SPLC Takes On Conversion Therapy
The Southern Poverty Law Center is taking direct aim at the "ex-gay" rhetoric that has poisoned Montgomery County Public Schools and other places. They have put up a web page discussing the topic of "conversion therapy," whose practitioners claim to make gay people straight. The site has a form for readers to submit their experiences with such therapy.
"Ex-gay" is a clever piece of propaganda, easy to say, easy to remember, benign-sounding but inherently insidious. It presupposes that sexual orientation is a characteristic you can change. Every human being has some orientation, it's one of those things that is so much a part of you that you can't really picture what it would be like to be different. Sexual orientation might seem to change on its own sometimes, a person might be bisexual in a sort of oscillating way, but trying to change your sexual orientation is nothing more than an exercise in futility.
The curriculum was repeatedly criticized by The Nutty Ones for not teaching anything about "ex-gays," which they claimed was a kind of sexual orientation. No, there are three: heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual. If someone has stopped being the third then they are one of the other two, they don't need a special category.
More…
If you are an ex-gay survivor, you should follow the link and go tell your story. We have talked to people who seriously believed they had changed their sexual orientation until … something happened … and the change proved ephemeral. Result: ex-ex-gays, sometimes known as "dos equis."
As far as I know, PFOX is still sending flyers home with our county's schoolchildren, encouraging them to pretend to be straight even if they are not. It is not a recipe for happiness. It is good to love someone, and it is corrupt and cruel to suggest to someone that their love is not good enough.
Conversion therapy – sometimes known as reparative or “sexual reorientation” therapy – is a dangerous practice based on the premise that people can change their sexual orientation, literally “converting” from homosexuality to heterosexuality. Central to conversion therapy is the belief that being gay is a mental disorder – a position rejected by the American Psychiatric Association nearly four decades ago.
People who have undergone conversion therapy have reported increased anxiety, depression, and in some cases, suicidal ideation. The devastating consequences of conversion therapy are why the Southern Poverty Law Center is dedicated to ending this practice and defending the rights of individuals harmed by it.
Conversion therapy has been discredited or highly criticized by virtually all major American medical, psychiatric, psychological and professional counseling organizations. The American Psychological Association declared in 2006: “There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.”
The American Medical Association officially “opposes the use of ‘reparative’ or ‘conversion’ therapy that is based on the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation.”
Despite these findings, the conversion therapy movement continues to push its message and is increasingly targeting LGBT youth, often recommending that parents commit their children to treatment against the child’s wishes. Conversion Therapy
"Ex-gay" is a clever piece of propaganda, easy to say, easy to remember, benign-sounding but inherently insidious. It presupposes that sexual orientation is a characteristic you can change. Every human being has some orientation, it's one of those things that is so much a part of you that you can't really picture what it would be like to be different. Sexual orientation might seem to change on its own sometimes, a person might be bisexual in a sort of oscillating way, but trying to change your sexual orientation is nothing more than an exercise in futility.
The curriculum was repeatedly criticized by The Nutty Ones for not teaching anything about "ex-gays," which they claimed was a kind of sexual orientation. No, there are three: heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual. If someone has stopped being the third then they are one of the other two, they don't need a special category.
More…
The message that LGBT people can and should change their sexual orientation is echoed throughout the literature promoting conversion therapy:
- “Anyone who experiences SSA [same-sex attraction] is not ‘gay,’ ‘lesbian,’ ‘bisexual,’ or ‘transgender.’ They are all latent heterosexuals!”
- “Self-deception about gender is at the heart of the homosexual condition. A child who imagines that he or she can be the opposite sex—or be both sexes—is holding on to a fantasy solution to his or her confusion. This is a revolt against reality and a rebellion against the limits built into our created human natures.”
Absurd theories and treatments also are promoted within the conversion therapy movement:
- “The penis is the essential symbol of masculinity—the unmistakable difference between male and female. This undeniable anatomical difference should be emphasized to the boy in therapy.”
- “The family model that produces a homosexual son has, in our view, typically failed to validate the boy’s masculine individuation during the formative phase of gender identification.”
There are other concerns about conversion therapy as well. The American Psychological Association expressed concern in 2006 that the positions espoused by some of the leading advocates of conversion therapy, such as the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), “create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.”
The false claim that gay people can be “cured” of their sexual orientation is often used to rationalize treating LGBT people as second-class citizens and worse—the logic being that if LGBT people can “repair” their sexual orientation, there’s no reason to give the LGBT community equal rights under the law. The damage inflicted by the conversion therapy movement reaches far beyond the individual receiving the “therapy” and into communities across the country.
If you are an ex-gay survivor, you should follow the link and go tell your story. We have talked to people who seriously believed they had changed their sexual orientation until … something happened … and the change proved ephemeral. Result: ex-ex-gays, sometimes known as "dos equis."
As far as I know, PFOX is still sending flyers home with our county's schoolchildren, encouraging them to pretend to be straight even if they are not. It is not a recipe for happiness. It is good to love someone, and it is corrupt and cruel to suggest to someone that their love is not good enough.
posted by JimK at 2:19 PM
75 Comments:
would it be "poison" for a school to suggest that you can seek help for any other irrational and unwanted desires?
or is deviant same gender sexual attraction the only mental problem to receive this status?
"a dangerous practice based on the premise that people can change their sexual orientation,"
the proper term is desire, not orientation
and it's no more dangerous to try to overcome it than trying to overcome other unwanted desires, like pyromania, kleptomania or impulse binging
"Central to conversion therapy is the belief that being gay is a mental disorder – a position rejected by the American Psychiatric Association nearly four decades ago"
actually, surveys showed that a year and a half after this change, the majority of practitioners still considered homosexuality to be a mental disorder
so the "rejection" wasn't based on any scientific findings nor on the collective opinion of psychiatrists
then what was it based on?
politics and bullying by gay advocacy groups
"People who have undergone conversion therapy have reported increased anxiety, depression, and in some cases, suicidal ideation"
that applies to most people who have indulged homosexual fantasies, not just those who try to rid themselves of them
"The devastating consequences of conversion therapy are why the Southern Poverty Law Center is dedicated to ending this practice and defending the rights of individuals harmed by it"
little hard to see whose rights are harmed by having a therapy available
the real ones opposing rights are those who try to remove the option of self-determination from those who desire to overcome harmful types of sexual attraction
"Conversion therapy has been discredited or highly criticized by virtually all major American medical, psychiatric, psychological and professional counseling organizations"
why?
politics and bullying by gay advocacy groups
"The American Psychological Association declared in 2006: “There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.”"
and?
if people want to try, what is the objection?
actually, a peer-reviewed paper recently published said same gender sexual preference can be changed
"The American Medical Association officially “opposes the use of ‘reparative’ or ‘conversion’ therapy that is based on the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation.”"
a priori assumptions are actually not any more their forte than it is anyone else's
in other words, it's a value judgement
do they also oppose plastic surgery based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her appearance?
maybe they should mind their own business
jim, remember what kind of bait you used, it looks like you got a big one here
the gay agenda is a clever piece of propaganda, easy to say, easy to remember, benign-sounding but inherently insidious
"It presupposes that sexual orientation is a characteristic you can change"
no, it presupposes that same gender sexual preference is characteristic many of its sufferers want to change
"Every human being has some orientation,"
no proof of that
"it's one of those things that is so much a part of you that you can't really picture what it would be like to be different"
lots of things are like that
"Sexual orientation might seem to change on its own sometimes, a person might be bisexual in a sort of oscillating way, but trying to change your sexual orientation is nothing more than an exercise in futility"
how about that?
this whole theory of sexual "orientation" is basically an untestable hypothesis
any deviation has a ready explanation on standby for the gay agenda
face it: we're not talking about an "orientation" but a developed preference
completely appropriate for therapy
actually bisexuals are oriented at all so therapy to emphasize the normal and minimize the deviant seems appropriate and likely to succeed
The curriculum was repeatedly criticized by The Nutty Ones for not teaching anything about "ex-gays," which they claimed was a kind of sexual orientation. No, there are three: heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual. If someone has stopped being the third then they are one of the other two, they don't need a special category.
