The Reformation for Secular Homosexual thinking

[markeverett49]

G

Here’s where you go off the rails. The Church does not appear to see homosexuality (understood as same-sex attraction) as a sexual disorder analogous to something that should be treated by a psychiatrist or a physician (the disorder of the homosexual inclination as understood by the catechism is that it runs counter to a “natural” sexual appetite ordered to procreation–this is the diagnosis of moral theology, not medicine, which is right and appropriate for the catechism). Nor does the Church see homosexual sexual behavior as an instance of sexual disorder, but views it as an instance of moral disorder. Otherwise, we would be justified in seeing erectile dysfunction (a sexual disorder) as somehow analogous to homosexual sexual behavior (a morally disordered act according to the catechism). But such an analogy just won’t stand up, pardon the pun.!

I went off no rails. I said that “conversion therapy” should be judged as other therapies treating sexual behavior are judged. How else should one judge it? I never said the Church required it or endorsed it.

We agree that homosexual acts are morally depraved. If some people who suffer from this disorder are helped by conversion therapy, I should think that would be cause for joy all around. But back to homosexual acts being morally depraved—this makes it much WORSE than a ‘psychiatric disorder.’ A man who is, say, afraid of the dark may need the help of a therapist to deal with that matter but it is unlikely to corrupt his thinking about darkness is, or what the good life is for a human being, but a man who tells himself that it is good for one man to sleep with another will soon find himself making all sorts of errors, such as about the nature of marriage, the value of children, and the definition of hate. It deeply corrupts the mind. (Heterosexual fornication does this too, and the results are plain to most of us.)

 

[John_of_Woking]

Ed,

I believe we need to ask any LGBT supporter that bears the moniker

Christian
Anglican
Methodist
Born Again

or whatever Christian stripe the following question…

Do you accept the teaching authority of the Catholic Church as a Christian?

Do you accept the Protocanonicals as the Word of God as opposed to the Catholic Bible with the Deuterocanonicals?

No to any of those questions allows you to say…

Well then…

I do not accept the opinions of the American Psychiatric Association, The American Medical Association, The National Association of Social Workers or any society or professional organization that accepts the LGBT agenda…

I accept the DSM I, DSM II and DSM III…I do not accept the DSM IV or V…and if asked why, because you believe that they are false teachings based on a political point of view and there is no obligation to accept them.

If there is any question…then ask when it will be that they accept the teaching authority of the Church or the acceptance of the Deuterocanonicals…

Revealed truths vs Politicized progpaganda…

Well said

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

As a “physician?” Only as a “physician” and not simply as a human being tasked with making sense of the world?

And on what basis do you determine what is and is not propaganda? Again, I know you think the APA disseminates propaganda, but the simple fact is: neither the catechism nor the APA see homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder. So where is the propaganda here and on what basis can we find it?

I submit to you that your only criterion in evidence for evaluating what is or is not propaganda is your own subjective political opinion and not an objective truth standard or claim.

Your scriptural exegesis is neither good, nor compelling, nor is it on point. It therefore comes across as random with the intent to divert attention from the unordered/disorganized quality of your own thinking.

Okay!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark,

The AMA says addiction is disease. The APA says it is a disorder. They are both wrong. It is habit. This decision is based on reading, filtering and looking to see what others say. There are those in the field that agree with my point of view so I reject what the AMA and the APA says about this.

The APA and their lemmings follow that the DSM IV and DSM V have notions about what Homosexuality and Transgender is and is not. I reject this as well. I read, I sift, I see that NARTH exists to study research and treatment of Homosexuals. The Catholic Medical Association disagrees with the APA and a former APA president confirms my belief.

thenewamerican.com/culture/item/11640-former-apa-president-says-homosexuals-can-change

And it passed the Council of Representatives. And that was the first issue that came up. I also said with that, that the APA, if it passes this resolution, will also vote to continue research that demonstrates whatever the research demonstrates. Unbiased, open research. It was never done.

