Homosexuality is Against Nature
-
From what I gather, Atobe has valid moral reasons for not allowing gay marriages to go ahead and has backed them up. PRP seems to be more intent on trolling.
So far, Earthlings seems to have held his nerve well. Coming out of the closet has never been easy. -
maybe thats because he's ignoring the fact that gender and sexuality are 2 different things. There are many males who want to have SRS even though they are sexually attracted to females. The problem I feel is that there are some men who are actually gay and not transgender, but they get confused about that and think they are TG, which results in them going thru SRS when they are not absolutely sure that is what they want. SRS is a serious option that shouldn't be undertaken lightly, but instead of discouragement, what should be done is to ensure that a person seeking SRS is absolutely sure he or she wants it. In any case, John Hopkins is not the best place or only place to get SRS. There are many other places that are better place to offer SRS and their opinion are just one small drop in a sea of opposite opinions.Originally posted by Honeybunz:Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist Urges
End To Sexual Reassignment Surgery
December 2, 2004 - Dr. Paul McHugh, University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, urges that psychiatrists put an end to sexual reassignment surgery (SRS) for individuals with gender identity confusion.
McHugh's remarks were published in the November, 2004, issue of First Things. Writing in "Surgical Sex," the professor notes that Johns Hopkins University was a pioneer in SRS beginning in the early 1970s. The prevailing theory at the time was that while sex was genetically determined at birth, the concept of gender was culturally shaped and malleable and that being female or male were interchangeable.
Dr. McHugh became psychiatrist-in-chief at the university in 1975 and decided that it would be useful to have follow-up studies on individuals who had undergone SRS at the facility. He wanted to test the claim that men who had undergone SRS had found a resolution for their general psychological problems and wanted to see if male infants with ambiguous genitalia who were raised as girls could easily settle into the female identity chosen for them by the surgeons.
To accomplish these two goals, he encouraged a fellow psychiatrist, Jon Meyer, to follow up on those having sex change operations. He found that most of the patients were content and only a few regretted it, but their psychological condition was little changed.
A study of similar subjects at Clark Institute in Toronto had found that many of these men described themselves as lesbians to psychiatrists because they were sexually attracted to women. "... I concluded that to provide a surgical alteration to the body of these unfortunate people was to collaborate with a mental disorder rather than to treat it," said McHugh.
Another psychiatrist, William G. Reiner, conducted follow-up studies on boys who were raised as girls. Reiner found that these re-engineered males were almost universally uncomfortable with the female role assigned them and many wished to revert to male status once they discovered the truth about themselves. Reiner's findings were published in the January 22, 2004 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.
Dr. McHugh says that his research led Johns Hopkins to stop offering SRS for its patients, "... much, I'm glad to say, to the relief of several of our plastic surgeons who had previously been commandeered to carry out the procedures." He observes: "Having looked at the Reiner and Meyer studies, we in the Johns Hopkins Psychiatry Department eventually concluded that human sexual identity is mostly built into our constitution by the genes we inherit and the embryogenesis we undergo."
McHugh says "I have witnessed a great deal of damage from sex-reassignment. The children transformed from their male constitution into female roles suffered prolonged distress and misery as they sensed their natural attitudes. ... We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it."
He urges that psychiatrists discourage individuals from seeking sexual reassignment surgery.
Im curious actually. I get the feeling u, honeybunz would really just want the whole world to conform to your views based on your religion to prove yourself right? -
i have to agree with this observationOriginally posted by iveco:From what I gather, Atobe has valid moral reasons for not allowing gay marriages to go ahead and has backed them up. PRP seems to be more intent on trolling. -
Originally posted by Honeybunz:
1) Homosexuals are not transgenders.. Heng just educated me last week that transgenders should be separated from transexuals too..
Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist Urges
End To Sexual Reassignment Surgery
December 2, 2004 - Dr. Paul McHugh, University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, urges that psychiatrists put an end to sexual reassignment surgery (SRS) for individuals with gender identity confusion.
McHugh's remarks were published in the November, 2004, issue of First Things. Writing in "Surgical Sex," the professor notes that Johns Hopkins University was a pioneer in SRS beginning in the early 1970s. The prevailing theory at the time was that while sex was genetically determined at birth, the concept of gender was culturally shaped and malleable and that being female or male were interchangeable.
Dr. McHugh became psychiatrist-in-chief at the university in 1975 and decided that it would be useful to have follow-up studies on individuals who had undergone SRS at the facility. He wanted to test the claim that men who had undergone SRS had found a resolution for their general psychological problems and wanted to see if male infants with ambiguous genitalia who were raised as girls could easily settle into the female identity chosen for them by the surgeons.
To accomplish these two goals, he encouraged a fellow psychiatrist, Jon Meyer, to follow up on those having sex change operations. He found that most of the patients were content and only a few regretted it, but their psychological condition was little changed.