"The curriculum was repeatedly criticized by The Nutty Ones for not teaching anything about "ex-gays," which they claimed was a kind of sexual orientation. No, there are three: heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual. If someone has stopped being the third then they are one of the other two, they don't need a special category."
whoops!
ex-gays face special problems that need to be addressed
If there were an ex-gay person, wouldn't they be heterosexual or bisexual?
not by the TTF definition because they say homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality are indelible, lifelong characteristics
so, if someone changed, that would be a whole other type of sexuality
btw, isn't asexual another category?
also, those who are attracted to things other than other humans, regardless of gender?
point is, people who make this change are subject to social censure and would need support if homosexuals do
"not by the TTF definition because they say homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality are indelible, lifelong characteristics"
Please show us where the words "indelible" or "lifelong" have ever been used in this way by any TTF member, blogger, commenter, friend, acquaintance, or hanger-on.
You won't, because you're lying.
Hopefully,soon, PFOX will be given its true title as a hate group and MCPS will no longer distribute these materials.
"Please show us where the words "indelible" or "lifelong" have ever been used in this way by any TTF member, blogger, commenter, friend, acquaintance, or hanger-on.
You won't, because you're lying."
they may not have used those precise terms but if you're saying they haven't agreed with that, you're lying, and everyone reading this realizes that
that being the case, I won't do a search for them, although I'm quite sure that, not only have TTFers commented this opinion, there have been many posts about it
fortunately, King TTF made just such a comment in this post:
"trying to change your sexual orientation is nothing more than an exercise in futility"
"Hopefully,soon, PFOX will be given its true title as a hate group and MCPS will no longer distribute these materials"
dream on, Drick
most of the world considers homosexuality to be immoral so the idea that such an opinion will be deemed "hate" by society is ridiculous
There is no question anon that trying to change your sexual orientation doesn't work. As Lisa Diamond has shown, there are people whose orientation changes over time, nobody says it is "indelible" or "lifelong," it just isn't something you can change -- it might change on its own but you can't decide to change it. Is that too complicated for you? Think of it this way: it's part of nature.
so, TTF has been saying all along that sexual preference may change but the individual has no influence on it?
not too complicated but I can see why TTFers haven't been clear about it
if you grant that a large group is attracted to both genders and that sexual gender preference commonly changes over time, it would be nearly impossible to empirically prove that one can't change by effort
also, it doesn't sound all that different from any other type of preference
tea vs coffee, red tie vs blue, operas vs Broadway musicals
homosexuality: get over it
I think I see how you work anon. You can't argue with what someone actually says, you have to take what they said and change their words, and then argue with your restatement of their argument.
" ... and that sexual gender preference commonly changes over time ... "
Nobody has said sexual orientation commonly changes over time. Dr. Diamond identified a particular group of women with fluid orientation. It's an interesting phenomenon, these women seem to be attracted to someone because of who that person is, what kind of personality they have, not their gender. It is not a common phenomenon and it is not something they choose to do, they just like who they like.
Nobody said sexual orientation was indelible or lifelong. It is what it is. Some people are heterosexual, that's just how they are. And some aren't. Get over it.
well, many of those who are homosexual would like to get over it and groups like TTF would like to extinguish all hope that it is possible
there is no proof at all that it isn't possible, or that the attempt is harmful
"For the first time in a decade, a study showing sexual orientation change is possible for some homosexuals has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
The October issue of the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy contains a longitudinal study of Christians seeking help from ministries associated with Exodus International for their unwanted same-sex attractions. Of the 98 subjects, more than half were reported as successful; 23 percent reported a complete change in orientation after six years.
Dr. Stanton Jones, a psychologist at Wheaton College in Illinois and the study’s lead author, said the opportunity to study sexual orientation change was too intriguing to pass up.
“At the time, the American Psychological Association (APA) prominently on its web page said sexual orientation could not be changed,” he said. “Very few people were looking into it.”
“It is a bit frustrating to me to see APA saying research shows it is impossible or rarely happens when in my mind, no such research exists,” he continued. “When anecdotes that people have changed are treated with cynicism, it’s fueled by the anecdotes of people who’ve had the opposite experience. To say change is impossible is an overstatement of the facts, in our opinion.”
Jones said the fact that the subjects were all Christians with strong convictions about moral behavior most likely played a pivotal role in helping the successful ones change their orientation.
“We were trying to address the basic question ‘Is change possible?’ The fact that anyone changed is what came out of this study,” he said."
"well, many of those who are homosexual would like to get over it and groups like TTF would like to extinguish all hope that it is possible"
They might want to fly, too, and I hate to break it to them but you can't do that, either. If anyone wants to stop being gay it is certainly because they want to escape the bigotry that they will be subjected to from people like you. There is nothing qualitatively different about loving someone of your own sex versus the opposite sex, it doesn't "feel bad" to be gay, expect for the assholes who can't understand that anyone would be different from themselves.
The study you cite is bogus. We have people in this blogging community who have said that they "changed" and stopped being gay. And then they changed back. These Christians may have really, really wanted to change, I don't deny that, and they may have convinced themselves they had changed.
Hey anon, read this: Former Ex-Gay Ministry Leader Comes Out, Recants Previous Teachings. Hee hee.
It's only a matter of time, AnonBigot...But reason always wins. You'll see.
"They might want to fly, too, and I hate to break it to them but you can't do that, either"
except that everyone understands why they can't fly, but there is no apparent reason that a preference for a certain type of sexual activity can't be changed
"If anyone wants to stop being gay it is certainly because they want to escape the bigotry that they will be subjected to from people like you"
or because they've concluded it is immoral, deleterious to society, and contrary to God's plan for humanity
"There is nothing qualitatively different about loving someone of your own sex versus the opposite sex,"
that being the case, it shouldn't be difficult to overcome any sort of preference
"it doesn't "feel bad" to be gay,"
wouldn't know but, obviously, a subjective statement
"expect for the assholes who can't understand that anyone would be different from themselves"
oh, those assholes have noticed many people different from themselves
reaaly is not the point
"The study you cite is bogus"
sory, but it was subjected to peer review
"We have people in this blogging community who have said that they "changed" and stopped being gay. And then they changed back."
wasn't aware of that but, so what?
"These Christians may have really, really wanted to change, I don't deny that, and they may have convinced themselves they had changed."
well, you start with a foregone conclusion that they can't
"Hey anon, read this: Former Ex-Gay Ministry Leader Comes Out, Recants Previous Teachings. Hee hee."
no individual story proves a thing
"It's only a matter of time, AnonBigot...But reason always wins. You'll see."
we're all counting on it, drick
your position is based on intuition and desire
over history, it has never prevailed for long
Anon, let me ask you something. Are you "ex-gay?"
I only address overarching issues and no longer respond to personal questions
I'd prefer to let your imagination run wild
something tells me the result will be that you say a lot of stupid things
Anon, I don't know why somebody would argue the points you are arguing, against all evidence. It doesn't matter to me, but I thought it might give you a chance to explain what your interest is.
People can't change their sexual orientation, that's all there is to it. They can wish they were different, they can pretend, they can delude themselves - I don't see those as being especially constructive, do you? There's nothing wrong with being gay, it's just how some people are.
anon, let's see what you say about this one: Ex-Ex-Gay Minister Has Never Met an Ex-Gay
woops, bad link - try this: Ex-Ex-Gay Minister Has Never Met an Ex-Gay
"Anon, I don't know why somebody would argue the points you are arguing, against all evidence"
well, I've always enjoyed arguing about controversial social issues, child of the sixties and all
as far as evidence, that is a significant factor too
it has become common for liberals in recent years to misuse science to push their agenda, the gay agenda being one example
there is no evidence that someone can't overcome same gender attraction, nor could there ever be any
"People can't change their sexual orientation, that's all there is to it"
actually, it's not that simple
for one thing, there's no justification for using the term "orientation" rather than "preference", other than propaganda
studies have shown people who have changed from exclusive homosexuality to bisexuality but gay agendites simply say they were really bi all along
in all honesty, this insistence that once you're gay, you can't do anything about is reminiscent of a cult
"They can wish they were different, they can pretend, they can delude themselves - I don't see those as being especially constructive, do you?"
yes, I do
psychic factors, like wishes, may conceivably affect other psychic factors, like preferences
reducing such things to empirical viccisitudes is called materialism, a source of much suffering in the world
"There's nothing wrong with being gay, it's just how some people are"
you're entitled to your opinion but you're not entitled to call it a fact
Here's that very good article Anon won't click on the link to, written by a very religious gay man who after 22 years of believing and preaching, finally found the truth.