During this time at the top of APA, Cummings said, the headshrinkers’ group adopted the Leona Tyler Principle, which mandated scientific proof for the organization’s public positions. That principle was “paramount,” he said.

Cummings said the APA “abided by the Leona Tyler principle. All of the sudden things began to change as things became more political than scientific” and the
principle “disappeared.” “The principle was never withdrawn,” he said, yet it is nowhere to be found in the “annals” of the APA and “was absolutely forgotten” by the mid 1990s. Politics rule science at APA, he said, with its members “cherrypicking results” to fit their leftist political ideas. A search of the terms “leona tyler” at the APA website does not return results.

He said the “gay rights movement sort of captured the APA.”

lifesitenews.com/news/former-president-of-apa-says-organization-controlled-by-gay-rights-movement/

Former president of APA says organization controlled by ‘gay rights’ movement
June 6, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A former president of the American Psychological Association (APA), who also introduced the motion to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness in 1975, says that the APA has been taken over by “ultraliberals” beholden to the “gay rights movement,” who refuse to allow an open debate on reparative therapy for homosexuality.

So, based on reading, thinking, support from rational thinking I conclude that Homosexuality is an illness and the DSM III has it correct. That is my perogative and my right to declare that the DSM IV and DSM V should be discarded as relevant.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

The Church’s teaching is not incompatible with that assertion. But then there’s this: we know the Church is right and know the APA may be wrong!

We all see through a glass darkly, Mark. Given enough time, we’re bound to be wrong about most things.

The point is, though, that the moment you start making truth claims beyond the standard of what you know to be true (in this case, Catholic moral teaching), the more likely you are not just to be wrong, but dreadfully wrong. You may, in fact, come to believe that the truth claims of the Church are actually insufficient and must be supplemented by truth claims from some political mob or other (left-leaning, right-leaning, it doesn’t matter). And gradually, your idea of what is true will start to be warped by your commitment to what amount to two truth standards, the serving of two masters.

So whether or not the APA is wrong is sort of moot when it comes to leading a moral life–it doesn’t impinge to any real degree on my life of prayer which is my life as a Christian. The moment that the rightness or wrongness of the APA becomes important is the moment when we’re no longer talking about morality or truth or the life of prayer, but about politics.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark,

Indeed. So how is the Church’s teaching incompatible with the fundamental assertion that homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder?

The Church makes no assertion about the Psychology of sin. The fundamental assertion you propose is not fact. The field is divided by those that say…it is normal and those that say it is not normal. These viewpoints differ and you should understand that for the APA to promote an agenda and a viewpoint is wrong, in fact it is called viewpoint discrimination…you are entitled to your viewpoint and when the APA and the lemmings that follow try to suppress a viewpoint, as in California, SB-1172…they will fail…because the alternate viewpoint is protected by law…

freedomxlaw.com/First-Amendment-Rights/Viewpoint-Discrimination.aspx

Viewpoint Discrimination

What is viewpoint discrimination?

Viewpoint discrimination occurs when laws, regulations, or actions attack or unfairly discriminate against a specific individual or group because of the personal views of the individual or group, whether those views concern religious beliefs, political beliefs, or intellectual or academic ideas. Where such laws create, foster, or carry a prejudice, bias, or hostility towards such viewpoints, they are generally considered to be violations of the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and the exercise of one’s religion. Courts have consistently ruled against viewpoint discrimination as being unconstitutional, although new variations on this issue have arisen throughout the two centuries since the First Amendment was passed.

 

[markeverett49]

We all see through a glass darkly, Mark. Given enough time, we’re bound to be wrong about most things.

The point is, though, that the moment you start making truth claims beyond the standard of what you know to be true (in this case, Catholic moral teaching), the more likely you are not just to be wrong, but dreadfully wrong. You may, in fact, come to believe that the truth claims of the Church are actually insufficient and must be supplemented by truth claims from some political mob or other (left-leaning, right-leaning, it doesn’t matter). And gradually, your idea of what is true will start to be warped by your commitment to what amount to two truth standards, the serving of two masters.

