M
MarcoPolo
Guest
So who are the psychologists who believe they can change a person’s true orientation?
Transgender teen who died of an apparent suicide: ‘Fix society. Please.’
- Status
S
SMGS127
Guest
Every conversion therapist believes that one’s sexual orientation can be changed from heterosexual to homosexual and vice versa. It is the entire basis of conversion therapy. Conversion therapy argues that a homosexual was originally a heterosexual who was converted to homosexuality and who needs therapy to be converted back to heterosexuality. They believe sexual attractions are entirely the result of external influence on humans.
Obviously, this view is heavily trashed in the psychological world (as it should be, in my opinion), and conversion therapy has shown to be ineffective at best, abusive at worst. It should be banned for minors, who are at the mercy of their parents, who oftentimes let themselves be carried away in rhetoric out of horror over their child being gay.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Who are some of these psychologists?
S
SMGS127
Guest
narth.com/#!gay—born-that-way/cm6x
This page describes the underlying basis for NARTH. Any psychologist associated with NARTH believes this.
By the way, identical twin studies actually strongly suggest a genetic link to homosexuality.
. Identical twin studies almost never show 100% correspondence. This should also show the scientific [lack of] credentials on the conversion therapy side.
E
EIF5A
Guest
What’s the reason for believing/thinking/hoping that conversion therapy (as defined by going from gay to straight) actually works when there’s no evidence to support it?
Some things should be taken as a matter of faith.
Is this one of them?
Some things should be taken as a matter of faith.
Is this one of them?
M
ManOnFire
Guest
The individual didn’t consciously choose it. Like pulling the pressure release valve to release some pressure, he/she subconsciously chose it as a means to achieve the individual’s goal of independent development: reassuring, convincing and proving to oneself that he/she is becoming an individual who is NOT under 100% control of the parent(s), in order to morph into something else because it is under the subconscious’s control to choose it. It provides “proof” and reassurance to the self that the self has some outlet to get out from under the parent’s control, even if it’s not the ideal self. Some parents can squeeze too tightly. Think of the stereotype of the demanding mother and weak or absent father, like from the movie Psycho or lyrics from Queen: “momma just killed a man.” I think this this is more of a parental issue first, and maybe a societal one secondarily.
It’s a fine line. An egomainiac would expect everyone to get out of his/her way, but that’s too narcissistic and unreasonable.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Nor will there be any evidence to support it, whether a successful way to do it might be discoverable or not, because even trying it will be deemed a crime. One wonders where we would be with, e.g., psychotropics today (lots of trial and error in their use, and still going on) if researching and prescribing them had been criminalized decades ago.
The inherency and immutability of homosexuality is, indeed, taken as a matter of faith despite some fairly significant reason to believe it is neither, or at least not in all people who get into homosexual behaviors.
Psychology nowadays, of course, has but one approach: Your homosexual (or transsexual, for that matter) drives are inherent to you, probably something you were born with, so learn to embrace it and, in the process, reject all things that suggest to you that you should not and thereby cause you to feel stressed.
It’s a quasi-religious subset all its own, but is one of those things that bobs to the surface in societies in which religious faith and its tenets are rejected. Wasn’t it Nietsche who announced that “God is dead”, and then set out to posit “self” as the replacement; a “self” that rejects all notion of objective good or evil and selects its own subjective “good”? In opposition to the Christian view that there really is an objective good, which, in man, is that which serves the purpose of bringing man to his proper "ends’ (purposes for existing), the Neitschean view (and that of many others) is that “good” is subjective; i.e., I choose my own according to what I believe will fulfill my desires, and is the only refuge from radical nihilism.
A profoundly terrible view, but one that has had a tremendous effect on western societies. I recall reading a waggish comment by one academician, in which he asserted that the only saving grace in American culture is that it’s so superficial Americans don’t learn such notions in full and therefore don’t go into the depths of individual and societal despair the way Europeans often do.
But those currently in power, it seems, are determined that we shall all undergo a “change of religion” and turn to worship of “self”. And, it must be admitted, they are enjoying some degree of success in the endeavor.
There are, however, countervailing voices. De Tocqueville, for example (though long ago) felt there was an inherent and quite firm religiousness about Americans, and a spirit of self-sacrifice of the ego that was, at the time, virtually gone in Europe. Some in the philosophic and religious communities have not given in to relativism and seem to get further and further away from the “official religion” of state-sanctioned relativism. One may be forgiven in hoping an eventual denoument will resolve the issue in favor of the former.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
The cited article refers to studies of identical twins that demonstrate almost no genetic correspondence at all; from a low of about 3% (which some say is the percentage of homosexuals in society at large) to about 14% in some studies.narth.com/#!gay—born-that-way/cm6x
This page describes the underlying basis for NARTH. Any psychologist associated with NARTH believes this.