"Ex-Ex-Gay Minister Has Never Met an Ex-Gay
Three years after resigning as the executive director of Exodus International’s Love in Action ministry, John Smid admitted that he’s gay. In a recent blog post, Smid reflected on his updated views on homosexuality. Taken at face value, his new beliefs — that homosexuality is about more than just behavior and that sexual orientation is intrinsic — are by no means subversive. But considering the 22 years Smid spent preaching that GAY = EVIL, the acknowledgement of these basic facts could pave the way for change in evangelical and conservative Christian communities.
Smid frames his post as a response to a reader’s question about whether or not Christians should expect their homosexual friends (because as everyone who’s ever listened to a famous bigot apologize for some homophobic remark and remind everyone that They Have Gay Friends! knows, we homosexuals are gluttons for punishment and just loooove having friends who don’t believe in our basic human dignity) to repent. Unlike many Christian leaders who think a lukewarm acceptance of homosexuality will do the trick, Smid says no, they shouldn’t repent.
“So often people will say someone needs to “repent” from homosexuality. It is something that actually cannot be repented of! People are, or they are not, homosexual. It is an intrinsic part of their being or personally, my being. One cannot repent of something that is unchangeable.“
He understands that being gay isn’t just about having (fantastic) gay sex, it’s an identity that can be embraced or ignored but can’t be changed.
“I used to define homosexuality or heterosexuality in terms describing one’s behavior. I thought it made sense and through the years often wrote articles and talked from that perspective. Today, I understand why the gay community had such an issue with my writings. My perspective denied so many facets of the homosexual experience. I minimized a person’s life to just their sexuality but homosexuality is much more than sex.“
His most candid (and damning of ex-gay ministries) confession, which undermines the years he spent in Love in Action, is that ex-gay programs are a sham: ”I’ve never met a man who experienced a change from homosexual to heterosexual.”
As Ex-Gay Watch points out, Smid still has a ways to go. His somewhat clinical use of the word “homosexual” suggests that he’s still not completely at ease with his sexuality. Critics have accused him of not working hard enough to undo the harm he caused in his ministry.
The good news is that Smid admits that he doesn’t know all the answers.
“Now that I am not submerged into one sided perspectives, I am open to studying and reading the scriptures for myself, I am finding so many rich truths that I wasn’t ever made aware of before. For the first time in all of these years, the scriptures that many have said refer to homosexuality are making sense! I am reading them in context. I am asking questions about who the passages were written to. I am asking what was being talked about, and why the words were written in the first place.“
Those of us who aren’t Christians may struggle to see value in his approach. Why read a 2000-year-old book when you’ve got Judith Butler and Foucault? The truth is, though, that we need biblical scholars almost as much as we need queer theorists. Like it or not, politics and day to day like in the U.S. is profoundly influenced by Christianity. The more guys and girls who are reading the Bible in context and asking the right questions on our side, the less acceptable it becomes to call yourself a Christian while holding onto hateful beliefs."
anon, comments about what is right and wrong are by definition not statements of fact. They are also not necessarily arbitrary. The gay people that I have known have been just like everybody else. Sometimes you can tell they're gay by some mannerisms but sometimes you can't. The only thing that is different about them is that they are inherently attracted to people of their own sex, which is not an important factor in most situations.
All this stuff you are saying about the "gay agenda" and everything is silly, that's your own paranoia talking, gay people just want to get through life like everybody else. The only gay agenda is wanting to be respected as people, and I don't see anything to criticize there.
You are not going to make anyone stop being gay by your obnoxious comments, you are simply making life harder for some people who honestly don't deserve the persecution. You seem to think it's a game but it gets very serious sometimes for the victims of people like you.
"anon, comments about what is right and wrong are by definition not statements of fact"
actually, your statement is not factual
the idea that right and wrong are mere matters of opinion is evil
there are, indeed, moral facts and I hope that what you meant was that comments about what is right and wrong are not empiricially verifiable
what you have posited here is a form of materialism, condemned from the earliest days of civilization as idolatry
"The gay people that I have known have been just like everybody else"
and?
"Sometimes you can tell they're gay by some mannerisms but sometimes you can't"
and?
"The only thing that is different about them is that they are inherently attracted to people of their own sex, which is not an important factor in most situations"
and?
"All this stuff you are saying about the "gay agenda" and everything is silly, that's your own paranoia talking, gay people just want to get through life like everybody else"
then, why don't they try doing that instead of trying to redefine marriage, holding gay pride days to draw attention to themselves, enacting school curriculum arging for the normality of their sexual preferences
"The only gay agenda is wanting to be respected as people, and I don't see anything to criticize there"
well, you could think of criticizing them for trying to legislate respect instead of earning it like everyone else
"You are not going to make anyone stop being gay by your obnoxious comments,"
how about if I make a small contribution to countering the nonsense of the gay agenda?
"you are simply making life harder for some people who honestly don't deserve the persecution"
oh dear
now, you'll have to provide me with an example of this
making life harder?
oh dear
can I say the same about anyone who disagrees with me?
"You seem to think it's a game but it gets very serious sometimes for the victims of people like you"
really?
now, you'll have to provide me with an example of this
"the idea that right and wrong are mere matters of opinion is evil"
That's your opinion.
really?
moral relativists have caused much degradation of society
you can observe it
you know, all those racists in the Tea Party must not know he's black
after last night's debate, he now leads in a new poll for the Pachyderm Party:
"Herman Cain leads the national Republican field of candidates for president, according to a new poll released Wednesday. The poll that found Cain in the lead was conducted by Public Policy Polling, a Democratic firm, Oct. 7-10. It found Cain leading Mitt Romney by eight percentage points, 30 percent to 22 percent. Newt Gingrich followed with 15 percent and Rick Perry with 14 percent"
anon, you did it again. I did not say that "right and wrong are mere matters of opinion." Once again, even after I pointed it out, you re-worded what I said and argued against your own absurd wording.
Here is what I said: "anon, comments about what is right and wrong are by definition not statements of fact. They are also not necessarily arbitrary."
This was in response to your statement "you're entitled to your opinion but you're not entitled to call it a fact." Again, acting as if I had called something a fact when I had not. This seems to be your only trick - put words in someone's mouth and then argue against your own fiction.
If you want to argue that moral choices can be factual or nonfactual then you're on your own out there in la-la-land. Sure, a big man with a beard in the sky has a list of good choices, and a red guy with horns has a list of bad choices, have fun with that. My point was that opinions are not facts, but there are righter and wronger ones: "they are not arbitrary." I am getting tired of humoring you here, you don't deserve my presence in this discussion.
An assertion is not more true because it is strongly or sarcastically worded, and it is not more true because a large number of people agree with it. There is nothing wrong with gay people, they do just fine except when there are bigoted assholes like you around who are too insecure to accept that it's none of your business who somebody else likes.
well, after reading your ramble, it still seems that you're saying morality is a matter of opinion, and relative
"If you want to argue that moral choices can be factual or nonfactual then you're on your own out there in la-la-land. Sure, a big man with a beard in the sky has a list of good choices,"
just to "put" some more "words" in your mouth, are you now saying that there can be no moral absolutes without God?
a lot of atheists object to that notion so I find it amusing you would IMPLY that
"I am getting tired of humoring you here,"
I bet you are
"you don't deserve my presence in this discussion"
yes, but what could mere mortals possibly do to deserve the blessing of your sacred presence?