So whether or not the APA is wrong is sort of moot when it comes to leading a moral life–it doesn’t impinge to any real degree on my life of prayer which is my life as a Christian. The moment that the rightness or wrongness of the APA becomes important is the moment when we’re no longer talking about morality or truth or the life of prayer, but about politics.

Yes, we are wrong about many things. Most scientists couch their claims as ‘provisional’ as ‘as far as we know.’ One of the warning bells that sounds about claims regarding homosexuality is that many insist that a) Science Says there is nothing wrong with it, and b) it is wrong to do any research that might conclude something is wrong with it.

Consider the current arguments made to the Supreme Court on behalf of the side opposing DOMA. This side claims that “Science” has found nothing wrong with same-sex parenting, despite the paucity of studies, their small sample size, and the absence of long-term studies (because same-sex parenting has such a short documented history). Yet the presumption is that Only Hate could explain someone looking at this evidence and saying, “Gee, that’s not compelling.”

What schoolchildren are taught as “scientific fact” about homosexuality (namely, that it is fine, equivalent to heterosexuality, and anyone who questions this is a bigot) leads young minds into known error.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I went off no rails. I said that “conversion therapy” should be judged as other therapies treating sexual behavior are judged.

An attraction is not a behavior.

If some people who suffer from this disorder are helped by conversion therapy, I should think that would be cause for joy all around.

Some people love elective cosmetic surgery. It’s not necessary they have it, but I’m sure that when it all works out to their liking, they’re happy. And sure, when others are happy, I’m happy for them. But a nose-job is not really a cause for joy all around–or if it is, then we have a deep misapprehension of what joy actually looks like and means.

Given the scientific and medical evidence regarding conversion therapy, it is analogous to both crystal healing (i.e., largely discredited), and elective cosmetic surgery (i.e., largely pointless but appealing to a niche audience of consumers).

But back to homosexual acts being morally depraved—this makes it much WORSE than a ‘psychiatric disorder.’ A man who is, say, afraid of the dark may need the help of a therapist to deal with that matter but it is unlikely to corrupt his thinking about darkness is, or what the good life is for a human being, but a man who tells himself that it is good for one man to sleep with another will soon find himself making all sorts of errors, such as about the nature of marriage, the value of children, and the definition of hate. It deeply corrupts the mind. (Heterosexual fornication does this too, and the results are plain to most of us.)

Again, an attraction is not a behavior. Nor is a mistaken assumption alone (whatever it might be) indicative of psychiatric disease.

Also, there’s little evidence that a belief that same-sex sexual activity is okay will always and inevitably lead to the errors you enumerate, either in whole or in part, with an inevitable corruption of the mind as a reliable result. Again, a mistaken assumption alone is not indicative of psychiatric disease. I fear that your rhetoric here is more politically than morally inflected.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Yes, we are wrong about many things. Most scientists couch their claims as ‘provisional’ as ‘as far as we know.’ One of the warning bells that sounds about claims regarding homosexuality is that many insist that a) Science Says there is nothing wrong with it, and b) it is wrong to do any research that might conclude something is wrong with it.

Science says there’s nothing medically wrong with masturbation, but the Church says that there’s plenty morally wrong with it. And that’s okay, isn’t it? Science on it’s own is unlikely to lead us to morally correct judgments of things. And the Church isn’t going to teach us how to do brain surgery or nuclear physics. That seems rather appropriate to me.

Consider the current arguments made to the Supreme Court on behalf of the side opposing DOMA. This side claims that “Science” has found nothing wrong with same-sex parenting, despite the paucity of studies, their small sample size, and the absence of long-term studies (because same-sex parenting has such a short documented history). Yet the presumption is that Only Hate could explain someone looking at this evidence and saying, “Gee, that’s not compelling.”

What schoolchildren are taught as “scientific fact” about homosexuality (namely, that it is fine, equivalent to heterosexuality, and anyone who questions this is a bigot) leads young minds into known error.

