Epicly pissed

[pntballa18]

Re: Epicly pissed

the killing.

i dont see why this thread went any further than that

[StepmaniaGod6969]

Re: Epicly pissed

What would they do if he left? Seriously? It's not like he would go to jail cause homosexuality isn't a crime. What would his parents disown him? Anyway my point is he doesn't have to stay there and I don't believe that he would get into any trouble. And how the hell are you supposed to 'pray the gay away'? I know they are trying to turn him straight but its not going to happen. I believe people are born gay they don't make that decision when they get older. So there is no way to make him like girls.

[NFD]

Re: Epicly pissed

i dont see why this thread went any further than that

I said that was the difference, because it's not like they kill the kids at camp.

[OnixRose]

Re: Epicly pissed

I want you to get into a fist fight with his dad. I'm not even kidding.

Do it. Be a man.

[NFD]

Re: Epicly pissed

austen was replaced by a dog

Nope sry

[Reach]

Re: Epicly pissed

What you fail to understand is that this is not a debate. It is a known fact that Homosexuality is not a choice!

The APA says that "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation".

American medical organizations have further stated therapy cannot change sexual orientation, and have expressed concerns over potential harms.

The director of the APA's LGBT Concerns Office explained: "I don't think that anyone disagrees with the idea that people can change because we know that straight people become gays and lesbians.... the issue is whether therapy changes sexual orientation, which is what many of these people claim".

The American Psychiatric Association states, in a 2000 position statement, that they oppose "any psychiatric treatment, such as "reparative" or conversion therapy, which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that a patient should change their sexual orientation.

Similarly, United States Surgeon General David Satcher issued a report stating that "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed".

Thank you.

Though, I should note this is futile, given he quite clearly stated: "I believe that it's a choice, and none of you are going to prove me otherwise by any amount of argument"

Which is obviously an outstanding philosophy to have.


It's also probably the exact same philosophy the parents have that are forcing some kid to go to a camp that ...is at best a practice in futility that can only do more harm than good to a child.

=/

[A2P]

Re: Epicly pissed

While I definitely am angered by this whole Jesus camp issue, remember that psychology is NOT the answer to everything regarding humans. Even in Squeeks post, there is a contradiction.

The APA says that "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation".

"I don't think that anyone disagrees with the idea that people can change because we know that straight people become gays and lesbians...

Anyways, that's my 2 cents on this. I hope it's not too late for you to make a difference NFD. Kidnap your friend if you must. I'm not even joking.

[Ground_Breaker]

Re: Epicly pissed

What you fail to understand is that this is not a debate. It is a known fact that Homosexuality is not a choice!

The APA says that "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation".

American medical organizations have further stated therapy cannot change sexual orientation, and have expressed concerns over potential harms.

The director of the APA's LGBT Concerns Office explained: "I don't think that anyone disagrees with the idea that people can change because we know that straight people become gays and lesbians.... the issue is whether therapy changes sexual orientation, which is what many of these people claim".

The American Psychiatric Association states, in a 2000 position statement, that they oppose "any psychiatric treatment, such as "reparative" or conversion therapy, which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that a patient should change their sexual orientation.

Similarly, United States Surgeon General David Satcher issued a report stating that "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed".

Allow me to clarify something that I think is sabotaging me here. I don't think that a person wakes up one day and says, "You know, I just realized that I am no longer interested in women (or men, as the case may be). I think I'll go visit local gay bars to see if I can get a date." I'm saying "I personally believe that it's a choice," but what I've realized is that I'm unintentionally misrepresenting my actual view on the subject by saying that. What I do believe is that it certainly isn't primarily genetically or biologically based, but not necessarily that it's that kind of blatantly conscious decision. I meant that seeking some form of reorientation therapy is a conscious choice, but I said it in the worst possible way, so much so that my actual intent was fully masked by the bad choice of language. Forgive me for that.