A study of similar subjects at Clark Institute in Toronto had found that many of these men described themselves as lesbians to psychiatrists because they were sexually attracted to women. "... I concluded that to provide a surgical alteration to the body of these unfortunate people was to collaborate with a mental disorder rather than to treat it," said McHugh.
Another psychiatrist, William G. Reiner, conducted follow-up studies on boys who were raised as girls. Reiner found that these re-engineered males were almost universally uncomfortable with the female role assigned them and many wished to revert to male status once they discovered the truth about themselves. Reiner's findings were published in the January 22, 2004 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.
Dr. McHugh says that his research led Johns Hopkins to stop offering SRS for its patients, "... much, I'm glad to say, to the relief of several of our plastic surgeons who had previously been commandeered to carry out the procedures." He observes: "[b]Having looked at the Reiner and Meyer studies, we in the Johns Hopkins Psychiatry Department eventually concluded that human sexual identity is mostly built into our constitution by the genes we inherit and the embryogenesis we undergo."
McHugh says "I have witnessed a great deal of damage from sex-reassignment. The children transformed from their male constitution into female roles suffered prolonged distress and misery as they sensed their natural attitudes. ... We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it."
He urges that psychiatrists discourage individuals from seeking sexual reassignment surgery.
[/b]
See the complexity of sexuality here?
Homosexuals are consistent between their physical gender and mental gender.. transgenders/transexuals believe mentally that they are of the opposite sex, but the physical traits tell them a different story..
2) This article pointed out the possible danger of SRS.. I do not wish to comment cause I have not done too much research in this area.. Maybe others might want to give it a try..
3) However, thanks for citing another credible source that human sexuality is determined by 1) Genetics and 2) Embryogenesis.. Both factors belong to the "nature" camp! Which coincide with all other scientific research to date.. -
This is found in washington post.. A good critique of reparative therapy, including those offered by NARTH:Originally posted by Honeybunz:
washingtonpost.com
Vowing to Set the World Straight
Proponents of Reparative Therapy Say They Can Help Gay Patients
Become Heterosexual. Experts Call That a Prescription for Harm
By Sandra G. Boodman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 16, 2005; HE01
Nicholas Cavnar said he tried everything he could think of in his 30-
year quest to become heterosexual. He spent years in therapy, paying
thousands of dollars for treatment designed to overcome his
homosexuality. He faithfully attended meetings of Christian self-help
groups for "strugglers." He married and fathered three children, a
metamorphosis featured on the cover of a Catholic magazine.
Yet every day, the 54-year-old Washington publishing executive
recalled, he had to suppress his deepest feelings about who he really
was -- emotions he thought he had left behind at 20 when, to the
delight of his devout family, he abruptly renounced his openly gay
life in San Francisco.
Three years ago, Cavnar said, after soul-searching prompted by the
Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, he decided his days of "white-knuckling
it" were over. "I told my wife I couldn't not be gay anymore,"
recalled Cavnar. His biggest regret, he said, was the devastating
impact ending their 26-year marriage had on the woman who had
struggled with him.
Cavnar's odyssey -- from gay to ex-gay to ex-ex-gay -- is
inextricably linked to his long involvement in reparative therapy, a
controversial form of psychotherapy aimed at making gays straight.
While its supporters cite success stories from their clinical
practices as well as a recent and much debated study showing that
conversion therapy can work, the treatment is opposed by virtually
every medical and mental health organization, including the American
Medical Association, the U.S. Surgeon General and the American
Psychiatric Association (APA), which removed homosexuality from its
list of mental disorders in 1973.
Until the early 1990s the treatment, also known as reorientation
therapy, was largely relegated to religious groups or to the fringes
of mental health. Mainstream therapists have been taught to help
patients distressed about their homosexuality work toward self-
acceptance, to overcome the internalized homophobia thought to be the
cause of much emotional turmoil.
Reparative therapists reject the views held by an overwhelming
majority of mental health practitioners. They regard homosexuality as
a pathological preference forged in the crucible of a troubled
childhood and not, as most scientists believe, an inborn orientation
significantly influenced by biological factors such as genetics and
exposure to hormones in the womb.
"I don't think sexual orientation is genetically determined, but like
a lot of preferences we have in life is a complicated and
idiosyncratic mix of temperament and experience," said Warren
Throckmorton, a supporter of reparative therapy who is an associate
professor of psychology at Grove City College in Pennsylvania and
former president of the American Mental Health Counselors
Association. "The other reason I think change is possible is that
I've worked with a lot of clients who've done it."
In the past decade, the growing influence of religious conservatives
and the national debate over gay rights, especially gay marriage, has
revived interest in the therapy, significantly raising its public
profile, spawning new practitioners and igniting debate about a
matter that had been considered settled, supporters and critics agree.
