August 1, 2016 10:41 pm at 10:41 pm #1164402
JF2 -“It is true that the AMA’s policy manual simply states that they are opposed to conversion therapy, without giving a reason why or directly stating there that the therapy does not work. However, if you look at other materials and statements produced by the AMA, it is patently obvious that their stance is that the therapy is ineffective, and has even been shown to be damaging and harmful”
I actually wasted my time and Googled it!
One of the things that came up is this topic in the CR. Yay us!
The other thing that came up was an article from AMA Journal of Ethics:
“5]. A comprehensive review of the evidence about conversion therapy in 2007 by the American Psychological Association concluded that there was no evidence showing that SOCE had any impact on adult sexual orientation or gender identity and that these therapies were often based on developmental theories with questionable validity . More importantly, conversion therapy may cause harms that include depression, anxiety, and self-destructive behavior, fostered by the negative self-image that these efforts create . “
You’re unbelievable with your manipulation!
That article is based on the APA, not the AMA!
But you’re doing a good job fooling people with your Gay bias!August 2, 2016 5:52 am at 5:52 am #1164403
☢️ 🚭 ☣️ Rand0m3x 🧠🕴️🎲Participant
Marriage therapy does not address a medical or psychological issue but a relationship between 2 people, and not a specific issue but a general one.
It cannot be compared to conversion therapy.August 2, 2016 11:46 am at 11:46 am #1164404
“Conversion therapy” can physically harm or even kill the induvidual. Therapists may use drugs, illegal substances, make you do things that cause much pain, such as shocking you. As it’s legal to force minors to do this as a parent.
My haskafah on the issue is let people be. I don’t support their lifestyle, just like I don’t support a secular lifestyle. But I’m not going to give them a mussar shmuze on it. I will also not support them. I will respect them as a human being, a jewish neshoma whom is struggling. I am sure they all want to do the right thing. So limasseh, I would not go to a parade, although I would support Shira as she died before she was given a chance to do teshuvah.
That is a pretty severe statement to make about someone, how would you know?August 2, 2016 1:48 pm at 1:48 pm #1164405
ITFT -“He lamented that “in todays society the polio victims would be counseled against seeking treatment and most would die.”
Also you see the hypocrisy in our generation when it comes to their liberal agenda. What did they do when AIDS first came out? They should have isolated them, instead they spent billions trying to treat them!August 2, 2016 2:11 pm at 2:11 pm #1164406
although I would support Shira as she died before she was given a chance to do teshuvah.
Shira Baraki was not a member of an “Alternative Lifestyle” , She just support their cause. Going to a parade is not an averiah needing TshuvaAugust 2, 2016 2:30 pm at 2:30 pm #1164407
Health: What are you talking about? This is an article published in the AMA Journal of Ethics, citing an APA study. The AMA obviously approves of the study, or it wouldn’t have published it at all…but regardless, I’m not sure that it matters. The AMA and the APA are both reputable associations. And they often work together, as is standard practice. No “manipulation” here.August 2, 2016 3:06 pm at 3:06 pm #1164408
Actually the Halacha is quite clear that one who supports “ovrei aveira” is in the same boat as ovrei aveira.August 2, 2016 5:05 pm at 5:05 pm #1164409
Reading the AMA guidelines, I get the impression that they dont recommend this therapy, not because it doesnt work (they dont take a position in fact), but rather because studies by other groups, including the APA have shown it can cause other serious problems.
Either way, the Torah is quite clear where it stands about people engaging in this specific “lifestyle” (this is a family friendly forum). To hold a parade that celebrates, promotes and flaunts this lifestyle, in the shadow of the har habayis, is worthy of condemnation in the strongest possible terms. The parade organizers made it abundantly clear how they feel about the sensitivities of other people when they refused to remove rainbow flags hanging in front of shuls such as Heichal Shlomo, no reason to tiptoe around them and their feelings and sensitivities either.August 2, 2016 7:02 pm at 7:02 pm #1164410
JF2 -“This is an article published in the AMA Journal of Ethics, citing an APA study. The AMA obviously approves of the study, or it wouldn’t have published it at all…but regardless, I’m not sure that it matters. The AMA and the APA are both reputable associations. And they often work together, as is standard practice. No “manipulation” here”
I see that you won’t stop with your manipulation!
All they approved was this guy’s article, not the APA’s position on conversion therapy!
The APA is Not reputable when it comes to conversion therapy!
Why don’t you read other posters here?!?
