexual (Alan Medinger). Neither have an advanced degree in anything, and most certainly not in the medical field. So even ignoring their religious bias for the moment - what qualifications do they have that should compel me to believe what they have written?
- Secondly, they mention studies without providing the sources so that I can check out the credibility. That always raises my eye brow. Every book mentioned is over 20+ years old (again). Isn’t there anything more recent?
- Check out the grand experiment done by Dr. Money. He claims “no harm in trying” and yet one of his experiments resulted in the suicide death of a young boy. I wonder what the other guys are about.
ts-si.org/horizons/1407-background-on-dr-john-money
Can you produce anything that is recent, written by medical professionals, backed up by documented studies, and that has been peer reviewed?
This all reminds me of my debates with Jesus mythers - who despite the attestation by almost all historians that Jesus existed - continually point to the handful of guys that don’t - to prove their point.
Just curious: in all honesty…if all the major medical communities made statements that homesexuality could be cured…and I pointed to a few nay sayers to prove that wrong. What would be your reaction be to my claim?
B
BigE
Guest
I think you are claiming some type of grand conspiracy theory against pro reparitive therapy professionals?
What would be the motivation of the APA or any medical profession to suppress solid studies and data?
Could the criticism be because the data and studies are flimsy at best?
L
larkin31
Guest
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
I see you disregarded what I said in my posts and my question on how you feel about those who would like to (re)solve their SSA.
I am claiming there is a definite direction where the APA wants to take the homosexuality debate and public policy. Your prerogative of course if you wish to disregard or disbelieve the accounts of therapists not regarded by the APA as mainstream anymore and counsel of Christian groups, including our Church sponsored apostolate, Courage. What is wrong with making therapy available to help our brothers and sisters with SSA who wants therapy?
Here is a One Man’s Opinion: American Psychiatric Association Warns Therapists Not to Treat Homosexuals. The subtitle is Politicizing a Mental Disorder. I will not be surprised if you will also dismiss its substance.
Let me leave our exchange of posts with Mark 6:11: And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you; going forth from thence, shake off the dust from your feet for a testimony to them.
Btw, there is a poster who seems to be desperately wanting to have a discussion with you and a platform, but you are ignoring him. I suspect you and he will have many points of agreement.
Peace,
B
BigE
Guest
Peace,
- I see you disregarded what I said in my posts and my question on how you feel about those who would like to (re)solve their SSA.
- I am claiming there is a definite direction where the APA wants to take the homosexuality debate and public policy. Your prerogative of course if you wish to disregard or disbelieve the accounts of therapists not regarded by the APA as mainstream anymore and counsel of Christian groups, including our Church sponsored apostolate, Courage. What is wrong with making therapy available to help our brothers and sisters with SSA who wants therapy?
- Here is a One Man’s Opinion: American Psychiatric Association Warns Therapists Not to Treat Homosexuals. The subtitle is Politicizing a Mental Disorder. I will not be surprised if you will also dismiss its substance.
- Let me leave our exchange of posts with Mark 6:11: And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you; going forth from thence, shake off the dust from your feet for a testimony to them.
- Btw, there is a poster who seems to be desperately wanting to have a discussion with you and a platform, but you are ignoring him. I suspect you and he will have many points of agreement.
- Sorry…I missed that question. I have no problem if an individual wants to pursue that course of action. But they should be warned that there is little evidence as to its success (just as cancer patients should be free to pursue experimental treatments as long as they are fully informed). I do have a problem if someone wants to boad brush the entire homosexuality issue as a “choice” or a “disorder” that can be altered through reparitive therapy when the consensus of the medical world is that it doesn’t work.
- And I’m asking you why you think they want to take it that way? What is their motivation other than this is where the data and evidence has led them? I suppose you could say due to pressure from gay lobby groups - but I have a tough time believing they are really more powerful than the religious right.
- Even if one were to agree that the APA caved (which I don’t believe is the case)… How do you explain the American Academy of Pediatrics, The American Phychiatric Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association and both the American and British Medical Associations also posting the same conclusions as the APA?
ralliance.org/TVC_APA.html
- I have no idea what that piece of scripture has to do with the homosexuality issue. Are you saying someone can’t accept Christ and at the same time believe homosexuality is not a choice? I don’t even think the Church makes that statement.
- I don’t think he wants to have a discussion. I think he has simply agreed with my points.
L
larkin31
Guest
On the contrary. I have been warned by Admin that I cannot respond to that poster in any direct way per his request. I was even ordered to put him on my ignore list. So I only see him/her when others quote him/her.
Let there be no misunderstanding about the muzzle on me in this regard.
B
BigE
Guest
Good to know. Thanks for clearing that up.
Are there any pts you’d like me to make for you?..lol…
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
Will have to address the items you raised in parts.
