Ex-Gay Ministry Works Just Fine

[Woody]

Interesting article:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg19125584.900

Hello Snakelord,

Yes, I've read about studies regarding older brothers. The waters remain muddied on that subject because of the criteria for determining what a homosexual is, and both sides of the debate agree they are inconclusive.

Again, what is the definition of "homosexual", and what is the definition of "change" in a therapy they choose for themselves?

 

[SnakeLord]

what is the definition of "homosexual"

sexually attracted to members of your own sex.

Now let's be honest here Woody, according to you, everyone is seemingly having a hard time even knowing what homosexual means, and yet the minute "prophet yahweh" tells you he was once gay but now abstains from sex, you claim it proof positive of the existence of your specific space being. It's ludicrous.

I really don't need to say much because SW went to all the effort back on page 1, and you - dishonest, rude individual that you are - just started flinging insults at him. Ah well, such is life.

 

[KennyJC]

Careful SnakeLord, or he will put you on ignore

 

[SnakeLord]

Aye, then I'll have no religious fundies left to talk to. Whatever will I do?

 

[Woody]

sexually attracted to members of your own sex.

So the definition of homosexual is that simple is it?

So, SL tell me where you draw the line on the Kinsey Scale:

The scale is as follows:

Rating Description
0 Exclusively heterosexual
1 Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2 Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3 Equally heterosexual and homosexual
4 Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5 Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
6 Exclusively homosexual


Examples:
1) Under your definition a 1 is a homosexual. A bi-sexual therefore is homosexual.

2) It's not uncommon for some kids to have some homosexual experiences; then after they mature they aren't attracted anymore. Under Spitzer's analysys there was a sizable percentage of 12 year-olds that weren't sure about their sexual orientation. Under your definition, they are all homosexual because at some time in their life they were attracted to the same sex, and it's all genetic, therefore they are a homosexual by definition even though they aren't attracted now.

3) Then there are prisoners that would really prefer the opposite sex, but it isn't available, so they have sex with each other. They, by definition, are homosexual aren't they, though given the opportunity they would prefer the opposite sex? They are exclusively homosexual, because they only have sex with other men. Anyone that's been in prison can tell you it's quite common.

4) I remember this guy I used to work with a long time ago that liked to watch heterosexual porno flicks. He was married and had kids. While he was watching this guy came up and offered him a blow-job. He enjoyed the experience and even bragged about it. He said he'd like to do it again. Was he being homosexual?

5) If some guy likes getting blow-jobs regardless of whether it's a man or a woman doing it, is he a homosexual? Who is gay, the sucker, or both of them?

6) Then there is the case of the drag queen.The guy I mentioned in example #4 picked up a drag queen, and went through the make-out routine, unaware that it was a male. When he took the drag queen to his hotel room he found out otherwise and decided not to go through with it. He was attracted to a man disguised as a woman, hence he found extremely feminine men sexually attractive. Under your rubric, he was homosexual wasn't he?

7) I remember in boarding school, a faculty member was gay, and he'd invite teenaged boys in his apartment and show them playboy magazines to get them sexually aroused. Then he would finish it with oral sex. Were the teenage boys homosexual?

Now let's be honest here Woody, according to you, everyone is seemingly having a hard time even knowing what homosexual means, and yet the minute "prophet yahweh" tells you he was once gay but now abstains from sex, you claim it proof positive of the existence of your specific space being. It's ludicrous.

OK, since everyone is making such a BIG FUSS about prophet yahweh, I'll just go and delete it RIGHT NOW. Big deal.

Now you all have nothing else to say about that link. It's irrelevant anyway, just like your argument. That's how denial works -- pick the weakest point and write off the rest. Quite scientific of you all. Now how about the other dozens of links that have been provided? Will you deny that an ex-gay movement even exists? This should be quite ludicrous on your part.

I really don't need to say much because SW went to all the effort back on page 1, and you - dishonest, rude individual that you are - just started flinging insults at him. Ah well, such is life.

Well if he can't take it then he shouldn't dish it out, now should he? That's how I see it. Besides that he's your tag-team partner, so naturally you only see things his way.