"An assertion is not more true because it is strongly or sarcastically worded,"
truly humorous when coupled with this statement:
"bigoted assholes like you around who are too insecure to accept that it's none of your business"
"and it is not more true because a large number of people agree with it"
remember, that's only true unless the gay agenda is trying to imply its adversaries are "nuts"
"There is nothing wrong with gay people, they do just fine"
you're entitled to your opinion
but why are mental problems and STDs so much more prevalent among these people who are doing "just fine"?
why are they constantly seeking governmental intervention in their problems if they're "just fine"?
"except when there are bigoted assholes like you around who are too insecure to accept that it's none of your business who somebody else likes"
really, I don't care what they do, or want to do
they keep trying to make it everyone's business, however, by trying to legislate and adjudicate any transaction or relationship anyone has with them
they want to take over Main Street every year to cavort on floats making obscene gestures in various states of dress and undress to demonstrate their "pride"
that's none of anyone's business
they want the right to sue anytime they don't get a job and force an employer to explain, in court, how he can prove it wasn't because of their sexual preferences
that's none of anyone's business
they want schools to force kids to listen to lectures on the "right" attitude to have about homosexuality
that's none of anyone's business
they claim that what they do is none of anyone's business
so, why are they always in everyone's face about it?
""You seem to think it's a game but it gets very serious sometimes for the victims of people like you"
really?
now, you'll have to provide me with an example of this"
Here are 681 examples since Jan. 1, 2008, including 117 so far in 2011.
"The Network of Sex Workers in Latin America and the Caribbean reported another murder of a trans Mexican sex worker on August 28th. Elisarraráz Carmela Mendez, secretary of the Monarchs Civil Liberty Organization of Michoacan, was found at 5am at the Imperial Hotel in Morelia, Michoacan, west of Mexico City.
Mendez is the 117th trans person reported murdered in the first nine months of 2011. The 116th occurred 25 September in Turkey, in the Istanbul district of Başakşehir and is included in the register of Trans Murder Monitoring (TMM), a unique project started in April 2009 that systematically monitors, collects and analyses reports of homicides of trans people worldwide.
The project say that even these high numbers are only a fraction of the real figures:
“The truth is much worse. These are mainly the reported cases, which could be found through Internet research. In most countries, data on murdered trans people are not systematically produced and it is impossible to estimate the numbers of unreported cases.”
TMM’ s latest update reveals a total of 681 cases of reported killings of trans people from 1 January 2008 to 25 September 2011. Their name, age, location, cause of death, circumstances of the killing and any follow-up have been plotted on a map.
Name lists with detailed information regarding the cases will be provided for the International Transgender Remembrance Day (TDOR) on November 20th. The TDOR raises public awareness of hate crimes against trans people, provides a space for public mourning and honors the lives of those trans people who might otherwise be forgotten.
In the first nine months of 2011, 116 reported murders of trans people were registered by TMM. These were in Brazil (29), Mexico (22), Columbia (10), Venezuela (11) and the USA (7), as well as Argentina, Honduras, Guatemala, Philippines and Turkey (4). Further murders have been reported in Bolivia, Chile, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Panama, Poland, Puerto Rico and Russia.
Since January 2008, cases have been reported in 50 countries, from all six major World Regions.
Most reported cases are from Central and South America, which amount to 533 cases and account for 80 per cent of the globally reported homicides of trans people since January 2008. There LGBT people are increasingly organizing to protest killings. In August, Mexico held its first national march against anti-LGBT hate crimes. In Ecuador, Diane Rodríguez is an organizer with Silueta X, in Guayaquil.
“There are no good statistics, because when the police find a transgender person dead, they just put “male” on the form,” she says. “It’s a hidden problem.”
Rodríguez says there are two main reasons why transphobia is so pronounced in Latin America. “The first problem is religion,” she points out.
“The second is machismo, a Latin-American term for an often extreme form of masculinity. Catholicism and evangelists cause a lot of problems.”
http://www.care2.com/causes/one-trans-person-is-murdered-every-other-day.html#ixzz1afB2CVnO"
"Here are 681 examples"
you were supposed to provide examples of victims of people like me
I wouldn't even shun a gay or trans person, much less murder one so you haven't done that
moreover, those who are violent toward such people are likely to those insecure about their appearance of masculinity not religious people or people who have otherwise not affrimed the normality of homosexuality
you make the typical postmodern fallacy of believing that disagreeing with someone or disapproving of someone's behavior inevitably leads to violence
you need to rethink your position
once you sober up
first things first
You have been shown a small number of the victims of hateful rhetoric like yours. Your blindness to that fact is irrelevant and as are your childish personal attacks.
they are victims of violence, likely motivated by insecure semi-literates and degenerates
my rhetoric is not hateful and rhetoric is victimless
when you start discussing "victims" of speech, you start down a road and rationale that will lead to the end of our constitutional freedoms
sadly, this is common among gay advocacy groups
Sorry I didn’t post this sooner – I just received this info yesterday, and the presentation is this evening…
PROJECT-OUT Multi-Media Exhibit & Presentation by Charity Smith
Title: PROJECT-OUT Multi-Media Exhibit & Presentation by Charity Smith
Location: Hood College-Rosenstock Building, 1st Floor,(401 Rosemont Ave., Frederick, MD 21701)
Description: Charity will be doing a Multi-Media Exhibit & Presentation about PROJECT-OUT at HOOD COLLEGE on THURSDAY OCTOBER 13th at 8 PM in Rosenstock Building, 1st Floor,
Should be building 33 one bottom left of map at: http://www.hood.edu/about-hood/visit-campus/campus-map.html
Hood College is located at 401 Rosemont Avenue, Frederick, MD 21701. (301) 663-3131
Date: 2011-10-13 Start Time: 8:00pm End Time: 9:30pm
From:
http://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2011/09/coming-out.aspx
“While research shows that coming out can lower people's anxiety and improve their self-esteem and relationships, 42 percent of people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender lied about their personal relationships in the past year, according to a poll by the Human Rights Campaign.
Unfortunately, they often have good reason to — 39 percent of Americans still consider homosexuality "morally wrong," according to a May Gallup poll. Meanwhile LGBT youth are still the target of hate crimes, as demonstrated by the rash of youth suicides that took place across the country last year following incidents of intense harassment and bullying.
To help people come out of the closet, Hood College graduate and psychology major Charity Smith launched "Project: OUT," which enables people to send anonymous coming-out letters via Facebook, email or regular mail, decorated as they choose and addressed to whomever they want.
…(snip)…
In one letter, a politician's daughter says she can't come out as a lesbian because she doesn't want to harm her father's career. In another, a woman describes hiding behind a facade of makeup and nail polish, afraid to reveal her attraction to other women. Other submissions relay inspiring and sometimes funny messages from those who have successfully come out.”
(see the link for more)
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
"they are victims of violence, likely motivated by insecure semi-literates and degenerates" who rather than work compulsively post hateful comments about LGBT people on an LGBT supporting blog year after year and actually think they know some "truths" because of their religious beliefs.
Come mister taliban, tali ban banana
the mental issues apparent in the previous post would probably take years of therapy to treat
still...
"There is nothing wrong with gay people, they do just fine"
except for the occasional exception
the occasional exception at about the same rate as straight people
wrong
remember when the ignorant TTFer said this?:
"All this stuff you are saying about the "gay agenda" and everything is silly. Gay people just want to get through life like everybody else."
I'm afraid they don't want to be like everyone else
they are spoiled brats who think anyone who disapproves of them should be banished from society and not allowed to make a living
that's not like everyone else and why we can't just ignore the gay agenda as it tears down our constitutional rights:
"A New Jersey teacher is under investigation for anti-gay remarks she allegedly posted on her Facebook that criticize a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender history month display at her school.
Viki Knox, a 49-year-old special education teacher at Union High School and adviser to the school's student prayer group, reportedly posted on Facebook that homosexuality is "a perverted spirit that has existed from the beginning of creation," and a "sin" that "breeds like cancer," the Star-Ledger reports.
The New Jersey LGBT rights group Garden State Equality has obtained a PDF copy of the Facebook exchange, as well as an image of the school display, from John paragon, a lawyer and former Union Township councilman and municipal judge, according to a statement GSE issued Thursday on its Facebook page.