"Reparative therapy is the laetrile of mental health," said New York
psychiatrist Jack Drescher, referring to the quack cancer cure banned
in the United States in the 1970s.
To gay rights activist Wayne R. Besen, the author of "Anything But
Straight," a 2003 book that tracks the history of ex-gay groups, the
therapy is "a kinder, gentler form of homophobia. The argument has
shifted from 'You're harming society' to 'You're harming
yourselves.' " -
The Campaign
Web sites with names like "inqueery" and "freetobeme" have sprung up,
directing confused teenagers and frantic parents to reparative
counselors. Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX), a
national group headquartered in Fairfax County, has sponsored highway
billboards in Rockville and Richmond that state "Ex-Gays Prove That
Change Is Possible."
PFOX, founded seven years ago to counter PFLAG -- Parents, Families
and Friends of Lesbians and Gays -- was active in the recent battle
over sex education in Montgomery County. Central to the dispute was
the way homosexuality would be taught.
As a result of a lawsuit, PFOX has won a seat on the board that will
help rewrite the health curriculum, and its officials say they plan
to push for inclusion of reparative therapy.
Reparative therapists have their own organization, the 1,000-member
California-based National Association for Research and Therapy of
Homosexuality (NARTH), founded in 1992. Its leaders often appear
at "Love Won Out" workshops that draw more than 1,000 participants
and are sponsored by Focus on the Family, a group founded by
conservative psychologist James Dobson, a staunch opponent of gay
rights who has ties to the Bush administration.
Mental health experts are alarmed by the resurgence of a treatment
they say has been discredited.
In the view of Drescher, chair of the APA's committee on gay, lesbian
and bisexual issues, reparative therapy's ascendance resembles the
resurrection of creationism, a religious belief at odds with science
that has been rechristened with the more scientific-sounding
name "intelligent design."
"Many people who try this treatment tend to be desperate, very
unhappy and don't know other gay people," said Drescher, who has
treated about a dozen men who previously underwent conversion
therapy. (Men are far more likely than women to receive the
treatment.)
"I see people who've been very hurt by this," said Drescher, who said
some people do manage to temporarily change their behavior, often by
becoming celibate, but not their sexual orientation. "They spend
years trying to change and are told they aren't trying hard enough."
Catherine Wulfensmith, 46, a family therapist in Monrovia, Calif.,
said she attempted suicide several times after reparative therapy
failed to alter her attraction to women. "I bought it hook, line and
sinker," she said. "If you don't change, what are you left with?"
The 'Fix'
Reparative therapy typically involves once- or twice-weekly
psychotherapy sessions lasting a minimum of two years; it may be
covered by insurance if it is listed as being for a "sexual disorder
not otherwise specified." Patients are encouraged to delve into their
childhood relationships, especially with the same-sex parent; to
cultivate straight friends and "gender-appropriate" activities such
as sports or sewing; and to avoid anything, or anyone, gay. Prayer is
often recommended.
NARTH co-founder Joseph Nicolosi, a clinical psychologist in Encino,
Calif., who coined the term reparative therapy and is one of its
leading practitioners, emphatically rejects the view that it is
ineffective and potentially damaging. He points to a study published
in 2003 by Columbia University psychiatrist Robert L. Spitzer which
found that therapy seemed to work for some highly motivated patients.
"It can only be damaging if the agenda of the therapist supersedes
that of the patient," said Nicolosi, who added that it should never
be forced on unwilling participants.
Although no rigorous outcome studies have been published, Nicolosi
estimates that one-third of patients treated at the Thomas Aquinas
Psychological Clinic, of which he is founding director,
experience "significant improvement -- they understand their
homosexuality and have some sense of control" but may still have gay
sex. Another third, he said, are "cured": They don't have gay sex and
the intensity and frequency of their same-sex desires is diminished,
but not necessarily gone. The other third fail to change.
Hector Roybal, a 52-year-old financial consultant in Los Angeles,
spent four years in intensive treatment with Nicolosi, who considers
him to be cured. Roybal concurs, but said he still sometimes
struggles with sexual feelings for men, although he has remained
faithful to his wife, the only woman to whom he says he feels
physically attracted.
"I saw myself as someone who had a problem with homosexuality but was
meant to be straight," said Roybal, who, like Nicolosi, is a
conservative Catholic. "This is about making a choice."
Although reparative therapists sometimes differ about the causes of
homosexuality, they are united in saying it is not inborn and it is
never normal.
Nicolosi maintains it is the result of a defective bond with the same-
sex parent. Boys who feel rejected by their fathers develop
a "defensive detachment" -- they reject them and identify with their
mothers and other females. Because opposites attract, he theorizes,
they are sexually drawn to men, even though what they are searching
for is their lost masculinity. Once they find it, he said, their
attraction to women will follow, although lifetime vigilance is
required to avoid slipping.