By the way, identical twin studies actually strongly suggest a genetic link to homosexuality.
It also asserts that the number of people who “convert” from “gay” to “straight” is greater than the number who do not. It does, however, say that such conversion is almost never the result of extrinsic therapy.
M
ManOnFire
Guest
The child witnesses a battle between Unconditional Love from the parent versus the parent witholding love if the child does not follow the parent’s Rules e.g. Parent:“If you love me, you’ll do as I say, and I’ll love you back.” Insinuated is the converse: The parent won’t love the child if the child disobeys. So the child must choose between love with no chance to become an individual, versus no love as he/she breaks free to become an individual. Either choice involves a major loss: Love, or Individuality. This prevents the child’s ability to have faith and believe he/she will ever be permitted to become his/her own individual, and it destroys the child’s belief that the parent feels unconditional love for the child. Imagine the despair felt by a child who isn’t permitted to become his/her own individual and whose parents don’t unconditionally love him/her. It’s nice to have high standards, but at a certain point, it’s not worth the child losing faith in unconditional love and the opportunity to grow into his/her own individual.
E
estesbob
Guest
You have it backwards What the child needs to learn is unconditional love does not translate into them getting to do anything they want to do.
E
EIF5A
Guest
Again…what does this have anything to do with transgendered people?
(Or gay people? Who are you talking about?)
M
ManOnFire
Guest
I’m not suggesting that parents be spineless. Not at all. I’m only talking about the extremely rigid parents. Most strict parents will bend once in a while, as they should, so the kids can see that love is still more important than rigidity. The kids whose parents have not bent in the name of unconditional love can lose faith that both unconditional love and independence are possible, so their subconscious wants to escape to find unconditional love and independence. Certain kids need to feel that the parents’ unconditional love is more important than high standards for behavior, or they’ll feel trapped. Which kids? They seem to be more introverted, sensitive, and deep. Wish I could develop a more precise formula than that. It’s important to read people. And we’ll still miss some.
It’s written all over Queen’s Bohemian Rhapsody:
lyrics.com/bohemian-rhapsody-lyrics-queen.html
“Momma, just killed a man”
Momma did the killing due to a lack of display of unconditional love. Most people assume Freddie is admitting he killed a man, but notice how it doesn’t say “Momma, I just killed a man.” The meaning is veiled for appreciation by those who can empathize.
“Didn’t mean to make you cry” = escaped into a life not approved of to fulfill the subconscious need for control of individuality and independence. Independence and loss of love was chosen over conformity, lack of individuality, and love.
“Doesn’t really matter” = Despair, because he can’t feel both independence and unconditional love from parent at the same time. One, or the other, but impossible for both, unless the parent bends (unconditional love).
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
I’m not exactly sure how to respond to this except to say that it is bunk.
M
ManOnFire
Guest
Thank you for the official proclamation, dear Emperor! Now that you have given your official Ruling, I can move on to another thread.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Then why have some GLBTQ persons come out and said it’s worked for them?
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
I don’t need to make proclamations to point out that citing the Bohemian Rhapsody to support some sort of pseudo-psychological hypothesis is ridiculous.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Because they are really bisexual or because they are fooling themselves?
M
ManOnFire
Guest
No. Because society is not “supposed” to convert them to straight in an overpopulated planet where more straightness means more population growth. Agnostic progressives want more homosexuals, not less. The worldwide Human Genome Project was completed in 2003. The mainstream media didn’t report it, so you probably won’t believe it if you trust the media to report the news. But, the results found no gene for sexuality: no straight gene, no gay gene, no bisexual gene, no transsexual gene, no transgendered gene, no questioning gene. It was a huge victory for homosexual activists, because this means that homosexuality is developed. The phenomenon of Mirror Neurons basically says that people can become what they experience. So, add pro-homosexual themes in all the media in addition to gay marriage, the belief that the world is overpopulated with carbon burners who are causing global warming, and the belief that God doesn’t exist, and, voila: we should accept more homosexuality as the way to save mother earth from overpopulation. Just look at the difference between old values versus young values if you want proof. There’s less evidence of sexuality genes now post-research than 30 years ago when a gay gene was first promoted in the media, yet people believe the opposite to be true. The media is king.Because they are really bisexual or because they are fooling themselves?
E
estesbob
Guest
“No true Scottsman”Because they are really bisexual or because they are fooling themselves?
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Just because the human genome has been sequenced does not mean that scientists know what all the different segments of DNA actually do. So even if they have not identified a gene that influences sexuality yet, that does not mean that one will not be identified in the future.
- Status