Paragano came across Knox's comments on Facebook over the weekend and wrote to Union Township Schools Superintendent Patrick Martin, requesting action.
"Hateful public comments from a teacher cannot be tolerated," Paragano wrote, according to the Star-Ledger. "She has a right to say it. But she does not have a right to keep her job after saying it."
Knox was escorted from school property, but Martin declined to confirm whether the teacher was suspended.
New Jersey's newly implemented anti-bullying law protects free speech where it does not interfere with educating students, GSE Chair Steven Goldstein notes in a statement, adding that this incident isn't a question of legality.
"But this situation also calls for the school to look at the big picture as to the appropriateness of having Ms. Knox –- if she did write these posts –- teach our youth," Goldstein said. "The posts even say, ‘…That’s what I teach and preach.’ It is one thing to hold anti-gay views –- that’s protected in America –- but it would be another thing to vow to teach them in the classroom in a public school."
Expressing personal opinions on Facebook has proved a delicate issue among teachers, students, parents and school administrators. In August, Florida high school "Teacher of the Year" Jerry Buell was suspended for an anti-gay post he wrote on his Facebook page denouncing New York's decision to allow same-sex marriage."
You did it again anon. "I'm afraid they don't want to be like everyone else" - I did not say they wanted to be like everyone else. This has gotten beyond funny, you really do have to put words in somebody's mouth and argue with what you said rather than what they said. I am saying they are just like everybody else. Gay people just want to get by, like everybody else. They want to be treated just like everybody else. Sorry if you don't agree and they have to fight a little bit to catch up, that's one of the realities of our modern time, anon.
Nobody has said anyone should be banished from society because of their views of gay people, that's just plain silly.
And you don't have a "constitutional right" to keep your job if you're a jerk. You have a constitutional right to speak freely without the government interfering. This is like Bocephus claiming his first amendment rights were violated when they stopped using his song on Monday Night Football after he compared Obama to Hitler. No, they can do that, they can fire a teacher for being an ignorant bigot, too.
"They want to be treated just like everybody else"
I didn't put any words in your mouth
probably couldn't squeeze 'em in with all the...never mind
gays don't want to be treated like everyone else
they want to have a special status where people have to pay a big price for disapproving of their antics
no one else demands that
"And you don't have a "constitutional right" to keep your job if you're a jerk. You have a constitutional right to speak freely without the government interfering"
gee, how about if your employer is the government?
you have a right to not be percuted by a governmental entity for your religious beliefs
"This is like Bocephus claiming his first amendment rights were violated when they stopped using his song on Monday Night Football after he compared Obama to Hitler"
oh, they can, although I think you'll find few people that find his remark all that bothersome
and a whole lot of people who like Hank's song better than Obama
people don't really care what singers think, asa I think ois obvious
"No, they can do that, they can fire a teacher for being an ignorant bigot, too"
well, most people don't consider the idea that homosexuality is sinful to be bigotry
if we allow the government to fire people for expressing their religious views, what's next?
is Obama going to chop off Michelle's head for not bearing a male heir and marry five more times?
a lot of people have said Obama is like Hitler
somewhat hyperbolic, I must admit, but not really anything that should get one banished from society
we use Hitler as an all-purpose epithet
there is no constitutional guarantee that people have to put up with you if you're an asshole.
well, assholery is in the eye of the beholder
and few people have homosexual eyes
if tolerating homosexuals means that those who consider homosexuals will be relentlessly attacked and marginalized, we may need to reconsider this social experiment
brace for the backlash
this is why it will surely come
ignoring the fact that the phrase "those who consider homosexuals will be relentlessly attacked and marginalized" is grammatically incoherent, I will point out that intolerant and antisocial people will always be attacked and marginalized.
You of all people should appreciate the power of normative social influences, which unfortunately for you have turned against you; where the social norm used to support the attack and marginalization of LGBT people, the emerging norm sees them as ordinary people, and sees bigots like you as the abnormal ones. You used to be mainstream, anon, and the pack ran with you. Now they've turned and deserted you, you've been isolated and are feeling defensive and alone as you try to justify a kind of ugliness that really doesn't hold up very well without the support of the pack. I like the new norm a lot better.
"ignoring the fact that the phrase "those who consider homosexuals will be relentlessly attacked and marginalized" is grammatically incoherent,"
is it?
darn, I did so want to impress homosexuals with my grasp of the King's English
"I will point out that intolerant and antisocial people will always be attacked and marginalized"
"tolerance" is actually not a virtue apart from the item tolerated
there are many things that it would not be a virtue to tolerate
it may actually be immoral to tolerate some things
you know that
you just aren't thinking well today
"You of all people should appreciate the power of normative social influences,"
should I?
have I mentioned my libertarian streak?
"which unfortunately for you have turned against you; where the social norm used to support the attack and marginalization of LGBT people, the emerging norm sees them as ordinary people, and sees bigots like you as the abnormal ones. You used to be mainstream, anon, and the pack ran with you. Now they've turned and deserted you, you've been isolated and are feeling defensive and alone as you try to justify a kind of ugliness that really doesn't hold up very well without the support of the pack."
I guess if you spend most of your life watching movies or work in a public school, you might be able to convince yourself of this
most other social spheres aren't supportive of the gay agenda
"I like the new norm a lot better."
well, that's "emerging"
it's not here yet
and never will be
"LGBT people, the emerging norm sees them as ordinary people"
I don't know about the "emerging norm" but LGBT people don't think of themselves as ordinary
they think they are special and deserve more than the equal protection under the law that the rest of us get
Mr./Mrs./Ms "Anonymous"
Would you please cite your sources for this statement: "actually, surveys showed that a year and a half after this change, the majority of practitioners still considered homosexuality to be a mental disorder" Also: "actually, a peer-reviewed paper recently published said same gender sexual preference can be changed"
Who authored this "paper"?
Who were the peer reviewers?
Who published this paper?
Where can we find this "paper" in print?
Would we be reqired to shell out some $$, to be delivered to one of those wacky "religious" churches in order to access this?
Who gave you the authority to change descriptive words...especially a word that is universally accepted? "the proper term is desire, not orientation"
One can assume from this statement that you are not heterosexually oriented, but rather a person filled with "desire".
What is "proper" is that you stop exhibiting your hatred and fear of homosexuality.
You failed to include BIGOTRY in your list: "and it's no more dangerous to try to overcome it than trying to overcome other unwanted desires, like pyromania, kleptomania or impulse binging".
"maybe they should mind their own business". Have you ever considered following your own imprecations?
By the way, would you please list all of the points of the "Gay Agenda" so that you can make a further fool of yourself?
And...I love the way you practice your Christian faith; surely you will be able to bring others to your view of things by continuing to exhibit your own hatred and bigotry.
"Anonymouse"
"homosexuality: get over it"
Ever given any thought to following your own advice?
"Anonymous"
"many of those who are homosexual would like to get over it and groups like TTF would like to extinguish all hope that it is possible"
Are you speaking for yourself? Have we discovered that you are deeply closeted? It's YOU who would like homosexuals to "get over it".
"or because they've concluded it is immoral, deleterious to society, and contrary to God's plan for humanity" An excellent example of your own sanctimonious hypocracy.
Obsessive interest in the sexuality of others is characteristic of many of those who have been institutionalized. Looks like you should begin packing your bags, "Anonymous"
"Would you please cite your sources for this statement: "actually, surveys showed that a year and a half after this change, the majority of practitioners still considered homosexuality to be a mental disorder""
I've discussed this poll before here but here's an article that includes that reference and a little more than you bargained for about the circumstances of the APA change in 1973 and the violent tactics of the gay fringe
I'd like to say "google is your friend" but I guess that doesn't apply in your case:
"Before examining the contention that all competent psychiatrists and psychologists agree that homosexuality is normal and healthy, we need to look at the APA's 1973 decision for a moment. Homosexuality had been listed as a mental disorder by the APA. Why was it decided, at that particular point in time, that it was not pathological?
It is a misconception to think that this came about only after dispassionate and scholarly discussion, and only after listening equally to all sides of the issue. Also, it is important to note that the APA's vote was anything but unanimous.