Even though reparative therapists say they support "free choice,"
they see nothing contradictory in their view that homosexuality is
pathological. Nor do they regard as incongruent their refusal to work
with a straight or bisexual client who thinks he or she might be gay.
In their view, homosexuals are doomed to miserable, unhealthy lives.
"We say to patients, 'Your true self is heterosexual,' " Nicolosi
said. He said he tells male patients, "Look at your body: It was
designed to fit a woman, not a man." -
The Study
Robert Spitzer sounds weary when discussing the study published two
years ago in the Archives of Sexual Behavior that earned him the
enmity of many of his colleagues and the admiration of reparative
therapists.
Spitzer's study has special resonance: In 1973 he was the driving
force behind the removal of homosexuality from psychiatry's
diagnostic manual.
Thirty years later, he said, he decided to test the widespread
hypothesis that reparative therapy never worked. "I like to challenge
conventional notions," he explained.
Despite the active cooperation of NARTH and ex-gay religious groups,
Spitzer said it took him more than 16 months to recruit 200 people
who had undergone treatment. He conducted 45-minute telephone
interviews and found that 66 percent of 143 men and 44 percent of 57
women, all of whom Spitzer described as "highly motivated" and almost
all of whom were "extraordinarily religious," had achieved "good
heterosexual function" lasting at least five years. They were in a
committed relationship, had satisfying heterosexual sex at least
monthly and said they were rarely or never bothered by homosexual
feelings.
In an accompanying commentary, former APA president Lawrence
Hartmann, a professor at Harvard Medical School, called Spitzer's
study "too flawed to publish." Hartmann noted the study was
retrospective, that it lacked controls or independent measurements,
and was based entirely on self-reports by people who were motivated
to say they had changed because of their affiliation with ex-gay or
anti-gay groups.
While Nicolosi and others frequently cite the study as proof
reparative therapy works, Spitzer said his results have been
misrepresented. "It bothers me to be their knight in shining armor
because on every social issue I totally disagree with the Christian
right," he said.
"What they don't mention is that change is pretty rare," he added,
noting that the subjects of his study were not representative of the
general population because they were considerably more religious.
And Spitzer calls "totally absurd" the twin hypotheses that everyone
is born straight and that homosexuality is a choice.
Drescher agrees. "There are probably a small number of people with
some flexibility in their sexual identity who can change," he
said. "Out of the hundreds of gay men I've treated, I've had one." · -
What I hope to highlight is this paragraph:
Although no rigorous outcome studies have been published, Nicolosi
estimates that one-third of patients treated at the Thomas Aquinas
Psychological Clinic, of which he is founding director,
experience "significant improvement -- they understand their
homosexuality and have some sense of control" but may still have gay
sex. Another third, he said, are "cured": They don't have gay sex and
the intensity and frequency of their same-sex desires is diminished,
but not necessarily gone. The other third fail to change.
Even for someone who had huge beliefs in reparative studies. He can have only:
1) 33.3% totally unchanged
2) 33.3% "significant improvement but still have gay sex" I find this statement hilarious. It's an oxymoron.
3) 33.3% diminishes in same-sex desires. Err, due to the fall in sex drive as one ages? We all know that 25 year-old is the peak in sex drive when testesterone level is the highest. But then, these people do not change in the gender category in which they feel attracted to. So is this a real change? Can you change from sexually aroused by one gender to the other? NO! -
Ah.. I came out way back in 2001!Originally posted by iveco:From what I gather, Atobe has valid moral reasons for not allowing gay marriages to go ahead and has backed them up. PRP seems to be more intent on trolling.
So far, Earthlings seems to have held his nerve well. Coming out of the closet has never been easy.
I think one should not confused religious morality with the "real" morality.. Just that a look at the Republicans in US! =p -
Originally posted by Honeybunz:
The above msg should be authoritative & scientific explanation on issue of homosexuality.
http://www.narth.com/index.html
[b]NARTH Position Statements
1. Right to Treatment
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.
2. Gay Advocacy in Public Schools
When schools offer information on sexual orientation, the facts should be presented in a fair and balanced manner.
Groups such as the American Psychological Association currently recommend that schools censor all "ex-gay" materials, and prohibit discussion about those who have chosen to change their orientation. Respect for diversity, however, requires teaching about all principled positions. We live in a multi-cultural society where tolerance for differences is essential.
And when homosexuality is discussed, it must not cross the line into lifestyle advocacy. Ultimately, sexual lifestyle decisions hinge on matters of deeply held values. Schools should respect the right of families to convey their own social values to their children.