 

[KennyJC]

Well if he can't take it then he shouldn't dish it out, now should he? That's how I see it.

Strange thing to say this... coming from Woody who puts people on ignore for disagreeing with him

 

[Cris]

So woody - what criteria does Christianity use so that it can condemn it?

 

[Woody]

So woody - what criteria does Christianity use so that it can condemn it?

The bible.

BTW, I saw your red-letter note to delete content, have I deleted enough? I can cut it back some more if you want me to. If you want to bar my membership to sciforums, then that's ok with me to.

 

[SnakeLord]

1) Under your definition a 1 is a homosexual. A bi-sexual therefore is homosexual.

Hate to tell you, but it wasn't my definition.

homo sexual = man sexual, (sexually attracted to members of the same sex).

2) It's not uncommon for some kids to have some homosexual experiences; then after they mature they aren't attracted anymore.

Most certainly. All the changes in the body confuse many youngsters.

Under your definition, they are all homosexual because at some time in their life they were attracted to the same sex, and it's all genetic

Under the definition, which certainly wasn't of my making, there is no mention whatsoever of genetics, nor was there any mention that once homosexual always homosexual.

therefore they are a homosexual by definition even though they aren't attracted now.

Well clearly not. Not attracted to members of the same sex = not homosexual. Duh.

3) Then there are prisoners that would really prefer the opposite sex, but it isn't available, so they have sex with each other. They, by definition, are homosexual aren't they

Yes and no. There are certainly those that are "attracted to members of the same sex" - and thus homosexual, and those that prove their superiority and dominance by sticking it to another man. Dogs do it all the time, (very often confusing owners that end up thinking they're gay). They're not gay, they're just showing their authority.

4) I remember this guy I used to work with a long time ago that liked to watch heterosexual porno flicks. He was married and had kids. While he was watching this guy came up and offered him a blow-job. He enjoyed the experience and even bragged about it. He said he'd like to do it again. Was he being homosexual?

It comes as no surprise to me to realise why you're as fucked up as you are. Every subject, every issue you tell us all a story about some guy you were friends with that got a blow job, or some gay guy at your boarding school that fucked all the other guys, or your grandma saying she never gave a blow job or some other thing that no normal sane person would even consider talking about and most likely would never even experience.

To answer your question, yes - if he was sexually attracted to that person of the same sex. If not, then no.. but I have yet to meet a heterosexual that would accept a blow job from another man. Do take note Woody that having a wife and kids does not specifically make you a heterosexual. Gay people can often try and take on a 'life of normality' generally from fear of retribution from people such as yourself. As for 'heterosexual porn flicks', it's well worth noting that they will contain dicks in them, and this man might well be getting turned on by the dicks and not the fanny.

5) If some guy likes getting blow-jobs regardless of whether it's a man or a woman doing it, is he a homosexual? Who is gay, the sucker, or both of them?

If they are sexually attracted to members of the same sex then yes.. they're gay. It doesn't matter who sucks and who takes, (unless you're Greek).

6) Then there is the case of the drag queen.The guy I mentioned in example #4 picked up a drag queen, and went through the make-out routine, unaware that it was a male. When he took the drag queen to his hotel room he found out otherwise and decided not to go through with it. He was attracted to a man disguised as a woman, hence he found extremely feminine men sexually attractive. Under your rubric, he was homosexual wasn't he?

If he thought the person in question was a woman? There are some very convincing shemales out there and so he would not be really at fault.

7) I remember in boarding school, a faculty member was gay, and he'd invite teenaged boys in his apartment and show them playboy magazines to get them sexually aroused. Then he would finish it with oral sex. Were the teenage boys homosexual?

Was it choice or not? Were the boys sexually attracted to this person of the same sex? These are important questions Woody.

----

Now you all have nothing else to say about that link. It's irrelevant anyway, just like your argument.

If prophet yahweh is irrelevant, why did you include his crap as "proof positive" of the existence of your god?

That's how denial works -- pick the weakest point and write off the rest. Quite scientific of you all.

I'm sorry, if you think "science" is going to sit idly by and accept the word of prophet yahweh, then you don't know what science is.

Will you deny that an ex-gay movement even exists? This should be quite ludicrous on your part.