This is all politics to me, and largely immaterial to the life of prayer I’m called to lead as a Christian. The proper catechesis of children should provide them with a moral standard by which to evaluate the moral value of the various aspects of secular society to which they’re exposed by the education system.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

An attraction is not a behavior.

Again, an attraction is not a behavior. Nor is a mistaken assumption alone (whatever it might be) indicative of psychiatric disease.

Also, there’s little evidence that a belief that same-sex sexual activity is okay will always and inevitably lead to the errors you enumerate, either in whole or in part, with an inevitable corruption of the mind as a reliable result. Again, a mistaken assumption alone is not indicative of psychiatric disease. I fear that your rhetoric here is more politically than morally inflected.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark,

Some people love elective cosmetic surgery. It’s not necessary they have it, but I’m sure that when it all works out to their liking, they’re happy. And sure, when others are happy, I’m happy for them. But a nose-job is not really a cause for joy all around–or if it is, then we have a deep misapprehension of what joy actually looks like and means.

I agree. Some people because of a wish, desire, preference, imagination get their male genitals castrated and this is not a cause for joy all around and there is no misapprehension of what those surgically constructed parts look like and what they mean. The man remains a man.

Given the scientific and medical evidence regarding conversion therapy, it is analogous to both crystal healing (i.e., largely discredited), and elective cosmetic surgery (i.e., largely pointless but appealing to a niche audience of consumers).

You may want to rethink this because the APA task force did not conclude this and Nicolosi in “Shame and Attachment” refernce 2000 cases he has been involved with. Show me your articles that prove the scientific evidence that it is discredited and by whom and who says it is pointles.

 

[markeverett49]

Again, an attraction is not a behavior. Nor is a mistaken assumption alone (whatever it might be) indicative of psychiatric disease.

Also, there’s little evidence that a belief that same-sex sexual activity is okay will always and inevitably lead to the errors you enumerate, either in whole or in part, with an inevitable corruption of the mind as a reliable result. Again, a mistaken assumption alone is not indicative of psychiatric disease. I fear that your rhetoric here is more politically than morally inflected.!

I understand the difference between an attraction and a behavior. The attraction is a disorder—we AGREE on this, remember?—and the actions are depraved. I haven’t called anything a psychiatric disease.

I think there is much solid evidence for the proposition that corrupt morals lead to a darkening of the intellect. I’m old enough to remember arguments about abortion in the '70s. Back then, pro-choice supporters howled at the suggestion that sex-selective abortions would ever take place. It was, they said, a scare tactic, and further, a sign that the “sick minds” that conjured it up had lost touch with reality. Today, sex-selective abortions are an everyday thing and pro-choice supporters don’t think it’s even worthy of comment, let alone opposition.

 

[Kolbe300]

You may want to rethink this because the APA task force did not conclude this and Nicolosi in “Shame and Attachment” refernce 2000 cases he has been involved with. Show me your articles that prove the scientific evidence that it is discredited and by whom and who says it is pointles.

I couldn’t help but stepping in here for just a second. It’s funny that you bring up Nicolosi’s “Shame and Attachment” book because I just read an article about it. You’ve obviously read the book, so you can attest to Nicolosi quoting and using the research of a Dr. Alan Schore. Apparently Dr. Schore isn’t too happy about that. (And it would appear they’re not as good of pals as Nicolosi thinks they are.) I’ll let you look up what he had to say. Dr. Schore is one among a score of researchers who have come after Nicolosi for twisting their research to help his own argument. Is that how things are usually done in organizations that don’t like the APA?

Anyways, before you got suspended, I had asked a question with regards to Nicolosi’s 2000 cases of reparative therapy. I certainly don’t doubt he’s dealt with 2000 cases. What I’d like to know is where the testimonies are of his successes. Certainly there are hundreds and hudreds and hundreds of them. I don’t want to hear about Nicolosi’s success from Nicolosi. I want to hear it from his patients. Surely there are sources for that?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I couldn’t help but stepping in here for just a second. It’s funny that you bring up Nicolosi’s “Shame and Attachment” book because I just read an article about it. You’ve obviously read the book, so you can attest to Nicolosi quoting and using the research of a Dr. Alan Schore. Apparently Dr. Schore isn’t too happy about that. (And it would appear they’re not as good of pals as Nicolosi thinks they are.) I’ll let you look up what he had to say. Dr. Schore is one among a score of researchers who have come after Nicolosi for twisting their research to help his own argument. Is that how things are usually done in organizations that don’t like the APA?