3. Pedophilia
Early sexual experiences with an older, same-sex person are commonly reported by our homosexual clients. And some studies do suggest that such experiences may be more common among homosexuals than heterosexuals; in proportion to their numbers, that is, homosexuals may be more likely to sexually abuse a same-sex minor.
However, the data remains inconclusive for several reasons.
Studies have not always been able to determine the sexual orientation of the same-sex molester (was he a heterosexual man crossing over into same-sex behavior? a bisexual? or a homosexual?) Also, clinical reports suggest that a very substantial proportion of homosexual molestation is not reported to adults or legal authorities because the child was ashamed, fearful or considered the same-sex contact with an older person to have been "consensual."
For these and other reasons, it is difficult to come to a conclusive answer on the basis of the evidence now available.
4. Homophobia
The term "homophobia" is often used inaccurately to describe any person who objects to homosexual behavior on either moral, psychological or medical grounds. Technically, however, the terms actually denotes a person who has a phobia--or irrational fear--of homosexuality. Principled disagreement, therefore, cannot be labeled "homophobia."
5. Same-Sex Marriage
Social science evidence supports the traditional model of man-woman marriage as the ideal family form for fostering a child's healthy development.
6. On the Meaning of Tolerance and Diversity
"Tolerance and diversity" means nothing if it is extended to activists and not traditionalists on the homosexual issue.
Tolerance must also be extended to those people who take the principled, scientifically supportable view that homosexuality works against our human nature.
7. On the Causes of Homosexuality
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 genetic or unchangeable.
Numerous examples exist of people who have successfully modified their sexual behavior, identity, and arousal or fantasies.
---------------------------------
[/b] -
Heng like to call ppl names.I asked him whether he wanted discussed the issue rationally,he gave no response.So u guess what is his real attitude in discussing this topic.
-
Homo are not born
After so many debate on the issue of whether homo are bron.My conclusion is homo failed to give scientific evidences & convincing reasons to show homo are born.
I think hom give that reason as an excuse that they are not to be blamed for their sexual behavior.So that ppl can accept them.
That homo are bron is just hearsay.It is amazing homo can bluff us for so long with that argument.However,one can accept homo even with such excuse or lie.After all,their wrong sexaul activities don't harm others but themselves. -
and does scientific evidence prove that all humans are born hetrosexual? do all babies feel attracted to the opposite sex the moment they're born? no, its all learnt, as they grow up they're inculcated with the supposed "moral values and ethics" eg. boys must love girls. boys must be gentlemanly. so based on the fact that a baby learns its actions, isn't it within logic and reason to say that both hetrosexuality and homosexuality are not natural instincts but learned emotions?
-
Can we use physical structure of our body as a support to the argument?Originally posted by vito_corleone:and does scientific evidence prove that all humans are born hetrosexual? do all babies feel attracted to the opposite sex the moment they're born? no, its all learnt, as they grow up they're inculcated with the supposed "moral values and ethics" eg. boys must love girls. boys must be gentlemanly. so based on the fact that a baby learns its actions, isn't it within logic and reason to say that both hetrosexuality and homosexuality are not natural instincts but learned emotions? -
goodness! how did THIS topic find its way back here after being in "cold storage" for so long?Originally posted by Honeybunz:Can we use physical structure of our body as a support to the argument?
physical differences is a definitive guide to determining biological gender but it does nothing for the issue of homosexuality...
my point has always been the same: its stupid to judge people for by who they fark.
what's the point? there is no "crime against nature" committed here... who understands "nature" perfectly anyway?
bah... i expect the troll to barge in and unleash his bigotry anyway so what the heck... he's entitled to his views. i'm entitled to what i think of them too
-
One weakness in this reasoning comes from the field of psychopathology or medicine..Originally posted by vito_corleone:and does scientific evidence prove that all humans are born hetrosexual? do all babies feel attracted to the opposite sex the moment they're born? no, its all learnt, as they grow up they're inculcated with the supposed "moral values and ethics" eg. boys must love girls. boys must be gentlemanly. so based on the fact that a baby learns its actions, isn't it within logic and reason to say that both hetrosexuality and homosexuality are not natural instincts but learned emotions?
They are symptoms which might not be present during birth but had a full onset very much later in life.. But this does not mean that it's a learned behaviour.. One good example would be schizophrenia.. Other notable examples include Hypertension and Diabetes..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SchizophreniaThe onset is typically in late adolescence and early adulthood, with males tending to show symptoms earlier than females.
Schizophrenia is likely to be a disorder of complex inheritance (analogous to diabetes or high blood pressure). Thus, it is likely that several genes interact to generate risk for schizophrenia.
These people do not learn to become schizophrenic, or did they?