Now, moving forward with the whole "you shouldn't try to cure them" or whatever. Please remember while reading that I don't condone proactive treatment or therapy (essentially seeking out gays/lesbians and trying to convert them to heterosexuality by any means), but I do think that treatment and therapy should be available for those who seek it, and I think that centers that offer such services are doing great work.

And, once again, in case someone tries to quote me somewhere down the line and say, "SEE YOU ACTUALLY DO THINK THE CAMPS WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA," allow me to say that I think "Pray the Gay Away" camps are silly. I am a Christian, and I believe that the Bible says plenty of things about how homosexuality is wrong. However, the important thing to realize here is that camps like these are guilty of viewing the Bible's more archaic views on many modern controversial issues as irrefutable truth, which you simply can't do, and which is why I disagree with their agenda as a whole. It is unnecessary and counterproductive to try to link homosexuality with religion in today's culture because there are many different religious views, and there is also a vast amount of people who don't believe in religion at all.

With that said, let's continue.

Similarly, United States Surgeon General David Satcher issued a report stating that "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed".

That may have been true at the time, but it is not true anymore. Former United States Surgeon General David Satcher was in office from 1998 to 2002. I don't need to tell you what year we are in now, I trust. Also, I couldn't find Dr. Satcher's actual report about this, nor could I find a real summary of it. Would you be so kind as to provide a link so I could see it for myself please?

NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) published this in its April 23rd e-newsletter:

“The 2009 Edition of Essential Psychotherapy and Its Treatment, a classic text used in most medical schools and psychology programs, has the following important addition to its section on homosexuality (W.W. Norton & Company, p. 488):

‘While many mental health care providers and professional associations have expressed considerable skepticism that sexual orientation could be changed with psychotherapy and also assumed that therapeutic attempts at reorientation would produce harm, recent empirical evidence demonstrates that homosexual orientation can indeed be therapeutically changed in motivated clients, and that reorientation therapies do not produce emotional harm when attempted (e.g., Byrd & Nicolosi, 2002; Byrd et al., 2008; Shaeffer et al., 1999; Spitzer, 2003).’

“This is a very important academic text and the inclusion of this statement and the research it cites is a victory for NARTH and all those who support client self-determination in the treatment of unwanted homosexuality!”

Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of this book, but I certainly wish that I did. But let's learn a little bit more about NARTH, shall we?

We respect the right of all individuals to choose their own destiny. NARTH is a professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality. As an organization, we disseminate educational information, conduct and collect scientific research, promote effective therapeutic treatment, and provide referrals to those who seek our assistance. NARTH upholds the rights of individuals with unwanted homosexual attraction to receive effective psychological care and the right of professionals to offer that care. We welcome the participation of all individuals who will join us in the pursuit of these goals.

NARTH respects each client's dignity, autonomy and free agency.

We believe that clients have the right to claim a gay identity, or to diminish their homosexuality and to develop their heterosexual potential.

The right to seek therapy to change one's sexual adaptation should be considered self-evident and inalienable.

We call on our fellow mental-health association to stop falsely claiming to have "scientific knowledge" that settles the issue of homosexuality. Instead, our mental-health associations must leave room for diverse understandings of the family, of core human identity, and the meaning and purpose of human sexuality.

NARTH agrees with the American Psychological Association that "biological, psychological and social factors" shape sexual identity at an early age for most people.

But the difference is one of emphasis. We place more emphasis on the psychological (family, peer and social) influences, while the American Psychological Association emphasizes biological influences--and has shown no interest in (indeed, a hostility toward) investigating those same psychological and social influences.

There is no such thing as a "gay gene" and there is no evidence to support the idea that homosexuality is simply genetic. However, biological influences may indeed influence some people toward homosexuality; recent studies point to prenatal-hormonal influences, especially in men, that result in a low-masculinized brain; also, there may be genetic factors in some people -- both of which would affect gender identity, and therefore sexual orientation. But none of these factors mean that homosexuality is normal and a part of human design, or that it is inevitable in such people, or that it is unchangeable.

Numerous examples exist of people who have successfully modified their sexual behavior, identity, and arousal or fantasies.