Anyways, before you got suspended, I had asked a question with regards to Nicolosi’s 2000 cases of reparative therapy. I certainly don’t doubt he’s dealt with 2000 cases. What I’d like to know is where the testimonies are of his successes. Certainly there are hundreds and hudreds and hundreds of them. I don’t want to hear about Nicolosi’s success from Nicolosi.** I want to hear it from his patients. Surely there are sources for that?**

Personally I’d also like testimony from satisfied wives

 

[CopticChristian]

I couldn’t help but stepping in here for just a second. It’s funny that you bring up Nicolosi’s “Shame and Attachment” book because I just read an article about it. You’ve obviously read the book, so you can attest to Nicolosi quoting and using the research of a Dr. Alan Schore. Apparently Dr. Schore isn’t too happy about that. (And it would appear they’re not as good of pals as Nicolosi thinks they are.) I’ll let you look up what he had to say. Dr. Schore is one among a score of researchers who have come after Nicolosi for twisting their research to help his own argument. Is that how things are usually done in organizations that don’t like the APA?

Anyways, before you got suspended, I had asked a question with regards to Nicolosi’s 2000 cases of reparative therapy. I certainly don’t doubt he’s dealt with 2000 cases. What I’d like to know is where the testimonies are of his successes. Certainly there are hundreds and hudreds and hundreds of them. I don’t want to hear about Nicolosi’s success from Nicolosi. I want to hear it from his patients. Surely there are sources for that?

Kolbe,

No, there are probably not any resources for his clients. There is never any way to discuss this with those clients as this is priveleged information. I don’t know how you would get hold of this short of calling Dr. Nicolosi. I have spoken to him on the phone. You can call him and ask him. He may or may not return your call.

 

[CopticChristian]

Personally I’d also like testimony from satisfied wives

Dakota,

Really what you are saying is that you doubt. Doubt creates a dilema in the mind because it means that there is concern that beliefs may or may not be subject to change. On the other hand doubt is helpful because it creates an avenue for introspection, self reflection and possible further inquiry. You may want to communicate with Dr. Nicolosi about this.

 

[CopticChristian]

I couldn’t help but stepping in here for just a second. It’s funny that you bring up Nicolosi’s “Shame and Attachment” book because I just read an article about it. You’ve obviously read the book, so you can attest to Nicolosi quoting and using the research of a Dr. Alan Schore. Apparently Dr. Schore isn’t too happy about that. (And it would appear they’re not as good of pals as Nicolosi thinks they are.) I’ll let you look up what he had to say. Dr. Schore is one among a score of researchers who have come after Nicolosi for twisting their research to help his own argument. Is that how things are usually done in organizations that don’t like the APA?

Anyways, before you got suspended, I had asked a question with regards to Nicolosi’s 2000 cases of reparative therapy. I certainly don’t doubt he’s dealt with 2000 cases. What I’d like to know is where the testimonies are of his successes. Certainly there are hundreds and hudreds and hundreds of them. I don’t want to hear about Nicolosi’s success from Nicolosi. I want to hear it from his patients. Surely there are sources for that?

Kolbe,

I would love to talk to Paul who rode thr road to Damascus and see if what he saw was real. I would love to speak to John of the Cross and ask him lots of questions. I would love to talk to Catherine of Sienna and ask her what her driving force was…but I can’t…

we have the testimony of writing and the teachings of the Church…

 

[Kolbe300]

No, there are probably not any resources for his clients. There is never any way to discuss this with those clients as this is priveleged information. I don’t know how you would get hold of this short of calling Dr. Nicolosi. I have spoken to him on the phone. You can call him and ask him. He may or may not return your call.