Sexual attractions (arousals) start to appear around puberty.. And most people (gay or straight) do not engage in sex until much later.. around 20+.. You do not teach some one how to fall in love with another person, it just comes naturally, isn't it? A late onset of sexual arousal (accompanied by sexual maturity) is the trigger towards people falling in love, isn't it? But then this trigger might not due to nurture alone.. -
NARTH just appears to be scientific, but it's not.. Do go through this article again to see what's NARTH really is.. Allow me to quote myself since PRP didnt read the first time round..Originally posted by earthlings73:This is found in washington post.. A good critique of reparative therapy, including those offered by NARTH:
washingtonpost.com
Vowing to Set the World Straight
Proponents of Reparative Therapy Say They Can Help Gay Patients
Become Heterosexual. Experts Call That a Prescription for Harm
By Sandra G. Boodman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 16, 2005; HE01
Nicholas Cavnar said he tried everything he could think of in his 30-
year quest to become heterosexual. He spent years in therapy, paying
thousands of dollars for treatment designed to overcome his
homosexuality. He faithfully attended meetings of Christian self-help
groups for "strugglers." He married and fathered three children, a
metamorphosis featured on the cover of a Catholic magazine.
Yet every day, the 54-year-old Washington publishing executive
recalled, he had to suppress his deepest feelings about who he really
was -- emotions he thought he had left behind at 20 when, to the
delight of his devout family, he abruptly renounced his openly gay
life in San Francisco.
Three years ago, Cavnar said, after soul-searching prompted by the
Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, he decided his days of "white-knuckling
it" were over. "I told my wife I couldn't not be gay anymore,"
recalled Cavnar. His biggest regret, he said, was the devastating
impact ending their 26-year marriage had on the woman who had
struggled with him.
Cavnar's odyssey -- from gay to ex-gay to ex-ex-gay -- is
inextricably linked to his long involvement in reparative therapy, a
controversial form of psychotherapy aimed at making gays straight.
While its supporters cite success stories from their clinical
practices as well as a recent and much debated study showing that
conversion therapy can work, the treatment is opposed by virtually
every medical and mental health organization, including the American
Medical Association, the U.S. Surgeon General and the American
Psychiatric Association (APA), which removed homosexuality from its
list of mental disorders in 1973.
Until the early 1990s the treatment, also known as reorientation
therapy, was largely relegated to religious groups or to the fringes
of mental health. Mainstream therapists have been taught to help
patients distressed about their homosexuality work toward self-
acceptance, to overcome the internalized homophobia thought to be the
cause of much emotional turmoil.
Reparative therapists reject the views held by an overwhelming
majority of mental health practitioners. They regard homosexuality as
a pathological preference forged in the crucible of a troubled
childhood and not, as most scientists believe, an inborn orientation
significantly influenced by biological factors such as genetics and
exposure to hormones in the womb.
"I don't think sexual orientation is genetically determined, but like
a lot of preferences we have in life is a complicated and
idiosyncratic mix of temperament and experience," said Warren
Throckmorton, a supporter of reparative therapy who is an associate
professor of psychology at Grove City College in Pennsylvania and
former president of the American Mental Health Counselors
Association. "The other reason I think change is possible is that
I've worked with a lot of clients who've done it."
In the past decade, the growing influence of religious conservatives
and the national debate over gay rights, especially gay marriage, has
revived interest in the therapy, significantly raising its public
profile, spawning new practitioners and igniting debate about a
matter that had been considered settled, supporters and critics agree.
"Reparative therapy is the laetrile of mental health," said New York
psychiatrist Jack Drescher, referring to the quack cancer cure banned
in the United States in the 1970s.
To gay rights activist Wayne R. Besen, the author of "Anything But
Straight," a 2003 book that tracks the history of ex-gay groups, the
therapy is "a kinder, gentler form of homophobia. The argument has
shifted from 'You're harming society' to 'You're harming
yourselves.' " -
Originally posted by earthlings73:The Campaign
Web sites with names like "inqueery" and "freetobeme" have sprung up,
directing confused teenagers and frantic parents to reparative
counselors. Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX), a
national group headquartered in Fairfax County, has sponsored highway
billboards in Rockville and Richmond that state "Ex-Gays Prove That
Change Is Possible."
PFOX, founded seven years ago to counter PFLAG -- Parents, Families
and Friends of Lesbians and Gays -- was active in the recent battle
over sex education in Montgomery County. Central to the dispute was
the way homosexuality would be taught.
As a result of a lawsuit, PFOX has won a seat on the board that will
help rewrite the health curriculum, and its officials say they plan
to push for inclusion of reparative therapy.
Reparative therapists have their own organization, the 1,000-member
California-based National Association for Research and Therapy of
Homosexuality (NARTH), founded in 1992. Its leaders often appear
at "Love Won Out" workshops that draw more than 1,000 participants
and are sponsored by Focus on the Family, a group founded by
conservative psychologist James Dobson, a staunch opponent of gay
rights who has ties to the Bush administration.