But here is where SW's statements and data come into play. Such as:

(a) results were based on restricted, self-selected samples that represent a socially stigmatized population and thus capitalized on participants’ vested interests to manage selfimpressions, promote their values and lifestyles, overreport successes, and underreport failures;

(b) outcomes are ambiguous because participants’ idiosyncratic conceptualizations of sexual orientation, identity, attraction, and desire were not analyzed and research variables were not well conceptualized;

(c) some studies neglected to use fantasy and arousal to indicate sexual orientation;

(d) some results were based on therapists’ subjective impressions;

(e) comparison or control groups were not used;

(f) long-term, objective outcome results are unavailable; and

(g) dynamic factors, such as time, maturation, and contextual factors, were not analyzed to account for participants’ changes in sexuality and identity development process. Thus, the research base that supports the effectiveness of sexual reorientation is void of systematic, well-established methodologies that are needed to obtain valid scientific results (Wainberg et al., 2003).

Of the 87% of the sample they studied (a full 176 individuals) reported that they failed to 'convert' back to a heterosexual identity. Only 13% perceived themselves as successful. Of that 13% (26 individuals), 6 refused to put a self-label on their sexual identity and 3 of this 6 were celibate!

And so on. Take into account that SW took the time and effort to provide proper sources to back up what he had said. All you have provided is the word of prophet yahweh. That is totally scientific, as you must clearly understand and respect given your earlier statements concerning science? What you have done is completely neglected science, (something you seemingly view with distaste), to try and back up an assertion that you're seemingly having a hard time doing even without the help of science.

Well if he can't take it then he shouldn't dish it out, now should he?

I don't get what you're trying to say. SW killed you. That is the fact in this matter.

Besides that he's your tag-team partner, so naturally you only see things his way.

Utter nonsense. What you, (as a supposed understander of science), must respect is that he has the upper hand in this case simply because he provided sources better than prophet yahweh - a completely scientific thing for him to do. You on the other hand cursed everyone for being "unscientific", which shows outright your lack of understanding of what science is, all because good old prophet yahweh said nothing of value.

Needless to say, SW doesn't need a tag team partner.

 

[Woody]

But here is where SW's statements and data come into play. Such as:

(a) results were based on restricted, self-selected samples that represent a socially stigmatized population and thus capitalized on participants’ vested interests to manage selfimpressions, promote their values and lifestyles, overreport successes, and underreport failures;

False: As Spitzer stated at the very beginning of his study, he was testing the hypothesis that homosexuality can not be changed. All it takes is one subject that violates the hypotheis, and it has been disproved. Sampling is not unimportant when you are trying to prove something exists. Mutually exclusive events are very logically proven this way: Hypothesis: once homosexual, never heterosexual. One data point otherwise disproves the hypothesis. Quite logical. Pure and simple logic when you remove political emotions from the equation.

(b) outcomes are ambiguous because participants’ idiosyncratic conceptualizations of sexual orientation, identity, attraction, and desire were not analyzed and research variables were not well conceptualized;

THe problem lies in definitions: What is a male attraction and what is a female attraction? Are they based on sterotypes of what a male and a female are supposed to be. Example: a male is attracted to drag queens. Example: Is a transgendered person a male or a female? Are they homosexual after they are transgendered?

(c) some studies neglected to use fantasy and arousal to indicate sexual orientation;

Not Spizer's study. This area was examined very closely and the results are quite convincing.

(d) some results were based on therapists’ subjective impressions;

Not Spitzer's. The questions were selected before hand and the multiple choice answers catalogued before hand.

(e) comparison or control groups were not used;

As explained before by Spitzer himself, this is a totally unneeded and irrelevant step. It would be relevant if you were trying to prove the percentage effectiveness of reparative therapy, but that was not the purpose of his study.

(f) long-term, objective outcome results are unavailable; and

As Spitzer said in his study, no-one was included if they had less than 5 years since the treatment. So is ten to twenty years long enough for you?

