Psychologists Repudiate Gay-to-Straight Therapy

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
another gay thread…[/quote]
lol

Oh my god I’ll have to take a break from T-Nation.
So many Anti-gay haters here.
I’ll have to do something to remove all this gay propaganda in my head.
Talking to athletic guys in the gym and taking showers with other men should sort me out.

[quote]forlife wrote:
jnd wrote:
I fail to see how this is newsworthy. Most people know this is true and this resolution will not change the minds of people who disagree with the APA.

I hope you’re right that most people know this is true. Unfortunately, many religions are still pushing gays into reparative therapy with the promise that they can “pray the gay away”. They don’t realize that this doubles the risk of suicidal thoughts, anxiety, depression, and drug/alchol abuse…or maybe they do realize it, but feel justified in forcing the issue because of the misguided belief that god will “cure” gays who pray hard enough.

We’re seeing progress, though. My own former religion (Mormon) has even shown growth, despite being one of the more fundamentalist religions out there. As a young man, I was told by church leaders to marry despite being gay, because it was god’s will. The Mormon church has since noted the tragic consequences of this advice, and is now telling gays to be celibate. Not exactly a perfect solution, but at least they are no longer giving people false promises of being “cured”.

Hopefully other religions will follow suit.[/quote]

Again- I am not sure that this APA resolution will change the attitude of religious zealots. They simply refuse to let empirical data (or logic, or reason, or common sense) get in the way of their agenda. How do you reason with naive empiricists-- it is impossible.

jnd

[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
We’ve been over this, Forlife. No one is anticipating a stampede from the bathhouses and gay bars to the altar no matter how legal it becomes.

Because you say so?

UCLA’s Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy projected in June 2008 that about half of California’s more than 100,000 same-sex couples would wed during the next three years and 68,000 out-of-state couples would travel to California to exchange vows.[/quote]

Forlife,

Far be it for you to do some math, but California has a population of roughly 37 million. Of that population, rougly 3% is gay, or roughly 1.1 million people, equaling about 505,000 gay couples. Forgive me if I don’t get too excited about the disease-reducing potential of gay “marriage” if only 1 in 5 gay men are even projected to take advantage, and we all know of the inherent promiscuity of homosexuality, which depends a lot more on the male libido than it does the ability to wed. Even Andrew Sullivan admitted that. Besides, European studies showed that gay marriage did nothing for gay HIV infection rates.

Has it dawned on you that you might be in need of some help from the APA yourself, as evidenced by your obvious obsessions? Clearly, you need rehabilitation from all the wrongs done to you by the Mormons, Bush, and Palin, right? (Don’t forget the blacks and Mexicans who voted gay marriage down in CA either).

[quote]jnd wrote:
Again- I am not sure that this APA resolution will change the attitude of religious zealots. They simply refuse to let empirical data (or logic, or reason, or common sense) get in the way of their agenda. How do you reason with naive empiricists-- it is impossible.
[/quote]

If the Mormon church can do it, anyone can. It’s unnecessary for religions to change their views of homosexual behavior being a sin (although that would be nice), they only need to correct the misconception that it is possible for people to change their orientation.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Far be it for you to do some math, but California has a population of roughly 37 million. Of that population, rougly 3% is gay, or roughly 1.1 million people, equaling about 505,000 gay couples. Forgive me if I don’t get too excited about the disease-reducing potential of gay “marriage” if only 1 in 5 gay men are even projected to take advantage, and we all know of the inherent promiscuity of homosexuality, which depends a lot more on the male libido than it does the ability to wed. Even Andrew Sullivan admitted that. Besides, European studies showed that gay marriage did nothing for gay HIV infection rates.[/quote]

You said nobody would take advantage of gay marriage laws, and the UCLA Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy says you’re wrong.

On the effects of gay marriage on STDs:

[quote]Newswise - Data from Europe suggests that national recognition of same-sex partnerships leads to significant reductions in syphilis rates, according to a new study by a Swarthmore College economist.

“The evidence shows these laws could dramatically reduce risky sexual behavior and the social costs of some sexually transmitted infections,” says Thomas Dee, an assistant professor of economics. “However, the results may be even more important because of what they suggest are the likely effects of gay marriage on the degree of personal commitment in same-sex relationships.”

Dee studied data from Europe, where 12 countries have introduced national recognition of same-sex partnerships between 1989 and 2003…these “gay marriage laws” reduced syphilis rates by 24 percent.[/quote]

Back to the topic, even if you were right about nobody taking advantage of gay marriage, do you not understand that trying to change a person’s orientation leads to double the risk of suicidal thoughts, anxiety, depression, and alcohol/drug abuse? Given that, why would you advocate reparative therapy, knowing the damage it can cause? Are you truly interested in doing what is in the best interest of the gay population?

I said that I didn’t think there would be a stampede from the places of homosexual promiscuity to the altar, so (as usual), you didn’t actually read what I wrote. You’re dissertation defense must not have required you to do much reading.

That said, I put exactly zero faith in projections, because projections are always based on ass-umptions and models, and the ass-umptions of the homosexualists tend to err greatly on the side of optimism for their cause.

I seem to recall being the one who actually showed YOU that study. Syphilis is already cheaply curable. Big deal.