Mental health experts are alarmed by the resurgence of a treatment
they say has been discredited.
In the view of Drescher, chair of the APA's committee on gay, lesbian
and bisexual issues, reparative therapy's ascendance resembles the
resurrection of creationism, a religious belief at odds with science
that has been rechristened with the more scientific-sounding
name "intelligent design."
"Many people who try this treatment tend to be desperate, very
unhappy and don't know other gay people," said Drescher, who has
treated about a dozen men who previously underwent conversion
therapy. (Men are far more likely than women to receive the
treatment.)
"I see people who've been very hurt by this," said Drescher, who said
some people do manage to temporarily change their behavior, often by
becoming celibate, but not their sexual orientation. "They spend
years trying to change and are told they aren't trying hard enough."
Catherine Wulfensmith, 46, a family therapist in Monrovia, Calif.,
said she attempted suicide several times after reparative therapy
failed to alter her attraction to women. "I bought it hook, line and
sinker," she said. "If you don't change, what are you left with?"
The 'Fix'
Reparative therapy typically involves once- or twice-weekly
psychotherapy sessions lasting a minimum of two years; it may be
covered by insurance if it is listed as being for a "sexual disorder
not otherwise specified." Patients are encouraged to delve into their
childhood relationships, especially with the same-sex parent; to
cultivate straight friends and "gender-appropriate" activities such
as sports or sewing; and to avoid anything, or anyone, gay. Prayer is
often recommended.
NARTH co-founder Joseph Nicolosi, a clinical psychologist in Encino,
Calif., who coined the term reparative therapy and is one of its
leading practitioners, emphatically rejects the view that it is
ineffective and potentially damaging. He points to a study published
in 2003 by Columbia University psychiatrist Robert L. Spitzer which
found that therapy seemed to work for some highly motivated patients.
"It can only be damaging if the agenda of the therapist supersedes
that of the patient," said Nicolosi, who added that it should never
be forced on unwilling participants.
Although no rigorous outcome studies have been published, Nicolosi
estimates that one-third of patients treated at the Thomas Aquinas
Psychological Clinic, of which he is founding director,
experience "significant improvement -- they understand their
homosexuality and have some sense of control" but may still have gay
sex. Another third, he said, are "cured": They don't have gay sex and
the intensity and frequency of their same-sex desires is diminished,
but not necessarily gone. The other third fail to change.
Hector Roybal, a 52-year-old financial consultant in Los Angeles,
spent four years in intensive treatment with Nicolosi, who considers
him to be cured. Roybal concurs, but said he still sometimes
struggles with sexual feelings for men, although he has remained
faithful to his wife, the only woman to whom he says he feels
physically attracted.
"I saw myself as someone who had a problem with homosexuality but was
meant to be straight," said Roybal, who, like Nicolosi, is a
conservative Catholic. "This is about making a choice."
Although reparative therapists sometimes differ about the causes of
homosexuality, they are united in saying it is not inborn and it is
never normal.
Nicolosi maintains it is the result of a defective bond with the same-
sex parent. Boys who feel rejected by their fathers develop
a "defensive detachment" -- they reject them and identify with their
mothers and other females. Because opposites attract, he theorizes,
they are sexually drawn to men, even though what they are searching
for is their lost masculinity. Once they find it, he said, their
attraction to women will follow, although lifetime vigilance is
required to avoid slipping.
Even though reparative therapists say they support "free choice,"
they see nothing contradictory in their view that homosexuality is
pathological. Nor do they regard as incongruent their refusal to work
with a straight or bisexual client who thinks he or she might be gay.
In their view, homosexuals are doomed to miserable, unhealthy lives.
"We say to patients, 'Your true self is heterosexual,' " Nicolosi
said. He said he tells male patients, "Look at your body: It was
designed to fit a woman, not a man." -
Originally posted by earthlings73:The Study
Robert Spitzer sounds weary when discussing the study published two
years ago in the Archives of Sexual Behavior that earned him the
enmity of many of his colleagues and the admiration of reparative
therapists.
Spitzer's study has special resonance: In 1973 he was the driving
force behind the removal of homosexuality from psychiatry's
diagnostic manual.
Thirty years later, he said, he decided to test the widespread
hypothesis that reparative therapy never worked. "I like to challenge
conventional notions," he explained.
Despite the active cooperation of NARTH and ex-gay religious groups,
Spitzer said it took him more than 16 months to recruit 200 people
who had undergone treatment. He conducted 45-minute telephone
interviews and found that 66 percent of 143 men and 44 percent of 57
women, all of whom Spitzer described as "highly motivated" and almost
all of whom were "extraordinarily religious," had achieved "good
heterosexual function" lasting at least five years. They were in a
committed relationship, had satisfying heterosexual sex at least
monthly and said they were rarely or never bothered by homosexual
feelings.