Of course his client list is privileged information. He’s a doctor. That’s why I don’t want to hear about his successes from him. I would think, however, that after thousands of clients and countless success stories, some of his patients would be clamoring to help the good doctor to spread his message of hope by talking about their amazing transformation from a strictly same-sex orientation to a strictly opposite-sex orientation. The relative silence on that front is strange to me, to say the least. (It wouldn’t be strange if Nicolosi actually has very little success.)

I would love to talk to Paul who rode thr road to Damascus and see if what he saw was real. I would love to speak to John of the Cross and ask him lots of questions. I would love to talk to Catherine of Sienna and ask her what her driving force was…but I can’t…

That’s because they aren’t with us any longer. They’re in heaven. I’m guessing that not all of Nicolosi’s patients are deceased as well.

we have the testimony of writing and the teachings of the Church

We do. But they are silent when it comes to speaking about how one changes their strictly same-sex orientation to a strictly opposite-sex orientation.

 

[CopticChristian]

Of course his client list is privileged information. He’s a doctor. That’s why I don’t want to hear about his successes from him. I would think, however, that after thousands of clients and countless success stories, some of his patients would be clamoring to help the good doctor to spread his message of hope by talking about their amazing transformation from a strictly same-sex orientation to a strictly opposite-sex orientation. The relative silence on that front is strange to me, to say the least. (It wouldn’t be strange if Nicolosi actually has very little success.)

That’s because they aren’t with us any longer. They’re in heaven. I’m guessing that not all of Nicolosi’s patients are deceased as well.

We do. But they are silent when it comes to speaking about how one changes their strictly same-sex orientation to a strictly opposite-sex orientation.

Kolbe,

I can imagine many people whose lives have changed who choose not to speak about that change. Maxwell Maltz, author of Psychocybernetics, he also wrote New Faces New Futures and he details the lives of many people that changed with surgery and with his methodology. I cannot recall anyone of the people that he helped change writing or testifying on behalf of that change…

Did Freud have people testifying to the marvels of Freud?

Did Milton Erickson have people testifying to the marvels of Erickson?

When writing medical literature reports rarely have the counter information of the testimonials of what happened from those that it happened to been published or talked about. You may see an occasional television show with one or two of these marvels, but this is not the norm…I cannot recall reading any medical literature where a professor, colleague or anyone asked…wish we could see the testimonials of those that had this procedure…it is a novel idea at best.

 

[Kolbe300]

When writing medical literature reports rarely have the counter information of the testimonials of what happened from those that it happened to been published or talked about. You may see an occasional television show with one or two of these marvels, but this is not the norm…I cannot recall reading any medical literature where a professor, colleague or anyone asked…wish we could see the testimonials of those that had this procedure…it is a novel idea at best.

But you are constantly referring people to Dr. Nicolosi’s style of therapy, and unless I’m mistaken, you use him as “proof” that people can change. If you’re simply saying that people can change behavior, then I wonder why you even need to reference Nicolosi. Of course people can change behavior. Any person can change behavior.

But if you are saying that sexual orientation can always or usually change, what proof do you have? Nothing more than - because Nicolosi says so? Thousands of testimonies of those who have not experienced a change in their homosexual orientation can be easily dug up. With Nicolosi’s self-professed success, you’d think it wouldn’t be so hard to find some testimonies for his side of the debate.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a testimony from an ex SSA person who admits to now being 100% heterosexual. I’ve seen plenty where they admit to still being attracted to the same sex, they just don’t act on it anymore. While that’s fine, they’re still SSA. That is a successful change in behavior, which needs no proof or testimony.

 

[CopticChristian]

But you are constantly referring people to Dr. Nicolosi’s style of therapy, and unless I’m mistaken, you use him as “proof” that people can change. If you’re simply saying that people can change behavior, then I wonder why you even need to reference Nicolosi. Of course people can change behavior. Any person can change behavior.