In the three years leading up to the 1973 APA meeting, the previous national meetings had been repeatedly disrupted by radical gay activists. At the 1970 meeting in San Francisco certain sessions were broken up with shouts and jeers, prohibiting any rational discussion or debate.
At the APA's 1971 meeting in Washington, threats and intimidation accomplished what discussion could not. Ronald Bayer, in a work sympathetic toward homosexuality and the gay rights movement, recounts: "Using forged credentials, gay activists gained access to the exhibit area and, coming across a display marketing aversive conditioning [i.e., punishing an organism whenever it makes a particular response] techniques for the treatment of homosexuals, demanded its removal. Threats were made against the exhibitor, who was told that unless his booth was dismantled, it would be torn down. After frantic behind-the-scenes consultations, and in an effort to avoid violence, the convention leadership agreed to have the booth removed."
These tactics continued in the same manner at the APA's 1972 national meeting. It was against this backdrop that the association's trustees finally made its controversial 1973 decision. When a referendum on this was sent out to all 25,000 APA members, only a quarter of them returned their ballots. The final tally was 58 percent favoring the removal of homosexuality from their list of disorders.
Four years later, Dr. Charles Socarides — who was at the meetings and was an expert in the area of homosexuality, having treated homosexuals for more than twenty years — described the political atmosphere leading up to the 1973 vote. He writes that during this time, "militant homosexual groups continued to attack any psychiatrist or psychoanalyst who dared to present his findings as to the psychopathology [i.e., the study of mental disorders from all aspects] of homosexuality before national or local meetings of psychiatrists or in public forums."Elsewhere Socarides stated that the decision of the APA trustees was "the medical hoax of the century."
Was this the end of the debate?
Did the vast majority of "competent" psychiatrists agree with the APA's decision?
In 1977 ten thousand members of the APA were polled at random, asking them their opinion on this.
In an article entitled "Sick Again?" Time magazine summarized the results of the poll: "Of those answering, 69% said they believed 'homosexuality is usually a pathological adaptation, as opposed to a normal variation,' 18% disagreed and 13% were uncertain.
Similarly, sizable majorities said that homosexuals are generally less happy than heterosexuals (73%) and less capable of mature, loving relationships (60%). A total of 70% said that homosexuals' problems have more to do with their own inner conflicts than with stigmatization by society at large."
But what about today? Has this issue been resolved in current medical opinion and research? Concerning this, Dr. Stanton L. Jones, professor of psychology at Wheaton College, states that there is a "mixed scorecard" among professionals on this. He writes: "I would not regard homosexuality to be a psychopathology in the same sense as schizophrenia or phobic disorders. But neither can it be viewed as a normal 'lifestyle variation' on a par with being introverted versus extroverted."
One may debate whether or not homosexuality is a pathological disorder, but it is clear that the APA's 1973 decision cannot be cited as medical consensus that homosexuality is a "normal" condition."
"Who authored this "paper"?
Who were the peer reviewers?
Who published this paper?"
who doesn't know how to read?:
"For the first time in a decade, a study showing sexual orientation change is possible for some homosexuals has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
The October issue of the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy contains a longitudinal study of Christians seeking help from ministries associated with Exodus International for their unwanted same-sex attractions. Of the 98 subjects, more than half were reported as successful; 23 percent reported a complete change in orientation after six years.
Dr. Stanton Jones, a psychologist at Wheaton College in Illinois and the study’s lead author, said the opportunity to study sexual orientation change was too intriguing to pass up.
“At the time, the American Psychological Association (APA) prominently on its web page said sexual orientation could not be changed,” he said. “Very few people were looking into it.”
“It is a bit frustrating to me to see APA saying research shows it is impossible or rarely happens when in my mind, no such research exists,” he continued. “When anecdotes that people have changed are treated with cynicism, it’s fueled by the anecdotes of people who’ve had the opposite experience. To say change is impossible is an overstatement of the facts, in our opinion.”
Jones said the fact that the subjects were all Christians with strong convictions about moral behavior most likely played a pivotal role in helping the successful ones change their orientation.
“We were trying to address the basic question ‘Is change possible?’ The fact that anyone changed is what came out of this study,” he said."
"Who gave you the authority to change descriptive words...especially a word that is universally accepted?"
actually, we all have the "authority" to use proper terms
"preference" is a better term for sexual attraction
"orientation" was introduced and promoted by the gay agenda adn implies an innateness that hasn't been established
"And...I love the way you practice your Christian faith; surely you will be able to bring others to your view of things by continuing to exhibit your own hatred and bigotry"
if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything
"Are you speaking for yourself? Have we discovered that you are deeply closeted? It's YOU who would like homosexuals to "get over it""
feel free to let your imagination carry you away on a magic carpet ride
we now have a peer-reviewed study showing homosexuals can get over it
"Obsessive interest in the sexuality of others is characteristic of many of those who have been institutionalized"
not when deviants are constantly trying to draw attention to themselves
another day, another new law for the gay agenda
"Looks like you should begin packing your bags, "Anonymous""
hey stooopid !!!
A NARTH researcher's paper published by the Christian Research Institute twenty years after the APA said homosexuality is not an illness is your source?
Anon has displayed his archaic thinking by quoting Charles Socarides, who just like PFOX's Regina Griggs, could never accept the fact that his own son was gay. Throughout his career, Charles tried to prove change is possible but his son, Richard, remains openly gay to this day.
It's the saddest thing when parents cannot love and support their own children unconditionally, but work tirelessly their entire lives to undermine their own children instead.
While he always maintained gay were sick, Charles Socarides was married to four different women and fathered five children with three of them. His gay son, Richard, was the product of his first marriage.
Richard Socarides became one of the highest ranking openly gay persons ever to serve in the federal government. He was a Special Assistant to President Clinton.
"A NARTH researcher's paper published by the Christian Research Institute twenty years after the APA said homosexuality is not an illness is your source?"
CRI didn't publish the paper. It merely cited it. I pasted part of the CRI article because it had a nice precis of the bullying effort conducted by radical gay groups to intimidate APA members in 1973.
The survey of APA members in 1977 was conducted by Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality and found that these members overwhelmingly believed homosexuality was a mental illness.
here's a reference:
Lief, H. Sexual Survey Number 4: Current Thinking on Homosexuality, Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 1977, pp. 110-11.
Back then, these scientists, who regularly treated gays, thought it was clear that homosexuality is an illness. The APA decision was not based on the informed consensus of its membership. Sorry to have to be the one to tell you.
Currently, any researcher that dares to question any aspect of the gay agenda's repertoire is immediately attacked with vicious cultlike tactics.
Charles Socarides can't have an opinion because he remarried and his son was a gay who worked for Bill Clinton?
Not that that makes any sense but he wasn't the only witness to the APA conventions of the early 70s anyway.
The immediate poster epitomizes the gay advocacy situation: they can't argue with the facts or the reasoning so they focus on personal attacks.
That's so gay.
I read that in Jones' study the success rate was 14 out of 98, and of those 14, only 6 reported substantial change in sexual orientation. Exodus and Jones count celibacy as successful change. The study essentially demonstrates that even among highly motivated subjects (and given only self-report as a criterion of success), very few lgbt people achieve meaningful change, after years of effort. The study proves what it set out to disprove. It relies on a peculiar definition of success in order to report success.
Longitudinal study
"I read that in Jones' study the success rate was 14 out of 98, and of those 14, only 6 reported substantial change in sexual orientation"
don't be lazy, Robo
read it yourself and then get back to us
"It relies on a peculiar definition of success in order to report success"
actually, what's peculiar is the measure of success by which gay advocacy attack these studies
many studies have shown homosexuals that have converted to bisexuals
and the non-testable explanation of the fringe groups is that those people were bi to begin with
to say that is simply to affirm that no sexuality study can overcome the subjective nature of the evidence
but if you do rely on the data, this is a significant success because "bi" is considered a different "orientation" than "homo"
and because these patients are now capable of leading normal lives in heterosexual relationships
why wouldn't such a treatment result be considered a success?