So does contracting HIV, resistant gonorrhea, and leading a life of promiscuous gay sex. Even the most optimistic projections suggest that gay marriage won’t have much effect on the latter, so don’t reply with that circular argument.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I said that I didn’t think there would be a stampede from the places of homosexual promiscuity to the altar, so (as usual), you didn’t actually read what I wrote.[/quote]

I agree there will be plenty of gays that won’t choose to get married, but many (including myself) will. Fortunately, my right to do so won’t depend on people like you, because the trend is moving inexorably toward equal rights.

Why do you think reparative therapy would change any of this? If reparative therapy is known to cause significant damage, and is known not to change a person’s sexual orientation, why would you advocate it anyway?

[quote]Holzkopf wrote:
Oh my god I’ll have to take a break from T-Nation.
So many Anti-gay haters here.
I’ll have to do something to remove all this gay propaganda in my head.
Talking to athletic guys in the gym and taking showers with other men should sort me out.[/quote]

Only if they are big, muscular men that are oiled and shaved…

Wait, what?

[quote]forlife wrote:

I agree there will be plenty of gays that won’t choose to get married, but many (including myself) will. Fortunately, my right to do so won’t depend on people like you, because the trend is moving inexorably toward equal rights.
[/quote]

If you say so. I don’t see Mexicans and blacks becoming more prone to vote in gay marriage, and mexicans are only increasing as a percentage of the population. I hope you don’t provoke a backlash. Something tells me you might.

[quote]
Why do you think reparative therapy would change any of this? If reparative therapy is known to cause significant damage, and is known not to change a person’s sexual orientation, why would you advocate it anyway?[/quote]

Can you show me where I advocated it? I was just pointing out the holes in the APA’s logic. Leading a homosexual lifestyle itself will cause all of the same things that the APA attributes to reparative therapy, but they say that it’s perfectly normal or blame it on straights.

About this point in time, you normally start doing the same: saying that all of the pathologies rampant in the gay community are because of straights.

For the record, I think reparative therapy needs further study in young homosexual men (before gay men twice their age prey on them, as is common). I don’t think orientation is at all changeable beyond a certain age. But I also don’t think it’s the orientation that’s the problem, really.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Leading a homosexual lifestyle itself will cause all of the same things that the APA attributes to reparative therapy, but they say that it’s perfectly normal or blame it on straights.[/quote]

Am I “leading a homosexual lifestyle” according to your definition, as someone in a long term monogamous same sex relationship?

And since when do two wrongs make a right? I’ve never heard a medical or mental health organization advocate unsafe sex practices, their point is that reparative therapy is unhealthy. The solution seems pretty simple: Accept who you are and live a sexually responsible life.

I’m glad you agree that sexual orientation can’t change. What is it you see as the problem, if it’s not the orientation itself?

UCLA still sucks.

Maximus vs Maximus…

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
For the record, I think reparative therapy needs further study in young homosexual men (before gay men twice their age prey on them, as is common). I don’t think orientation is at all changeable beyond a certain age. But I also don’t think it’s the orientation that’s the problem, really. [/quote]

I love when people call for “more research” when the available information does not confirm their point of view…

I am waiting for the junk science comments…they are coming…just wait…

jnd

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Maximus vs Maximus…[/quote]

I have a bigger post count (barely), so I win.

[quote]forlife wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
Maximus vs Maximus…

I have a bigger post count (barely), so I win.[/quote]

I’m so not entertained…

[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Well then, by all means - let them keeping spreading HIV, syphilis, and Hep C to one another!

Even better, let them get married, which will reduce the spread of STDs.[/quote]

doesn’t mean they won’t cheat

[quote]jnd wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
For the record, I think reparative therapy needs further study in young homosexual men (before gay men twice their age prey on them, as is common). I don’t think orientation is at all changeable beyond a certain age. But I also don’t think it’s the orientation that’s the problem, really.

I love when people call for “more research” when the available information does not confirm their point of view…

I am waiting for the junk science comments…they are coming…just wait…

jnd[/quote]

Is the word of the APA gospel in your brain? They recently revised their counseling rules in light of further data:

Many gays, unsurprisingly, aren’t happy with it. The APA’s own guidelines allow for self-determination of one’s own sexual orientation. Have you actually read them? How are people who want to determine their own sexual orientation supposed to do so if there are no avenues for treatment and research into such avenues is frowned upon/banned?

Considering a life of male-on-male sex is fraught with many dangers, perhaps my calls for more research will save lives and money spent on drug cocktails. No data suggests that many gay men form stable, long-term relationships. The average term of a gay relationship is less than half that of a heterosexual relationship. I don’t think even Forlife has been with his partner longer than about 3 years.

You are aware that old psychotherapy treatment paradigms are thrown out in light of newer, more effective ones coming into existence, right? Is anyone still practicing a purely Freudian psychotherapy these days, or are newer methods allowed? Why shouldn’t more research into reparative therapy then be allowed, especially since the APA’s own guidelines call for patient self-determination?

What we need is for people besides the kooks at Exodus International to study it. Then, it might get somewhere. Maybe.

besides, individual states should say who can and who can’t get married. NOT the federal gov. If some states want to allow gay marriage, and some don’t. that’s up to the voters in said states. Its a states rights issue

UCLA still sucks
Like for life…see you at oak lawn