- Reparative therapy has its use and is not without benefit. It is no longer used in the manner that it had been before, with a hard objective of “conversion” to heterosexuality. Elizabeth explained it very nicely in her Post # 122
In its two-year campaign, the APA task force urged its practitioners to counsel their clients to simply accept their homosexual desires, and to support an identity exploration without inclusion of a specific identity outcome or lifestyle change. IOW, any effort towards this kind of goal for those who may wish to reduce their SSA or leave the gay lifestyle ceased.
The task force included NOT one psychiatrist that believed homosexuality is not a normal adaptation. Not all psychiatrists believe this, not then, not now. The starting point is homosexuality is a normal variant of sexuality. It remains nonetheless stigmatized in ways that can have negative consequences. There is no big surprise to the outcome of their “scientific” studies that therapy does not work. Efforts to report success don’t get in. Do you see how the evidence or results could only go one way then?
- The APA aligned itself with gay advocates whose goal is the normalization of homosexual acts and for society to completely accept the gay culture. Who do the movers and shakers turn to in making policy but the experts? That would be the MDs, no? That would be the organization of psychiatrists. The APA has been politicized, notwithstanding its denial.
[Con’t]
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
- Other specialties (like pediatricians and internists) mostly deal with physical illnesses and physiological maladies. If a physical reason is ruled out and the root of a patient’s illness is mental or psychological (under which homosexuality is historically categorized), why should the other specialties not take the APA’s official line or view? Not to mention that world medical view is, let’s face it, dictated by Western doctors and their professional associations, especially American. In the world of psychiatry, it’s APA that rules. We have a poster in this thread who lives in Holland, and she can attest to this.
3A) Rainbow Alliance, the source of your link is an LGBT organization that pushes for gay causes including gay marriage. It also discounts NARTH (big surprise!) and dismisses everyone else not in their camp as pseudo-scientists. Not exactly an independent unbiased source, would you say? I am just returning the favor of the criticism you fielded as to the source of material I provided.
But I agree with you that there are two sides to a story. We speak from different sides of the room.
- Forgive me for giving you that impression. It’s not the reason I cited the Mark verse. I thought you were talking past what I said, and I am sure I have blame as well. Like I told a friend, cyber discussion is different. We wish to get to our point fast with the fewest lines of text – it’s not possible all the time.
- I know, BigE. Just for the truth here, it was I who put this poster on Ignore, but he continued to direct posts to me. Hence he was admonished by the mods. The mod action archive should have the record. Anyway, it looks like he has a delightful way of getting in between posts, and the best he can do is shadow another with whom I am debating. Hmm, perhaps he needs another revisit by the moderator, for a 3rd suspension or worse. OMG, what would he do?
Peace and blessings,
B
BigE
Guest
I know that Grace. I think we both want the best for everybody - we just have different opinions as to what that is. I guess we’ll have to just agree to disagree for now.
But I appreciate the discussion, your patience…and although I dosagree with it, I do also appreciate respect your POV.
Peace.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
Likewise.
,
L
larkin31
Guest
I make them myself just fine. But thanks!Good to know. Thanks for clearing that up.
Are there any pts you’d like me to make for you?..lol…
I (we) have repeatedly stated that sexual reversal therapy has been debunked professionally. I am well aware of the truth in this regard. Most others are, too.
B
BigE
Guest
I make them myself just fine. But thanks!
I (we) have repeatedly stated that sexual reversal therapy has been debunked professionally. I am well aware of the truth in this regard. Most others are, too.
- “Today, there are at least a 1,000 therapists conducting reparative therapy. There are many dozens of Fundamentalist Christian ministries also attempting to convert clients’ sexual orientation. Yet no statistically valid, long term, peer-reviewed study in this field has ever been attempted that might give some indication of the therapy’s safety and effectiveness.”
“Assuming that the more than 1,000 therapists in NARTH each have had 50 clients per year over the previous five years, then they have treated over 250,000 homosexuals and bisexuals with reparative therapy. Various transformational ministries have treated other gays, bisexuals and lesbians who were seeking change. Yet, Dr. Spitzer was only able to find 274 potential subjects for his study in all of America. This data alone indicates that reparative therapy is almost always a failure.”
tridd.com/docs/answers/Ex-Gay%20Research%20Spitzer%20Study.pdf
- “The purveyors of “reparative therapy” are well outside mainstream research and thinking in the psychotherapeutic world. They rail constantly that their work is being subverted by the professional associations, which they claim were hijacked in the 1970s by activist gay members into removing homosexuality from the official lists of mental disorders.”