PRINCETON, NJ -- U.S. registered voters, by 46% to 38%, continue to say they are more likely to vote for the Republican presidential candidate than for Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election.
well, that didn't take long
we allow gays to openly serve in the military and within weeks they are already challenging military protocal and tradition as well as ignoring regulations
in America, those in the military have always been expected to be bi-partisan and stay out of politics
as usual, gays think they are a special exception:
"LAS VEGAS -- As gay and lesbian service members celebrate the end of the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy at their first ever professional conference here this weekend, some plan to strike a pose for marriage rights that still are beyond their reach.
The NOH8 Campaign will be on hand Friday at the OutServe Armed Forces Leadership Summit to shoot portraits of participants who want to join the movement to overturn Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California. The photographic silent protest features subjects with duct tape over their mouths to symbolize that their voice has been silenced by the ballot measure.
Several former service members who were discharged under DADT also have posed for NOH8, including Army Lt. Dan Choi,. Other former military members, like retired Air Force Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, have also been shot.
But this may mark the first time active-duty service members are stepping before the cameras to support a political cause -- perhaps raising questions about how far military personnel are allowed to go when it comes to politics.
Under a Defense Department directive governing political activity by members of the armed forces, full-time, active-duty personnel are forbidden from endorsing "a partisan political party, candidate, or cause." They also may not "participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.
DOD regulations also state that military personnel must not "engage in conduct that in any way may reasonably imply that the Military Department concerned or any component of such Department has taken an official position on, or is otherwise involved in, the local political campaign or issue."
When I looked up the result I read the study. It proves that even among the most motivated, change in sexual orientation is rare and ephemeral.
Celibacy is not change in sexual orientation darling, it's simply celibacy.
The folks who quote Jones' study as a demonstration of the success of "reparative therapy" do nothing more than underscore Mark Twain's old comment: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." They simply look foolish, or dishonest.
"In 1977 ten thousand members of the APA were polled at random, asking them their opinion on this."
I already covered this misused and misquoted study back in November 2005.
Ten thousand surveys may have been sent but ten thousand surveys were not returned or counted. In fact, the first two sentences published by MAHS state:
"A questionnaire embodying the following questions was sent to 10,000 psychiatrists by Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality. The data presented were tabulated after the first 2,500 replies were received."
Wikipedia reports:
"In 1973 the Board of Trustees voted to remove homosexuality as a disorder category from the DSM, a decision ratified by a majority (58%) of the general APA membership the following year."
As to the rest of your claims, here are some facts you seem to have forgotten. I'm happy to remind our readers of these pertinent facts again.
"I could not find the original 1977 survey on line so I called Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality publisher's office in New Jersey (Telephone 973/701-2740. Fax 973/701/8895.). Kathy Knapp (direct dial 973/206-8964) left me a message saying they don't keep old reprints so I went to the library and obtained a personal photocopy of the original survey. (Lief, H.I., Sexual Survey #4. Current Thinking on Homosexuality. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 110-111, November 1977.)
Harold I. Lief, M.D. provided "interpretive remarks" for the survey report and said, "The results...are surprising in that an American Psychiatric Association poll of its own membership in 1974 agreed by a small majority that homosexuality should not be defined as a disorder unless the person is dissatisfied with that sexual orientation. The present findings suggest three possibilities:.1) The APA vote was influenced by political and social considerations, in that the vote was perceived as a step toward stopping the denial of rights to homosexuals; 2) Those who were more inclined to answer this survey had stronger feelings about their point of view than those who did not respond; 3) Psychiatrists' opinions on the matter have changed since 1974."
In regard to the finding that more APA members who returned completed questionnaires said "yes" than said "no" in response to, "Are homosexual men generally less happy than others?" Dr. Lief noted, "The greater unhappiness of homosexuals is understandable in terms of society's condemnation. Psychiatrists also tend to see those who are distressed."
Anon said...What do you think? Do you think most practitioners agreed with the association at the time?
Well, it was 1973 when the APA decided that homosexuality did not belong in the DSM-II and the 1974 APA poll showed a majority [58%] of APA members agreed that homosexuality is not a disease. So yes, I do think that the majority of psychologists agreed that homosexuality is not a disease. The 1977 Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality report which includes information on the 1974 APA poll of its members confirms my view.
The 1974 APA poll is closer in time to the APA decision so it more accurately represents the views of the membership in 1973 than the survey you erroneously keep holding up as the *only* poll on the subject. Further, in 1978 the US Supreme Court ruled affirmatively in the Bakke "reverse discrimination" case, so we all need to consider what were the "political and social considerations" in 1977 when MAHS made its survey. The MAHS survey was conducted during a period of backlash against the slow but steady progress being made by minorities who have long suffered discrimination.
Christine"
So in 1977, this Dr. Lief considered a 58% vote in favor of making the change in the DSM-II to be a "small majority." But in 2004, Cheney called the Bush/Cheney 50.7% - 48.3% win a "mandate."
Apples to oranges, "Fuzzy Math"
"for one thing, there's no justification for using the term "orientation" rather than "preference", other than propaganda"
Yes, in fact there is justification...orientation is innate, preference is choice.
Left-handedness is innate; being forced to write with one's right hand is a choice (as in Catholic education)
Your obsession with GLBT people is not an innate orientation, it is a choice.
An anti-Christian choice, at that.
nice to have you back, Christine
some of these people who comment here are real morons
"I already covered this misused and misquoted study back in November 2005."
I don't know what to say about this. Is all discussion to cease once you've rendered your opinion? I guess you're entitled to that opinion but I fail to see any misuse or misquoting. The study was done to determine the view of APA members, had a conclusion, was peer-reviewed and published in well-regarded publication.
"Ten thousand surveys may have been sent but ten thousand surveys were not returned or counted. In fact, MAHS states:
"A questionnaire was sent to 10,000 psychiatrists by Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality. The data presented were tabulated after the first 2,500 replies were received.""
Christine, this is not a low rate of return. Actually, the APA poll in 1973 of all APA members had the exact same rate of return (25%) and you cite it as authoritative.
The APA poll was not as valid though because it was done at a time when a vocal minority was seeking change and may have had a much higher motivation to respond. Additionally, the APA poll was done by a group, the APA Board of Trustees, seeking to validate its decision.
The MAHS, on the other hand was done a couple of years after the controversy had died down, was a random sample, its sampling technique was considered by peer reviewers and was done by a group known for objectivity.
this is not a "rate of return." Taking the first N responses introduces a bias. it oversamples the most highly motivated respondents and is not a representative sample
I just posted a response to Christine's fallacious response which is mysteriously not shwoing up.
The MAHS survey has its sampling method evaluated by peer review and had the same response rate as the APA survey (25%).
"As to the rest of your claims, here are some facts you seem to have forgotten. I'm happy to remind our readers of these pertinent facts again.
"I could not find the original 1977 survey on line so I called Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality publisher's office in New Jersey (Telephone 973/701-2740. Fax 973/701/8895.). Kathy Knapp (direct dial 973/206-8964) left me a message saying they don't keep old reprints so I went to the library and obtained a personal photocopy of the original survey. (Lief, H.I., Sexual Survey #4. Current Thinking on Homosexuality. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 110-111, November 1977.)"
this is all fascinating, it really is, and while I guess you could call it facts, there sure weren't any relevant ones
for blog brevity purposes, "I got a copy at the library" would have sufficed
"Harold I. Lief, M.D. provided "interpretive remarks" for the survey report and said, "The results...are surprising in that an American Psychiatric Association poll of its own membership in 1974 agreed by a small majority that homosexuality should not be defined as a disorder unless the person is dissatisfied with that sexual orientation. The present findings suggest three possibilities:.1) The APA vote was influenced by political and social considerations, in that the vote was perceived as a step toward stopping the denial of rights to homosexuals; 2) Those who were more inclined to answer this survey had stronger feelings about their point of view than those who did not respond; 3) Psychiatrists' opinions on the matter have changed since 1974.""
this is interpretation, not "fact" but seems a reasonable statemnt
the first two possibilities, which seem most likely, cast doubt on the validity of the APA survey
the final is less likely because there was no major developments to have swayed opinions largely in the period of 73-77
the NAHS poll seems more valid because it was done without a conflict of interest, was a random sample, and its methodolgy was peer-reviewed
"In regard to the finding that more APA members who returned completed questionnaires said "yes" than said "no" in response to, "Are homosexual men generally less happy than others?" Dr. Lief noted, "The greater unhappiness of homosexuals is understandable in terms of society's condemnation. Psychiatrists also tend to see those who are distressed.""
except the NAHS poll had a question about the reason for the unhappiness and the majority said it wasn't because of social pressure
"it was 1973 when the APA decided that homosexuality did not belong in the DSM-II and the 1974 APA poll showed a majority [58%] of APA members agreed that homosexuality is not a disease"
the APA has 25,000 members
around 6,250 responded
around 3,600 of 25,000 members said the agreed that homosexuality is not a disease
in what universe is that a majority?