(g) dynamic factors, such as time, maturation, and contextual factors, were not analyzed to account for participants’ changes in sexuality and identity development process. Thus, the research base that supports the effectiveness of sexual reorientation is void of systematic, well-established methodologies that are needed to obtain valid scientific results (Wainberg et al., 2003). ”

So in other words the homosexual community even disagrees on the immutability of homosexual orientation, "gay gene" predestination, whatever.

Hence Spitzer's study wasn't even needed to start with.

 

[SnakeLord]

False: As Spitzer stated at the very beginning of his study, he was testing the hypothesis that homosexuality can not be changed.

87% reported a failure, 9% were celibate or refused to put a label on their sexual identity and the who is to say, (from the information gathered), that the remaining 17 were actually homosexual? As you yourself have stated, many teenagers etc go through 'strange moments' where body chemicals are in chaos.

Where is the data to show that the subjects had been homosexual, (sexually attracted to members of the same sex), for years if not decades and no longer had sexual attraction to members of the same sex? Perhaps they could control those urges to stop them from engaging in sexual activity with members of the same sex, but where is the data to show they just no longer had any sexual feelings towards members of the same sex?

As SW pointed out, even Spitzer didn't seem to know:

"Are the participants’ self-reports of change, by-and large, credible or are they biased because of self-deception, exaggeration, or even lying?"

Hypothesis: once homosexual, never heterosexual.

You yourself knows this is false. There are many teenagers that go through contradicting feelings during and after times of puberty.

THe problem lies in definitions: What is a male attraction and what is a female attraction? Are they based on sterotypes of what a male and a female are supposed to be. Example: a male is attracted to drag queens.

You're reaching in the hope that it will delay your inevitable failure. However, I will agree for now and say that unfortunately such data was not provided. How did Spitzer determine who was or wasn't actually really homosexual?

As SW points out:

"What!? 60!? So his cut-off for "gay" is someone who thinks they're attracted to the same sex more often than not? Where is the control for the anxiety driven, depressed man or woman that is simply scared of their androgenous thoughts and occasional curiosity about the same sex? Why didn't Spitzer study convergents who were completely homosexual?"

It seems anyone would do that stated they had at some time looked upon a member of the same sex with sexual attraction. As you might be aware by now, that includes a lot of teenagers, (current statistics suggest 60%). It seems he has picked a majority that confess to being just over half gay. What is half gay anyway?

As explained before by Spitzer himself, this is a totally unneeded and irrelevant step.

I'm sorry, you take a bunch of "half gays" and then when these people claim they're not so "half" anymore you call it a success? Please.

As Spitzer said in his study, no-one was included if they had less than 5 years since the treatment. So is ten to twenty years long enough for you?

So 5 years down the line you're at home with a woman and someone comes and asks you if you're still half gay? Interesting.

So in other words the homosexual community even disagrees on the immutability of homosexual orientation, "gay gene" predestination, whatever.

Perhaps not the homosexual community, but the bunch of half gays that Spitzer decided to 'test'.

 

[SkinWalker]

The problem with Woody's interpretation of the results of Spitzer, which I've seen no evidence that he's actually read, is that he's willing to accept the anecdotal testimony recorded, perhaps even concocted, by the pseudoscience organizations that purport to 'convert' gays 'back to heterosexual' (as if they were heterosexual to begin with).

Woody, would rather ignore empiricism and methods used to obtain data and skip scientific methodology altogether, since it's easier for him to find data if he first forms a conclusion and then only looks at that data, however flawed, which supports the conclusion.

With regard to his inclusion of "prophet yahweh," this is his major flaw: Woody is willing to accept anyone's testimony that supports his conclusion without regard to their credibility or genuineness. He's now willing to toss out the prophet yahweh testimony since this "prophet's" credibility has been seriously questioned to the point that even Woody cannot accept. The problem is that the same holds for each and every one of his "testimonies." They do not become evidence. They are believers (p. yahweh just believes a little too much for Woody... i.e. UFOs & aliens) supporting their beliefs, and dismissed out of hand.

That leaves Woody only with the study he probably hasn't even read: Spitzer. And Spitzer did, indeed, discover that gays can at least appear to change sexual orientation. Sptizer's study was not longitudinal nor did it thoroughly explore the notion that motivations for wanting change may override their true sexual identity.