“Ben Levi –
The fall 2012 issue of Dialogue features a 21 page article from Elon Karten Ph.D a practicing psychologist who deals with many frum people struggling with this problem.
In the article he documents that the “taskforce” that condemned “reparative therapy” consisted of individuals who were on record about their positions before the selection while those who were more neutral were turned away!”
For the last time, Stop with your Gay bias!August 2, 2016 7:37 pm at 7:37 pm #1164411
“I certainly support overturning Lawrence v. Texas and reinstating the laws outlawing it.”
Big Government at its worst.August 2, 2016 7:38 pm at 7:38 pm #1164412
‘the Halacha is quite clear that one who supports “ovrei aveira” is in the same boat as ovrei aveira.’
I guess all the commenters here who were promoting a polytheist for President four years ago should be treated as though they themselves were polytheists.August 2, 2016 8:00 pm at 8:00 pm #1164413
1) Actually I am sure as a statistician you can understand how the slightest nuance can have untold ripple effects, as such I can try and explain to you some slight nuance that apply in this case.
Mitt Romney was not running based on his faith nor was he asking for support based upon his faith, rather he was running on a set of policy positions.
Voting for Romney was not a vote in support of his personal faith, rather it was a support of his public policy positions.
Attending the parade is for the sole purpose of showing solidarity with the horrible aveira represented.
2) On a strictly halachic basis assuming that Mormon ideology acknowledges HKB”h as being the “head of the “triangle” there is plenty of halachic basis that states polytheisim (shituf) is not assur for a non-jew.August 2, 2016 8:10 pm at 8:10 pm #1164414
“I guess all the commenters here who were promoting a polytheist for President four years ago should be treated as though they themselves were polytheists.”
Let’s see if this can be explained in a way that can be understood by any one.
People were not supporting Romney because he was Polytheist, nor were they supporting his polytheism.
On the other hand, a parade on behalf of “Gay Pride” is actively supporting and celebrating overei aveirah and the aveirah itself.
When OO “rabbis” proclaim “Mazel tov” on the supreme court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, that is active support of Overie Aveirah and Aveirah.
When one supports YCT and Yeshivas Maharat for what they do, that is supporting and celebrating Overie Aveirah and Chotei umachtim.
Simple enough to understand for reasonable people.August 2, 2016 8:55 pm at 8:55 pm #1164415
Health: Um, why exactly would the APA not be reputable according to you? They are the foremost authority on the subject in this country. I think you are the one with the bias…August 2, 2016 10:13 pm at 10:13 pm #1164416
“Big Government at its worst.”
Not even close.
Besides, you are an avowed big government guy, of the worst sort. So one good thing bothers you?August 2, 2016 10:26 pm at 10:26 pm #1164417
JF2 – “Health: Um, why exactly would the APA not be reputable according to you? They are the foremost authority on the subject in this country. I think you are the one with the bias.”
Excuse me! Stop with your manipulation! I posted right afterwards why in this case the APA is Not reputable!
If you want to refute my post, first you must refute Ben Levi’s post!August 3, 2016 1:43 pm at 1:43 pm #1164418
Mods you are correct, I wouldn’t know. I’m saying I’d support Shira because we don’t judge and there’s always time to do teshuvah, whether she did it or not. She missed a chance to do more mitzvos.
zahavasdad: I dd not know. I did not know of Shira until this thread.August 3, 2016 2:23 pm at 2:23 pm #1164419
The murder of Shira Bakari was the reason this parade got so much press
Last year only about 5,000 people showed up and it probably would have been forgotten. However the murder caused 25,000 people to show up (More probably would have if security wasnt so tight)
For every person yelling Toeivah, 3 or 4 or more were yelling Lo Tirtzach back at themAugust 3, 2016 2:56 pm at 2:56 pm #1164420
Though zahavasdad is certainly incorrect, I am not sure ben levi is 100% correct either (where do you see that its the “same boat”?).
At issue here is the averah of chanifa (often translated as flattery) which coincidentally, has its source in this weeks parsha.
A classic example is the gemarah where chachamim told king agripas not to be sad (when he read the part in the torah that prohibited him from being king) and they responded “dont worry , you are our brother”. the gemarah says they were chayiv bnofsho.