But if you are saying that sexual orientation can always or usually change, what proof do you have? Nothing more than - because Nicolosi says so? Thousands of testimonies of those who have not experienced a change in their homosexual orientation can be easily dug up. With Nicolosi’s self-professed success, you’d think it wouldn’t be so hard to find some testimonies for his side of the debate.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a testimony from an ex SSA person who admits to now being 100% heterosexual. I’ve seen plenty where they admit to still being attracted to the same sex, they just don’t act on it anymore. While that’s fine, they’re still SSA. That is a successful change in behavior, which needs no proof or testimony.

Kolbe,

Wolpe’s (1969) patient, who was in treatment for assertiveness training, reported a spontaneous shift to heterosexual behavior, even when the focus was not on changing it. Fluker (1976), a medical doctor treating gay-identified men for sexually transmitted diseases (not homosexuality), learned from one of his patients, who was not in conversion therapy, that he no longer had homosexual inclinations and was happily married to a woman. Cameron and Crawford (1985) discovered that 2% of their random sample of 170 claimed they had once been homosexual, which was not reportedly due to any intervention.

Nichols’ (1988) study mentioned a client who had spontaneously developed heterosexual interests and transformed from a bisexual to a heterosexual in mid-life. Shechter (1992) reported spontaneous change in a male client who had been in psychoanalysis (not for treatment of homosexuality).

Michael, Gagnon, Laumann, and Kolata (1994) found that based on a national survey, some people even change their sexual orientation without psychotherapy. Even without intervention, studies have shown that sexual orientation is not a unitary, one-dimensional construct (Weinrich & Klein, 2002).

Wolpe, J. (1969). The practice of behavior therapy. New York: Pergamon.

Fluker, J. (1976). A 10-year study of homosexually transmitted infection. British Journal of Venereal Diseases, 55, 155-160.

Cameron, P., & Crawford, J. (1985). Sexual orientation and sexually transmitted disease. Nebraska Medical Journal, 70, 292-299.

Nicols, M. (1988). Bisexuality in woman: Myths, realities and implications for therapy. Women and Therapy, 7(2-3), 235-252.

Shechter, R. A. (1992). Treatment parameters and structural change: Reflections on the Psychotherapy of a male homosexual. International Forum of Psychoanalysis, 1, 197-201.
Michael, R. T., Gagnon, J. H., Laumann, E. O., & Kolata, G. (1994). Sex in America: A definitive survey. Boston: Little, Brown.

Weinrich, J. D. & Klein, F. (2002). Bi-gay, bi-straight, and bi-bi: Three bisexual subgroups identified using cluster analysis of the Klein sexual orientation grid. Journal of Bisexuality, 2, 109-139.

 

[Faithdancer]

Well, the Reformation needs a voice. And the constant refrain from the LGBT Lobby is the APA says it’s OK. How do you think this group is allowed to adopt kids? It ends up in court:

"The decision quoted extensively from the lower court ruling where the lower court determined the following based upon the APA’s brief:

"Being raised by gay parents does not increase the risk of problems in adjustment for children.

"Being raised by gay parents does not risk increase the risk of psychological problems for children.

"Being raised by gay parents does not cause academic problems.

"Being raised by gay parents does not cause gender identity problems.

"Children of lesbian or gay parents are equivalently adjusted to children of heterosexual children.

"There is no factual evidence that gay people, as a group, are more likely to engage in domestic violence than heterosexuals.

"There is no evidence that gay people as a group, are more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexuals.

"Based upon this information–and not having access to Dr. Rekers’ complete research, the Court asserted: “These facts demonstrate that there is no correlation between the health, welfare, and safety of foster children and the blanket exclusion of any individual who is a homosexual or who resides in a household with a homosexual.”

Courts base their decisions on what the APA claims and count it as evidence. And that’s just one example.

Peace,
Ed

Oh but the homosexualists won’t stop there, Ed. There are already some claiming that same sex “parents” are better for children, and they have some doctored “statistics” to back up their claim.