If a right-handed person has his hand amputated, he's still right-handed; but he learns to function with his left out of necessity. The same, according to Spitzer's research is true for gays that need to "become" heterosexual. If they wish to remain a part of their social groups and accepted by their cults or families, they learn to act as a heterosexual. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE in the Spitzer study that shows these individuals actually change their orientation. Sptizer, himself, reveals that 75% of his "subjects" were referred by religious cult organizations (p. 406) and their data was self-reported! In other words, the study was biased from the start! Spitzer began with noble intentions, but ended up with a worthless study after all!

So, here's what the reader of this thread is left with:

Woody, a homophobic bigot who has an overwhelming desire to deride homosexuality in public forum using pseudoscience (NARTH et al) and flawed science (Spitzer).

The real topic of this thread is Why does Woody Hate gays?

Does he hope Spitzer was right? That gays can change? Did Woody have a dream about playing the skin flute one night and has a fear that he'll start redecorating the house?

 

[Woody]

SL said:

87% reported a failure

A failure to what? In whose words? Can you show me Spitzer's quote to that effect?

Spitzer's Report, p9:

Contrary to conventional wisdom, some highly motivated individuals, using a variety of change efforts, can make substantial change in multiple indicators of sexual orientation and acheive good heterosexual funtioning.

"Complete change - which is generally considered an unrealistic goal in psychotherapy - is uncommon, particularly in male subjects.

SL, if you are the therapist you claim to be, it seems you would realize that 100% change is not realistic for any type of therapy.

Nearly all of the patients were happy they went through the therapy and viewed it as a success.

Where is the data to show that the subjects had been homosexual, (sexually attracted to members of the same sex), for years if not decades and no longer had sexual attraction to members of the same sex? Perhaps they could control those urges to stop them from engaging in sexual activity with members of the same sex, but where is the data to show they just no longer had any sexual feelings towards members of the same sex?

As SW pointed out, even Spitzer didn't seem to know:

Spitzer went by their own statements Spitzer's survey p2.

The basic idea is simple. Study the self-reported experiences that claim to have acheived a change from homosexual to heterosexual attraction that has lasted at least 5 years.

SL:

"Are the participants’ self-reports of change, by-and large, credible or are they biased because of self-deception, exaggeration, or even lying?"

Spiter, p4

Three quarters of the men and half the women in the study were heterosexually married.

Spitzer, p5

Indeed, the primary motivation for participating in the study for almost all the subjects was their interest in providing evidence from their own experience that homosexuality can be changed and offer hope to others.

A liberal's worst nightmare -- it's called hope.

“ Hypothesis: once homosexual, never heterosexual. ”

You yourself knows this is false. There are many teenagers that go through contradicting feelings during and after times of puberty.

Don't preach to me what I already know, tell your liberal brethren.

You're reaching in the hope that it will delay your inevitable failure. However, I will agree for now and say that unfortunately such data was not provided. How did Spitzer determine who was or wasn't actually really homosexual?

Actually he used a modified version of the Kinsey scale, as previously noted. As I said before, without a consistent, absolute definition of the state of nature, it's impossible to construct a bullet-proof scientific conclusion. In my experince in engineering, a lack of consistent definitions results in circular arguments and ambiguous, incongruous conclusions. As they say, garbage in garbage out. A definition is an input.


SW said:

"What!? 60!? So his cut-off for "gay" is someone who thinks they're attracted to the same sex more often than not? Where is the control for the anxiety driven, depressed man or woman that is simply scared of their androgenous thoughts and occasional curiosity about the same sex? Why didn't Spitzer study convergents who were completely homosexual?"

Some of them were. The most remarkable transformations were among the lesbians.

SL :

It seems anyone would do that stated they had at some time looked upon a member of the same sex with sexual attraction. As you might be aware by now, that includes a lot of teenagers, (current statistics suggest 60%). It seems he has picked a majority that confess to being just over half gay. What is half gay anyway?

Well you said yourself that any percentage of same sex attraction deemd one a homosexual. Is there such a thing as half-gay?

SL:

I'm sorry, you take a bunch of "half gays" and then when these people claim they're not so "half" anymore you call it a success? Please.