Bottom line, chanifa is the implication to an ovrey averah that his actions are supported by you, or ok with the torah. It is an averah that some hold is yaharog v’al yavor (see rabeinu yona sharei tshuva) but even though we don’t pasken like that, rav moshe calls it a form of kefira (igros moshe orech chaim 2 #51)
so going to a gay parade or bar to be supportive of gays post orlando (as the OO did) is at the very least an aveirah and considered a form of kfeiraAugust 3, 2016 3:41 pm at 3:41 pm #1164421
From the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry:
“Clinicians should be aware that there is no evidence that sexual orientation can be altered through therapy, and that attempts to do so may be harmful. There is no empirical evidence adult homosexuality can be prevented if gender nonconforming children are influenced to be more gender conforming. Indeed, there is no medically valid basis for attempting to prevent homosexuality, which is not an illness. On the contrary, such efforts may encourage family rejection and undermine self-esteem, connectedness and caring, important protective factors against suicidal ideation and attempts. Given that there is no evidence that efforts to alter sexual orientation are effective, beneficial or necessary, and the possibility that they carry the risk of significant harm, such interventions are contraindicated.”
From the American Academy of Pediatrics:
“Therapy directed at specifically changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation.”
From the American College of Physicians:
“Available research does not support the use of reparative therapy as an effective method in the treatment of LGBT persons. Evidence shows that the practice may actually cause emotional or physical harm to LGBT individuals, particularly adolescents or young persons.”
From the American Psychiatric Association:
[the American Psychiatric Association]
From the National Association of Social Workers:
[P]roponents of reparative and conversion therapies, such as the most commonly cited group NARTH, claim that their processes are supported by scientific data; however, such scientific support is replete with confounded research methodologies. . . . [Reparative and conversion therapies] cannot and will not change sexual orientation.”
The above are all reputable professional organizations. Elon Karten, who Ben Levi cited, is a nobody, and his views run contrary to the research findings and conclusions of 99% of the rest of the medical community.
Basic common sense. Try it sometime.August 3, 2016 6:38 pm at 6:38 pm #1164422
Why oh why do you keep ignoring the crux of my posts.
Elon Karten does not record “views” he records facts.
He records the names of the people who rant the studies on reparative and conversion therapies, they were not “quacks” rather they were the most respected names in research.
This is a fact.
He records the methodologies used for these studies, they were the same used for many other accepted studies.
This is a fact.
He records the statements of all those when journals when he wished to submit the results of his graduate study, which was conducted following all the normal procedures.
The observable facts all prove to an inherent bias.
But I understand that we are not arguing on a level playing field since I have examined both sides while you are unwilling to do the same.August 3, 2016 9:21 pm at 9:21 pm #1164423
Ben Levi -“Jfem,
Why oh why do you keep ignoring the crux of my posts”
Simply because she’s wrong!
She’s also pro the gay agenda!
Here’s an article about why psychotherapy has changed their perspective about gays from Psychology Today:
It’s based on popular belief, not Psychological new knowledge!
Nothing to do with reparative and conversion therapy!
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) asked all members attending its convention to vote on whether they believed homosexuality to be a mental disorder. 5,854 psychiatrists voted to remove homosexuality from the DSM, and 3,810 to retain it.
The APA then compromised, removing homosexuality from the DSM but replacing it, in effect, with “sexual orientation disturbance” for people “in conflict with” their sexual orientation. Not until 1987 did homosexuality completely fall out of the DSM.”August 3, 2016 9:48 pm at 9:48 pm #1164424
I will repeat, he is a nobody. His “findings” contradict the entire rest of the medical community. There isn’t really any merit in “examining both sides” when on one side you have the weight of all the top names in research and scholarship, and on the other side you have one random guy with a Ph.D and a couple of his buddies.August 3, 2016 11:14 pm at 11:14 pm #1164425
Just out of curiosity, would you be as vocal with the antivax crowd for the same reasons?August 3, 2016 11:52 pm at 11:52 pm #1164426
You seem to be misunderstanding.
The number one study that proved such therapies work was the one done by Spitzer one of the foremost experts in conducting such studies.
It was Nationally published in a peer reviewed journal.
After years of intense pressure from certain groups he issued a retraction one with the editor of the Magazine refused to accept on the grounds that it did not demonstrate why the data was wrong all it implied was “he changed his mind”
Spitzer is not his Kartens friend, I doubt he even knew him.August 4, 2016 12:52 am at 12:52 am #1164427
Ben Levi -“Jfem -You seem to be misunderstanding”
Not at all! This is typical of the Gay agenda!