Their position statements have been updated as recently as February of 2008. I chose items 1 and 7 because they hold the most relevance to this discussion. Their position statements page can be viewed here.

Here's a link to NARTH's "'Born That Way' Theory" page. If you don't feel like reading all the way through it, here are the finer points:

Although not supported by the research, many therapists believe that homosexuality is solely biological in nature, and therefore unchangeable. Yet despite ongoing efforts, researchers have not discovered a biological basis for same-sex attractions. In fact, many researchers hypothesize that a homosexual orientation stems from a combination of biological and environmental factors.

...

So, what happens in the development of gender identity that would lead a child to have same-sex attractions? Typically, for this child, there is something that prevents him from attaching to the father. Either he doesn't have a father or a father figure, or he doesn't have a father who he perceives as safe and/or welcoming. Of course, there are many children who grow up without fathers and yet do not develop a homosexual orientation. In addition, there are many children who have loving fathers, yet still become homosexually oriented. This is due to the fact that there are various factors that contribute to a homosexual orientation. Human development is very complex and includes events, as well as perceptions about the events.

...

The inaccurate concept that homosexuality is solely biological is extremely misleading. Many therapists tell their clients that homosexuality is biological and therefore unchangeable. These therapists encourage their clients to embrace a gay identity, even when such clients are seeking change for their orientation. In doing so, therapists negate clients' rights to self-determination. Clients have the right to choose their own goals for therapy and should be allowed to pursue the path they desire. Clients should not be discouraged from pursuing change when change is what they seek.

This organization has dedicated itself to research and therapy for homosexuality, obviously, and they are very aware of an enormous amount of news circulation concerning homosexuality research and treatment/therapy. A brief perusal of their website will show you just how aware they are.

Here is a link to a NARTH article about the 2003 Spitzer Study which is referenced above in one of my earlier quotes: http://www.narth.com/docs/evidencefound.html

And because his study found considerable benefit and no harm, Spitzer said, the American Psychiatric Association should stop applying a double standard in its discouragement of reorientation therapy, while actively encouraging gay-affirmative therapy to confirm and solidify a gay identity.

...

Is reorientation therapy chosen only by clients who are driven by guilt--that is, what's popularly known as "homophobia"? To the contrary, Spitzer concludes. In fact, "the ability to make such a choice should be considered fundamental to client autonomy and self-determination."

I could go on and on quoting article after article but I think most of you still reading are getting the picture here. However, I want to bring up one more thing.

August 24, 2004 - Psychologists Jon S. Lasser and Dr. Michael C. Gottlieb believe it is unethical for psychologists to attempt reorientation therapy or even to refer patients to reorientation therapists. Paradoxically, however, they encourage therapists to acknowledge "the plasticity of sexual orientation." They would also approve reorientation therapy as a last resort if suicide is a possible outcome.

Writing in the April, 2004, issue of Professional Psychology: Research And Practice, (Vol. 35, No. 2., 194-200), Lasser and Gottlieb maintain that psychologists who are confronted with individuals wishing to change their sexual orientation should either 1) refuse to take such patients or 2) work to convince them that bisexuality or homosexuality are normal variants of sexuality.

That doesn't seem very open-minded to me.

I'd like to address some of the other posts that have been made while I've been assembling this info.

Which is obviously an outstanding philosophy to have.

I am not a simpleton. Having an unwavering belief does not make you stupid, it just makes you stubborn. Refusing to educate yourself about an issue while being stubborn about it is stupid, but educating yourself about the issue and being stubborn is not stupid, however frustrating it may be for your opponents. I can see the misconception.

...is at best a practice in futility that can only do more harm than good to a child.

I wholeheartedly agree. It's too bad that the parents are being so close-minded about it.

Even in Squeeks post, there is a contradiction.

The APA says that "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation".

"I don't think that anyone disagrees with the idea that people can change because we know that straight people become gays and lesbians...