Please what -- read the report? Here's what it says:

How often were the subjects able to achieve good heterosexual functioning?
WE defined this as requiring: last year in a loving heterosexual relationship. Satisfaction from the emotional relationship with their partner, at least 7+ (1-10 scale where 10 is as good as it can be and 1 is as bad as it can be). Heterosexual sex at least monthly. Physical satisfaction from heterosexual sex at least 7+ (the same 1-10 scale). Never or rarely (<20%) think of same sex during heterosexual sex. This was the case for 66% of the males and 44% of the females.

Good heterosexual functioning in 33 males who before change efforts were extreme on the homosexual indicators -- had no opposite sex attraction in teens year, never had heterosexual sex in their life, no heterosexual mastabotory fantasies, 95+ on the modified Kensey scale. In these 33 males, good heterosexual functioning was acheived by 67% of these subjects, much to our surprise.

SL:

Perhaps not the homosexual community, but the bunch of half gays that Spitzer decided to 'test'.

Except for the 33 I just pointed out in Spitzer's report. You obviously haven't even looked at it because it crushes your liberal walls of willful ignorance and self-fulfilling bliss.

 

[Woody]

SW said:

The real topic of this thread is Why does Woody Hate gays?

Those are your words not mine.

Actually I was thinking of this title:

Why does SkinWalker hate ex-gays and wish they didn't exist?

Why does he hate their happiness? With a puke-bag liberal around who needs a devil? Many of them are in liberal journalism. Buy their newspaper with a barf-bag:

With regard to his inclusion of "prophet yahweh," this is his major flaw: Woody is willing to accept anyone's testimony that supports his conclusion without regard to their credibility or genuineness.

What are you talking about? Yahweh Smaweh. Your favorite red herring is gone. Find another pacifier.

There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE in the Spitzer study that shows these individuals actually change their orientation.

Pure Bullshit.

Sptizer, himself, reveals that 75% of his "subjects" were referred by religious cult organizations (p. 406) and their data was self-reported! In other words, the study was biased from the start!

So what do you propose, a lie detector test? Religious cult organizations have the power you don't have, and the ex-gays made their own choice about changing.

Spitzer began with noble intentions, but ended up with a worthless study after all!

Not the kind of results you wanted to see anyway.

 

[SkinWalker]

First you'd have to demonstrate that "ex-gays" exist. There is no empirical evidence to support this. The only thing Spitzer shows is that a sample of people, 75% of which is comprised of individuals referred by religious cults looking for validation of their claims, can at least pretend to be heterosexual to avoid homophobic attitudes of their social groups and families.

Another major fallacy that Woody employs is the association of "liberals" with that with which he disagrees. This fallacy is a multi-leveled non sequitur that begins with the belief that being "liberal" or "conservative" are somehow bad or wrong (I realize that Woody would probably never identify the label of "conservative" as "bad" or "wrong," but there are those that would, which is why I include it as an example of this fallacy); second, the fallacy includes the notion that because someone disagrees with his views (which he undoubtedly considers to be conservative) that they must, therefore, be "liberal;" also fallacious, is the pretense that being aligned with the conservative positions of the so-called religious right implies that he cannot be wrong; finally, this fallacy concludes with the idea that use of a perceived derisive term somehow validates his arguments, lending credibility to his implied "conservatism."

Woody's premise and intent throughout this thread has been one of deception and bigotry, as I demonstrated in an earlier thread, but some good has come from it.

We have a good exercise in critical thought displayed, with reasoned arguments (mine, I hope) applied in response to pseudoscience (Woody's arguments). Many of the key points I made, citing quantitative sources, were successfully rebuked by Woody at any time. Woody relied on the the bias of "testimony" (anecdotal accounts) provided by the psuedoscientific organizations (NARTH et al) themselves rather than looking for empirical evidence. The one study he eventually cited was the one I gave him (doing his homework for him), which turned out to be seriously flawed in terms of providing useful data in supporting the psuedoscientific claim that "conversion therapy" is a valid treatment.