They won’t stop because they know that the other side will eventually throw in the towel!August 4, 2016 2:33 pm at 2:33 pm #1164429
mentsch1: Yes, absolutely. If there were an anti-vaccine thread on the Coffee Room (there may be, I haven’t checked, but certainly not an active one) I would be vocal there as well.August 4, 2016 2:47 pm at 2:47 pm #1164430
Ben Levi, I am not “misunderstanding” anything.
Spitzer’s study didn’t “prove” anything. Why not? Because it lacked scientific rigor. It didn’t test any specific therapy; it lumped together people who worked with licensed therapists with those who engaged in independent Bible study or other methods. So even if the research methods had been reliable– which they weren’t– the results wouldn’t have assessed the actual effectiveness of any particular therapy, because the “therapy” the subjects were getting was such a mixed bag. Furthermore, a large percentage of the research subjects were so-called ex-gay activists with clear political agendas. And to top it all off, the study was not peer-reviewed, as is standard, before being published. It’s no wonder Spitzer retracted.
Health, your above post makes no sense. I am aware that homosexuality was once included in the DSM, but you haven’t explained why that’s relevant.
I guess when you have no actual scientific evidence on your side, the only thing you can do is keep parroting “Gay agenda! Gay agenda!”
To quote Trump: Sad!August 4, 2016 3:15 pm at 3:15 pm #1164431
JF2 –Health, you need to tone it down, enough with the chanting please!August 4, 2016 4:33 pm at 4:33 pm #1164432
For a view that differs from that of the APA look up an organization called NARTH.August 4, 2016 4:52 pm at 4:52 pm #1164433
Mod – you must be 29.
I didn’t chant.
I was responding to her post.
Why didn’t you read it?
I read it every time you wrote it. After the fifth time writing “Gay agenda!” (some deleted some not) I got a headache. The format of the comment is a chant. If you would like to change it up a bit it might go through. Or you may be lucky enough to get a mod without a headache. – 29!!!!!August 4, 2016 4:58 pm at 4:58 pm #1164434
Mod – And btw if you want to make a comment to me on the main page of CR – write Mod so & so, not my name.
???August 4, 2016 5:54 pm at 5:54 pm #1164435
Mod – 29-“without a headache”
If you get headaches all the time, it might be hypertension.
Check it out!
Who said all the time? Who said I ever had one before reading your post?August 4, 2016 6:08 pm at 6:08 pm #1164436
JF2 -“I guess when you have no actual scientific evidence on your side, the only thing you can do is keep parroting “____ ___ _____ ___”.
I quoted from Psychology Today. That to my knowledge is a scientific mag.
“Health, your above post makes no sense. I am aware that homosexuality was once included in the DSM, but you haven’t explained why that’s relevant.”
If you bothered to read it, you’d know why that’s relevant to our discussion!August 4, 2016 6:16 pm at 6:16 pm #1164437
Are you even aware of what study I am referring to?August 4, 2016 8:34 pm at 8:34 pm #1164438
apushatayid, NARTH is a joke.
Health, you’re going to have to do better than that. Psychology Today is reputable, yes, but you didn’t explain the relevance of the article you quoted except to tell me that I should bother to read it. Well, I did read it and I’m not getting the context. Try again.
Ben Levi, yes I am.August 4, 2016 11:46 pm at 11:46 pm #1164439
JF2 -“Health, you’re going to have to do better than that. Psychology Today is reputable, yes, but you didn’t explain the relevance of the article you quoted except to tell me that I should bother to read it. Well, I did read it and I’m not getting the context. Try again”
I didn’t quote the whole article.
Go to Psychology Today:
“Hide and Seek
When Homosexuality Stopped Being a Mental Disorder
Not until 1987 did homosexuality completely fall out of the DSM.
Posted Sep 18, 2015
Neel Burton M.D.”
The gist of the article says – is why they don’t consider gays to be mentally ill anymore. It’s not because of scientific evidence, but because it’s Not PC anymore!August 5, 2016 1:40 am at 1:40 am #1164440
If you are actually aware of the study then you are getting your sources from somewhere that is slightly outdated.
1) Yes prior to publication there was an article in the Washington Post article about the study the APA criticized it and stated it was not unpublished and not peer reviewed however it subsequently was peer reviewed and published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, a leading publication in it’s field.
2) The point of Dr. Spitzer’s study was not to prove whether a specific form of therapy can work, it was to determine whether or not any therapy was possible.
3) the criticism was not that it lumped together those who studied with unlicensed therapists with licensed, rather that it included those who were treated by therapists with ” a strong anti-gay bias”, whatever that means.