Yes, this is interesting, isn't it? Not only that, but what he brought to the table is statements and data from almost a decade ago: hardly appropriate for the present. Admittedly, I have findings that are also in that general time period, but I think the excerpt from the 2009 edition of Essential Psychotherapy and Its Treatment, to name just one of my sources, is much more relevant to our interests.

In closing, allow me once more to apologize for my previous statements. I did not intend to incite anger by stating that I believe homosexuality is a choice. It is, as I mentioned earlier, not my true view on the issue. I don't think being homosexual is a choice, but I think wanting to not be homosexual is a conscious choice, and it's a choice that quite a few people have made, and who continue to make every day.

Hopefully, NFD, your friend will not be caused any undue harm by being forced into one of these camps. If I had any advice for you, it would be just to continue accepting your friend for exactly who he is, no matter what happens. That will mean so much more to him than probably anything else he will experience at that camp.

[Squeek]

Re: Epicly pissed

Because the institute designed solely around "converting" homosexuals CLEARLY isn't biased, unlike the American Psychological Association. It's right there in their name: Therapy for Homosexuals. Homosexuals don't need therapy, unless you mean for the same things Heterosexuals and Bisexuals need therapy for: when their life sucks.

Also, the conflicting statements? They're not conflicting. The APA says "most people experience little to no change" and the other organization says "we know some people can change"

Edit: I didn't even need this to know NARTH was clearly anti-gay, but here we go:

http://www.truthwinsout.org/narth

Also, my quotes all come from Wikipedia. What, you thought I did research?

[Ground_Breaker]

Re: Epicly pissed

What you're missing here I think is that NARTH is not proactive about its views. That is, it doesn't seek out homosexuals to "convert" them, it simply takes in individuals who've already decided that homosexuality is not their desired lifestyle. Yes, it says "Therapy for Homosexuals" and they do provide therapy, but they're not anything like how you or the website you provided are characterizing them.

I'm not of the mind to defend an organization I have no involvement in. You said that various organizations had stated that there was no evidence at all that reorientation therapy was beneficial. I used NARTH as a vessel through which to show you otherwise. I don't care about NARTH, I care about the research featured on their website.

EDIT:

Also, my quotes all come from Wikipedia. What, you thought I did research?

I thought you might have done something other than quote from Wikipedia. You're obviously intelligent, so I thought you'd gone out and gotten at least one piece of information featured on a real website.

EDIT (the second):

Also, it's not like truthwinsout.org is necessarily fully unbiased. It was created by Wayne Besen, who himself is gay. You're telling me that a website devoted to counteract ex-gay movements, founded by a gay man, isn't biased? Really? That's either ignorant, stupid, or naïve.

EDIT (again):

So I did a little more digging around on TWO (Truth Wins Out), and, in their discussion of the Spitzer Study, they quote Dr. Spitzer talking about how results are extremely rare, and to not take his findings out of context, etc. Groups like Focus on the Family (to which Dr. Spitzer had to send more than one letter requesting that they stop exaggerating his findings) are Christian-oriented, and while NARTH's founders hold Christian beliefs themselves, they are irrelevant to my point, which only has to do with the research they cited.

If Dr. Spitzer encountered zero positive results in his study, he would have said that. But he didn't say that, did he? No, he said that in motivated patients, reorientation therapy was successful. Whether it's 1% or 2% or 99% doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is that if he found at least one patient who accepted reorientation therapy successfully, it wouldn't mean anything other than that it was possible. It's unfortunate that Christian groups are taking out of context. They are likely of the same frame of mind as those who run the type of "Pray the Gay Away" camps to which NFD's friend is headed.

[Grandiagod]

Re: Epicly pissed

shut up ****ing christ

[Ground_Breaker]

Re: Epicly pissed

I have nothing to add, so I'm going to be rude.

Go away.

[Grandiagod]

Re: Epicly pissed

oh no i'm rude

[Grandiagod]

Re: Epicly pissed

don't tell mom

[Grandiagod]

Re: Epicly pissed

she'll think it was a choice, and then she'll send me to rude camp and i'll have to hang out with other rude people