The real nature of rants like Woody's, which disguise themselves as threads looking for serious discussion, is to allow the OP a place to practice their debate skills or attempt to find a venue to proselytize his cult beliefs. The very fact that many of the criticisms of the premises and assumptions that were presented here go unanswered are evidence that the goal isn't discussion or debate on a critical level or inquiry on an academic one. The real goal is to perfect and further the division that exists between religious nutters and secular society (reminder: "secular" doesn't mean atheist or lacking in spirituality). This point is evidenced by Woody's continued interjection of "liberal" in his attempts at derision as a means of creating a divide. The irony is that he wields that label as if it were 1) a bad thing; 2) a rigid position that precludes the individual from ever having "conservative" opinions.

In short, Woody's fallacious arguments demonstrate how to present oneself as both ignorant and credulous.

 

[Woody]

First you'd have to demonstrate that "ex-gays" exist. There is no empirical evidence to support this. The only thing Spitzer shows is that a sample of people, 75% of which is comprised of individuals referred by religious cults looking for validation of their claims, can at least pretend to be heterosexual to avoid homophobic attitudes of their social groups and families.

Ex-gay: Formerly homosexual, now married heterosexually, and very fulfilled in that marriage both emotionally and sexually. That's a pretty good start isn't it? It was Spitzer's idea anyway.

 

[SnakeLord]

SL, if you are the therapist you claim to be, it seems you would realize that 100% change is not realistic for any type of therapy.

I can live with that. Instead I ask you to show me 50%.. nah, fuck it, 30%.. 20%.. 10%? How about 5%? Please, provide exact figures.

Nearly all of the patients were happy they went through the therapy and viewed it as a success.

All my patients are "happy" they went through therapy, even when they don't know why they're in therapy.

A liberal's worst nightmare -- it's called hope.

While 'liberal' means very little to an Englishman, I can only say that "hope" is not by any means a nightmare. Indeed every single weekend I "hope" I win the lottery.

Don't preach to me what I already know

Come on Woody.. the guy that has felt it his duty to preach continually during his stay here - to tell others what's right and wrong, what's true or not.. and you have the audacity to try and "preach" to others what they should "preach" or not? I would say: "don't be a hypocrite my friend", but you aint my friend.

As I said before, without a consistent, absolute definition of the state of nature, it's impossible to construct a bullet-proof scientific conclusion.

There goes Spitzer. Come now Woody, you know that "a lack of consistent definitions results in circular arguments and ambiguous, incongruous conclusions."

Given that you define homosexual as having no acceptable definition, the only plausible outcome, (given your statement), is that we're left with circular arguments and ambiguous, incongruous conclusions. If, like the rest of us, Spitzer cannot define what a homosexual is, what merit would his study have?

As they say Woody, garbage in, garbage out.

The most remarkable transformations were among the lesbians.

Nothing remarkable about it. Still, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. What was remarkable about it?

Well you said yourself that any percentage of same sex attraction deemd one a homosexual.

But now you're being dishonest, given the context. I did not say that a teenager with attraction to members of the same sex will always have attraction to members of the same sex. I've already stated this quite clearly.

Except for the 33 I just pointed out in Spitzer's report

33. I am impressed. So now please.. tell me what those 33 were thinking or actually feeling. Can't do it, can you?

You obviously haven't even looked at it because it crushes your liberal walls of willful ignorance and self-fulfilling bliss.

What gibberish. I'm being told about crushing from a man who justifies his gods and his own hatred of homosexuals based upon the dodgy conclusions of 33 people and prophet yahweh - who then dares tell the world: "You're being unscientific".

 

[SkinWalker]

Ex-gay: Formerly homosexual, now married heterosexually, and very fulfilled in that marriage both emotionally and sexually. That's a pretty good start isn't it? It was Spitzer's idea anyway.

That's like saying "formerly European" now Asian. Nigel might now have a Japanese passport, speak Japanese, and take his shoes off at the door...

Also, Sptizer absolutely did not demonstrate (nor has any other study) that the "ex-gay" is now emotionally and sexually fulfilled in a heterosexual relationship. Indeed, at least two of the citations I provided demonstrated the obverse of this expectation in a large percentage of the "converted."