"So yes, I do think that the majority of psychologists agreed that homosexuality is not a disease."
look, Christine has another opinion in her "pertinent fact" section
"The 1977 Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality report which includes information on the 1974 APA poll of its members confirms my view."
yes, it includes it and speculates that it may have been faulty
"in what universe does that confirm your view?"
"The 1974 APA poll is closer in time to the APA decision so it more accurately represents the views of the membership in 1973"
actually, that's not true for a number of reasons
"than the survey you erroneously keep holding up as the *only* poll on the subject"
I don't remember saying that but it's the only objective one I'm aware of
what's with this blog?
my first post appeared but subsequent ones disappeared
"what's with this blog?"
Maybe it's just not that into you.
Five comments have been posted. "Anonymous" sure has lots to say about a 1977 survey.
The fact that Roots aired on US TV in 1977 is of more significance than this MAHS study.
"Five comments have been posted. "Anonymous" sure has lots to say about a 1977 survey."
I mentioned it as a response to Jim's comment about the 1973 APA action
of course, as always, TTFers feel the need for full frontals attacks on anything contrary to the gay agenda so the five posts, if there were that many, were simply defending this peer-reviewed research
"The fact that Roots aired on US TV in 1977 is of more significance than this MAHS study"
not to the issue of why the APA removed homosexuality from the list of mental problems in the 70s
it was obviously not because the change reflected the consensus of its membership
the airing of Roots, and the fact that it was the highest rated show in history at the time, shows that their is scant evidence os any backlash against civil rights for racial minorities as loosely implied by Christine
"Further, in 1978 the US Supreme Court ruled affirmatively in the Bakke "reverse discrimination" case, so we all need to consider what were the "political and social considerations" in 1977 when MAHS made its survey. The MAHS survey was conducted during a period of backlash against the slow but steady progress being made by minorities who have long suffered discrimination."
Americans in 1977 supported racial equality. They were opposed to reverse discrimination and affirmative action and supported Bakke but that was nothing new. George Wallace won the Maryland primary in 1972 running against busing. Furthermore, Supreme Court rulings don't reflect popular opinion so they aren't evidence of it.
And that has no applicability to homosexuality, which is a matter of behavior, desire and character, not racial identity.
As a matter of fact, however, Americans were very tolerant of homosexuality in 1977. A TV show, SOAP, had an openly gay character as one of its protagonists and was often the top-rated show of any given week.
The backlash against homosexuality didn't occur until it was discovered a couple of years later that the random promiscuity of homosexuals had introduced a new and invariably fatal disease to our society.
btw, while Cristine did post the comments she alluded to above, in an attempt to refute the article several years ago, other TTFers at that time, who were around in 1977, agreed that practitioners in 1977mostly thought homosexuality was indeed a mental illness
the APA's Board of Trustees made the decision due to political and social considerations and not due to scientific research or the consensus of professionals
they later commissioned a survey to affirm their decision but it wasn't a scientifically conducted
the MAHS poll was
Folks are missing the big picture here. The opinions of psychiatrists in 1973 are about as relevant today as 8-track tapes. 1973 is far closer to the time when they were still doing lobotomies (in the ‘60s) than it is today. Fortunately, medical and psychological science has advanced tremendously since then, but it still has a way to go. Nobody with any non-trivial disease is going to seriously consider being attended by a physician who still uses 1973 texts.
"Using forged credentials, gay activists gained access to the exhibit area and, coming across a display marketing aversive conditioning [i.e., punishing an organism whenever it makes a particular response] techniques for the treatment of homosexuals, demanded its removal. Threats were made against the exhibitor, who was told that unless his booth was dismantled, it would be torn down. After frantic behind-the-scenes consultations, and in an effort to avoid violence, the convention leadership agreed to have the booth removed."
I’m sure this was put in there show those “unruly” gays in a bad light. But the “aversion conditioning” is a euphemism for treatment not unlike that used in “A Clockwork Orange” and included injection with drugs and electroshock therapy. The state of psychological science was advanced when they stopped using this form of “therapy.” Typically they don’t even use this kind of treatment to train pets.
“The survey of APA members in 1977 was conducted by Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality and found that these members overwhelmingly believed homosexuality was a mental illness.”
Anyone who has seen truly mentally ill people knows they have precious little ability to organize themselves in a multi-year, multi-pronged effort to bring forth new scientific evidence and change the minds of a majority of an association of medical professionals. Even if a group of “mentally ill” people had somehow mistakenly managed to do that one year, one would suspect that sometime in the last three and a half decades “saner” and more “scientific” minds and evidence would prevail to reverse that decision. The fact the no one has been able to come up with a more compelling argument than the gays, either means that the gays are fundamentally correct, or their opponents are idiots incapable of organizing a valid scientific rebuttal, or even just “stacking the deck” with psychologists that agree with the “mental illness” theory.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
"Folks are missing the big picture here. The opinions of psychiatrists in 1973 are about as relevant today as 8-track tapes."
cinco, you're right about that
the problem is that your friends here keep harking back to the '73 decision and studies done in the fifties so it is relevant to the validities of those claims that susequent to those events, most professionals still held homosexuality to be dysfunctional
but, as to now, I think it's an open question hinging on subjective determinations of what constitutes healthy functioning in society and whether there is a choice what we desire
you can, and obviously people do, make arguments on both sides but it becomes obnoxious when one side tries to claim science proves them
yes, aversion therapy was creepy but so is most of psychology
violence isn't called for
nor ultra-violence
hey kids!
are your taxes too high?
is your government borrowing too much money?
would like some extra money to spend on unemployment benefits?
did you know more black are currently imprisoned for non-violent crimes than were enslaved before the Civil War?
so why is our hopey changey President trying to crack down on people who are hurting no one but themselves, if that?:
"WASHINGTON -- Fifty percent of Americans favor legalizing marijuana, according to a new Gallup poll, a record high. And those numbers, up from just 36 percent in 2006, could have significant implications for state and national marijuana policy.
The past two decades has seen a marked shift in public opinion on the issue. Asked in 1970 if people thought the drug should be made legal, only 12 percent of respondents agreed. That number rose to 28 percent percent by the late 1970s, dipped slightly lower in the 1980s, and then rose to 36 percent in 2006.
Support has spiked in the past five years, with 40 percent of respondents favoring legalization in 2009 before numbers jumped another 10 percent, according to the annual crime survey conducted Oct. 6-9, with majorities of men, liberals and 18-29 year-olds currently support legalizing cannabis.
The poll numbers come as federal prosecutors are cracking down on medical marijuana dispensaries, vowing to shutter state-licensed marijuana shops regulated by local governments and threatening landlords with property seizures.
“The latest poll results point to the absurdity and even venality of persisting with harsh prohibitionist policies,” said Ethan Nadelmann, founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, in a statement on Monday. “No other law is enforced so harshly and pervasively yet deemed unnecessary by so many Americans. Spending billions of dollars and arresting over 800,000 people annually for violating marijuana laws now represents not just foolish public policy but also an inappropriate and indecent use of police powers.”
Thom Mrozek, spokesman for California-based U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte Jr., said on Friday there was no particular incident that prompted the enforcement actions. "Across the state, we have seen a fairly significant increase in the problem over the past couple of years," he said. "And, at least in our district, our actions were prompted in part by widespread concern among local officials.""
please....
Post a Comment
<< Home