4) The Dr. Spitzer under discussion is the same one who was the driving force behind the creation of the DSM as well as the removal of gay behavior as a psychiatric issue. He was one of the leading researchers in psychiatry and he used the same methodology that was is many of his other studies.
5) He tried to retract his study however the Editor of the Journal Dr. Kenneth Zucker Ph.D stated
” You can retract data incorrectly analyzed… You can retract an article of the data were falsified….As I understand it he’s just saying ten years later he wants to retract hi interpretation of the data. Well we’d probably have to retract hundreds of scientific papers with regard to interpretation and we don’t do that”.August 5, 2016 7:03 pm at 7:03 pm #1164441
Health, yes I see that article, but I still don’t see your point. The article gives the history of homosexuality and its classification. It was removed from the DSM when a majority of members of the APA voted to remove it. Wonderful. So what? There’s nothing in there about “PC” anything…
1) Yes, but even once it was peer reviewed, a large majority of the reviews were critical of the study and its methods…
2) Even so, the scattershot nature of the so-called “therapies” made the whole thing rather dubious, and Spitzer’s own conclusion at the time was that while therapies might sometimes work, they would not work in the vast majority of cases.
3) I didn’t say anything about unlicensed therapists. Only that while some participants were getting actual therapy from licensed therapists, many others were off on their own doing who knows what and calling it “therapy”. And it wasn’t just the therapists who had a political agenda, it was many of the participants themselves. And I’m sure you know very well the meaning of “anti-gay bias”.
4) Yes, I know who he is, but it doesn’t change the fact that this particular study was seriously flawed.
5) Google “how to ex an ex-gay study, Psychology Today” to see what Zucker really said and why.
6) You can nitpick all you want, but the bottom line is that conversion therapy has been completely discredited in the scientific research. All you have to argue against that is ONE single study with a checkered history– and that’s putting it kindly.August 5, 2016 10:51 pm at 10:51 pm #1164442
1) This was what you wrote
“And to top it all off, the study was not peer-reviewed, as is standard, before being published. It’s no wonder Spitzer retracted”.
As I wrote that is a completely false statement.
2) Spitzer actually stated he was “skeptic” as to whether therapy can work or not and the study convinced him it can according to the Washington Post article on his study this was because 66 percent of men and 44 percent of women actually reported a change as a result of the study, ( For comparisons sake read Dr. Meir Wikler’s intro to 10 minutes a day to a better marriage, the best marital therapies can only claim a success rate of perhaps 50%)
Again the point of the study was not to ascertain what the correct therapy is, it was to ascertain whether it was possible,
3)You wrote “It didn’t test any specific therapy; it lumped together people who worked with licensed therapists with those who engaged in independent Bible study or other methods”.
Again the point was to discover whether change was possible not what the correct course was so Spitzer (one of the most experienced researchers in his field) designed a study that di not focus on the methods rather on the before and after.
4) “And it wasn’t just the therapists who had a political agenda, it was many of the participants themselves. And I’m sure you know very well the meaning of “anti-gay bias”.
I don’t know what you determine to be a political agenda, yes many of the participants were those who wished to attempt to change what they considered their sexual orientation to be and yes that is a big reason why his study was attacked.
You do realize that anyone who undergoes such therapies by definition must wish to change their orientation?
And you do realize that by disqualifying such individuals from a study you are stating that it is impossible to determine if therapy works?
5) Yes Dr. Zucker also a prof in Canada practiced such therapies because he believed they worked and actually has written that they have worked
So in other words all Doctors who practice such therapies, who have experienced success at such therapies are disqualified.
And surprise surprise there is no proof that they work!August 7, 2016 5:42 am at 5:42 am #1164443
JF2 -“Health, yes I see that article, but I still don’t see your point. Wonderful. So what? There’s nothing in there about “PC” anything.”
From that article:
“The evolution of the status of homosexuality in the classifications of mental disorders highlights that concepts of mental disorder can be rapidly evolving social constructs that change as society changes.”
In other words:
“It’s not because of scientific evidence, but because it’s Not PC anymore!”August 7, 2016 2:14 pm at 2:14 pm #1164444
Is that how you have a discussion by simply saying the other side is a joke?
That’s not only intellectually dishonest is is childish.August 7, 2016 5:22 pm at 5:22 pm #1164445
[the American Psychiatric Association]
In 2009 NARTH responded to this with a 128 page document!