 

[SkinWalker]

What are you talking about? Yahweh Smaweh. Your favorite red herring is gone. Find another pacifier.

Just because you deleted it doesn't mean it didn't exist. And it was hardly a "red herring." Your inclusion of a self described prophet of god who sends him UFOs when he calls them (which turned out to be weather balloons), is evidence of your credulous nature and willingness to accept whatever anecdote supports your conclusion, regardless of its source. At the very least, its evidence that you aren't willing to consider the source of supporting anecdotes as long as they support your conclusions.

There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE in the Spitzer study that shows these individuals actually change their orientation.

Pure Bullshit.

Really? What was the evidence? Quote the line that demonstrated they actually changed their orientations and didn't just appear to change them.

So what do you propose, a lie detector test? Religious cult organizations have the power you don't have, and the ex-gays made their own choice about changing.

I propose an unbiased study comprised of a more diverse cross-section of society, not one heavily weighted with subjects referred by an organization with a vested interest in showing results. In fact, I propose an unbiased and critical look at these organizations themselves to see what their actual results are. To date, all we have are their self-reported results. Which is why groups like NARTH are pseudoscientifically based frauds against society.

Not the kind of results you wanted to see anyway.

You couldn't be more right. I want results that are unbiased that produce genuine data, not data contrived from the very organizations that stand to profit from favorable results.

 

[Woody]

Just because you deleted it doesn't mean it didn't exist. And it was hardly a "red herring." Your inclusion of a self described prophet of god who sends him UFOs when he calls them (which turned out to be weather balloons), is evidence of your credulous nature and willingness to accept whatever anecdote supports your conclusion, regardless of its source. At the very least, its evidence that you aren't willing to consider the source of supporting anecdotes as long as they support your conclusions.

What about the other subjects, especially those in public positions for the ex-gay movement? Do you just write them off as apparitions and UFOs?

Really? What was the evidence? Quote the line that demonstrated they actually changed their orientations and didn't just appear to change them.

The evidence in the study has already been provided. The measures for sexual orientation were in the area of sexual fantasies during masturbation, actual sexual relations, sexual fantasies during sexual intercourse, and the frequency of hetero v.s homosexual incidences for these measures. Do you have better measures than these? Let's hear it. Go ahead and show up Dr. Spitzer, a PHD psychiatrist, MD, and fellow for the APA.

I propose an unbiased study comprised of a more diverse cross-section of society, not one heavily weighted with subjects referred by an organization with a vested interest in showing results. In fact, I propose an unbiased and critical look at these organizations themselves to see what their actual results are. To date, all we have are their self-reported results. Which is why groups like NARTH are pseudoscientifically based frauds against society.

As Spitzer himself said, you or anyone else will have great difficulty putting together this kind of database.

What is the purpose of your study? The purpose of Spitzer's study was to show that homosexual behavior and the cause of it can be altered, like many other behaviors and their cause. The patients make the choice whether to change or not to change -- it is not forced on them.

According to Robert Spitzer's Interview page 5

Spitzer was asked about sexual re-orientation therapy: "What about the issue of the American Psychiatric Association to make the offering for the treatment of change unethical?"

Dr. Spitzer's response was:

I think this is absurd. It is ridiculous. Speaking to these people they clearly benefited from the therapy. To say that this is unethical, I think that is ridiculous.

SW, I think you are a ridiculous fraud against society.

You couldn't be more right. I want results that are unbiased that produce genuine data, not data contrived from the very organizations that stand to profit from favorable results.

Spitzer produced the data. Are you saying he's a cheat? He wanted to see if re-orientation could happen. Are you saying it did not happen and that Spitzer lied about the ability to re-orient?

BTW, I am joining the ex-gay forum to talk to some of these people myself. I really doubt someone can remain married just to make their families and friends happy about their "ex-gayness." Think about it. If you aren't happy in a marriage, you can't just fake it forever. Sooner or later your spouse knows what's up, and it will not be a fulfilling relationship for either one of you. A fake marriage just doesn't work, not in this day and time with the divorce rate topping 50%.

A fake marriage to fool family and friends about your ex-gayness would make a great plot for a soap opera.