“The main secular organization promoting the notion that gay people can “change” is the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, or NARTH. Because it is led by psychotherapists and psychologists, NARTH has an aura of scientific credibility. Its research is sometimes cited by journalists and opinion leaders, despite its being highly flawed. On closer inspection, it becomes clear that NARTH’s “change” rates are inflated, that its definition of “cure” is purposely overbroad and that its chief spokesmen are viewed suspiciously within the psychoanalytic community.”
csufresno.edu/StudentOrgs/usp/resources/flyers/missionimpossible.htm
- “And now, the head of the nation’s largest “ex-gay ministry” has also exposed the deception in a June 18, 2007, *Los Angeles Times article. *Alan Chambers directs Exodus International, widely described as the nation’s largest ex-gay ministry. But when he addresses the group’s Freedom Conference at Concordia University in Irvine this month, Chambers won’t celebrate successful “ex-gays.” Truth is, he’s not sure he’s ever met one. With years of therapy, Chambers says, he has mostly conquered his own attraction to men . . . [but] he still struggles at times with homosexual temptation. “By no means would we ever say change can be sudden or complete,” Chambers said. After “years of therapy” – that’s very expensive therapy from unlicensed religious “counselors” or renegade psychologists (the American Psychological Association is currently investigating “ex-gay therapies”) – Mr. Chambers is still turned on by other men.”
“Psychologist Jeffry G. Ford was once the executive director of Outpost, an “ex-gay” ministry in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He spent many years as a national speaker for Exodus International. His firsthand accounts of the “ex-gay” sham and the damage reparative, conversion and aversion therapies do have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.”
onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2147.shtm
L
larkin31
Guest
NARTH, like Polyphemus, glares once again from his cave, but now with only a blind, charred socket.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
Christians with SSA are not the only ones who seek reparative therapy. Our brothers and sisters from the Jewish faith turn to it as well.
JONAH (Jews Offering Alternatives to Healing) mission statement:
Note that JONAH cites What Research Shows, a NARTH document, in the face of what gay advocates wish the public to think about the group and its members and about reparative therapy.
This link JONAH’s Psycho-Educational Model for Healing outlines a comprehensive model which includes the use of individual psychotherapy.
JONAH (Jews Offering Alternatives to Healing) mission statement:
The directors of JONAH have this to say about naysayers to reparative therapy:
from: October 20, 2010: Homosexuality, reparative therapy, and the Jewish community
Note that JONAH cites What Research Shows, a NARTH document, in the face of what gay advocates wish the public to think about the group and its members and about reparative therapy.
This link JONAH’s Psycho-Educational Model for Healing outlines a comprehensive model which includes the use of individual psychotherapy.
,
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
BigE,
Is the first link a student paper? It does not have credits.
The second link is from the HRC director. The group is an LGBT organization that seeks legalization of gay marriage and promulgation of gay adoption.
As to the 3rd link ??
Peace,
B
BigE
Guest
- You’re right. I thought it was an article written by Dr. Charles Silverstein, but looking at the PDF again, that connection isn’t clear as the author isn’t indicated. Shame on me for not recognizing that. I shouldn’t have noted the article without making sure I knew who wrote it. My bad…and my mistake.
- Bias doesn’t bother me. Your links had bias too. What I’m interested in are the facts that come out of these articles and discussions, and each sides ability to refute those facts.
- Let’s see if this works: onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2147.shtml
(written by By Mel Seesholtz, Ph.D.) - Here’s another interesting paper from Charles R. Peterson, M.D., and Douglas A. Hedlund, M.D. This is the first article I’ve been able to find that defines how large and relevant the minority opinion is relative to the majority opinion on the issue of reparitive therapy. Interesting.
…The fact is that the dominant themes of this minority science are those formulated and presented by a very small but vocal minority lobby group standing against a large but vocally silent majority of medical and behavioral scientists.
…First, there is no significant debate going on in the APA, the American Medical association (AMA) or American College of Physicians (ACP) about the nature of homosexuality…
…Second, any question of whether or not the designation of the minority view within the medical profession deserves to be called a “small” minority should begin with the fact that there are about 38,000 members of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and there are about 150,000 psychologists who are members of the American Psychological Association. Not all psychiatrists and psychologists are members of these organizations so the numbers of these specialists are even greater. The largest organization advocating the minority view that we are aware of is the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). Their web site and other sources claim a membership “approaching 1500.” Books by ELCA authors break these 1500 members down into 1000 psychologists with the other 500 made up of psychiatrists, other physicians, and mental health workers (probably at most 100 psychiatrists). Therefore, all categories of membership do not likely exceed 1% of the total in their respective medical specialties. If the entire AMA membership is considered, only about one in 4,000 (0.025%) of these specialists are members of NARTH. Therefore we think that our conservative estimate that the minority is less than 3% of all related scientists is reasonable.
“In any scientific community, there are always some individuals who simply refuse to accept new ideas and evidence. This is especially true when the new evidence strikes at their core beliefs…”
nisswa.net/~critiques/misho.html#sci
- Status