I brought down the beginning of the article:
“This document was prepared in response to certain statements and resolutions of the American
Psychological Association (APA) that are inaccurate and not grounded in science, in direct violation of
Advisory Committee, we feel obligated to inform both the scientific and lay communities about the
plethora of studies that lead to a singular conclusion: Homosexuality is not innate, immutable, or without
significant risk to medical, psychological, and relational health.
We wrote a reasonably comprehensive, historical review of more than 100 years of clinical and
research literature. The literature we reviewed includes older, less methodologically sophisticated stud-
ies as well as more recent, representative, and methodologically rigorous studies. We acknowledge in
advance the methodological limitations of the earlier studies, but include them because these earlier
reports for the most part met acceptable research and publication standards at the time they were written, and because their conclusions are supported by the most current, methodologically sound studies available.”August 9, 2016 2:15 pm at 2:15 pm #1164446
1) “This was what you wrote
‘And to top it all off, the study was not peer-reviewed, as is standard, before being published. It’s no wonder Spitzer retracted’.
As I wrote that is a completely false statement.”
No, it’s not “completely false.” It is in fact true that the study was NOT peer reviewed before its initial publication. Yes, it was peer-reviewed AFTERWARDS and was then re-published…not that that helps your argument much, because a majority of the reviews were critical.
2) and 3) Yes, I understand what the goal of the study was, but when you set standards that are vague and employ methods that are not controlled, and then collect your “results” from asking people to remember things that they felt several years ago…well, you’ve so many variables in so many different categories that it’s hard to take any conclusions seriously. Also, I’m not sure what marriage therapy has to do with this, it’s a completely different field.
4) I don’t believe that you don’t know the meaning of “political agenda”. We’re not just talking about people who want help to treat a condition. We’re talking about people who are activists, who oppose gay marriage on principle, who are participating in the study not just because they’re hoping to find successful treatment, but because they want to make a statement to the world. Of course those people are going to take advantage of already shoddy methods of measurement (the subjects’ own thoughts, emotions, and memories, which are highly subjective and unreliable to begin with) and manipulate them to fit the conclusions they want, for the sake of the broader political agenda.
5) No, Zucker didn’t say that the therapies work. Read that Psychology Today article.
I’ll say it again: if all you’ve got is ONE study, which has been both a) retracted and b) discredited by the entirety of the rest of the scientific world, you’re grasping at straws. You can’t just ignore broad scientific consensus by bleating “But there’s a study!” Guess what, one study isn’t absolute proof of anything. That’s why you need to have good research methods, and even then, you need to have independent corroborating studies as well. Those don’t exist. So we’re back to the status quo, which is that conversion therapy DOESN’T work.August 9, 2016 2:16 pm at 2:16 pm #1164447
apushatayid: You’re accusing the scientific establishment of being intellectually dishonest? In favor of a Christian organization masquerading as an academic institution, which you believe knows better?
That’s rich.August 9, 2016 2:18 pm at 2:18 pm #1164448
Health: So basically, your argument is that there’s a massive conspiracy going on.
I don’t buy that.August 9, 2016 2:36 pm at 2:36 pm #1164449
“You’re accusing the scientific establishment of being intellectually dishonest?”
So, an APA agenda item that gets roughly 60% of the yes votes and thereby adopts a position means the other 40% are intellectually dishonest if they disagree with the position? Many NARTH members are also members of the APA who happened to vote no.
Your argument that NARTH is a religious organization is as credible as me saying the APA is a homosexual conference because some of its higher ranking mmbers are openly gay.August 9, 2016 3:05 pm at 3:05 pm #1164450
JF2 -“Health: So basically, your argument is that there’s a massive conspiracy going on.”
The APA and others, changed their views on homosexuality & conversion therapy.
Like I wrote previously –
“It’s based on popular belief, not Psychological new knowledge!”August 9, 2016 9:26 pm at 9:26 pm #1164452
apushatayid, no, the other 40% weren’t being intellectually dishonest…in 1973 when the vote actually happened!
But decades later, after a great deal more scientific research has been done…well, to take that position today is a completely different story.August 9, 2016 9:31 pm at 9:31 pm #1164453
Health, what you’re essentially claiming is that the APA forced through a policy that contradicted the available scientific data at the time, because of wanting to conform to societal pressure (or, to use your term, because they felt a need to be “politically correct”). And then, when NARTH presented them with scientific research that contradicted their position, they stifled it. Because, again, they wanted to be “politically correct”, so they abandoned all usual rules of governance, scientific methods, etc etc in service of this political correctness.
What on earth do you call that, if not a conspiracy?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.