In an accompanying commentary, former APA president Lawrence
Hartmann, a professor at Harvard Medical School, called Spitzer's
study "too flawed to publish." Hartmann noted the study was
retrospective, that it lacked controls or independent measurements,
and was based entirely on self-reports by people who were motivated
to say they had changed because of their affiliation with ex-gay or
anti-gay groups.
While Nicolosi and others frequently cite the study as proof
reparative therapy works, Spitzer said his results have been
misrepresented. "It bothers me to be their knight in shining armor
because on every social issue I totally disagree with the Christian
right," he said.
"What they don't mention is that change is pretty rare," he added,
noting that the subjects of his study were not representative of the
general population because they were considerably more religious.
And Spitzer calls "totally absurd" the twin hypotheses that everyone
is born straight and that homosexuality is a choice.
Drescher agrees. "There are probably a small number of people with
some flexibility in their sexual identity who can change," he
said. "Out of the hundreds of gay men I've treated, I've had one." · -
Originally posted by earthlings73:What I hope to highlight is this paragraph:
Although no rigorous outcome studies have been published, Nicolosi
estimates that one-third of patients treated at the Thomas Aquinas
Psychological Clinic, of which he is founding director,
experience "significant improvement -- they understand their
homosexuality and have some sense of control" but may still have gay
sex. Another third, he said, are "cured": They don't have gay sex and
the intensity and frequency of their same-sex desires is diminished,
but not necessarily gone. The other third fail to change.
Even for someone who had huge beliefs in reparative studies. He can have only:
1) 33.3% totally unchanged
2) 33.3% "significant improvement but still have gay sex" I find this statement hilarious. It's an oxymoron.
3) 33.3% diminishes in same-sex desires. Err, due to the fall in sex drive as one ages? We all know that 25 year-old is the peak in sex drive when testesterone level is the highest. But then, these people do not change in the gender category in which they feel attracted to. So is this a real change? Can you change from sexually aroused by one gender to the other? NO! -
More about NARTH, this time from the Religious Tolerance website:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_nart.htmOverview:
NARTH did not manage to produce any evidences that reparative therapy works. Never... On the contrary, large mental health professional societies did find the harmfulness of such efforts to dehumanise gays. In fact, NARTH acted almost like the only "pseudo"-psychological outfit that encourages the use of a therapy that's not endorsed by anyone else in the profession.
In the past, researchers attempted to change sexual orientation through psychotherapy, aversion therapy, nausea producing drugs, prayer, castration, electric shock, brain surgery, breast amputations, etc. All failed. These methods were largely abandoned by the mid-1970's. However, Outrage!, a British support group for lesbians and gays, recently found it necessary to ask the Royal College of Psychiatrists to renounce aversion therapy and instruct its members to halt "the use of all therapies that attempt to cure homosexuality." 1
Reparative Therapy emerged in the early 1980's as a new method of "curing" homosexuals. It was spearheaded by Elizabeth Moberly, a British, conservative Christian theologian. She based her theories on the findings of a few psychiatrists in the past whose conclusions had long been abandoned by almost all mental health professionals. Her belief is that homosexuality is caused by incompetence by the same-gender parent. Moberly determined...that the homosexual men in the studies were suffering from what she termed 'defensive detachment' and 'same sex ambivalence.' The theory presumes that the young boy, for any of a variety of reasons, did not bond with his father in a meaningful way." 2 Her book, published in the 1980s, has been recently reprinted and is still in print. 3 Her theory led to a treatment method in which a gay or lesbian develops a close but non-sexual relationship with a person of the same gender. This is expected to replace the close parental bond that was missing in childhood. According to her theory, heterosexual feelings would emerge during therapy, and homosexual feelings would fade over time. More details.
No peer-reviewed study has ever been published on reparative therapy. No longitudinal study has ever been conducted into its long-term effectiveness and hazards. Sufficient anecdotal evidence has surfaced to convince the large mental health professional societies, like the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, etc. to condemn reparative therapy as ineffective, and warn of potentially dangerous side-effects. 8 The one exception is the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) - the topic of this essay. They strongly advocate the use of reparative therapy, believing it to be very effective and safe.
And remember, most reparative therapies are based on psychoanalytical theories, if ben's ard, could you kindly explain why such approaches are shunned by modern psychologists these days? (can be bothered to explain and it's better if this explanation comes from someone more neutral in this debate) -
Even though they tried to appear scientific.. These people come from the conservative wings of Religions that condemn homosexuality in the first place.. How much do you want to believe them in producing scientific evidence?
And can NARTH be a counterpart of APA? No!
NARTH is made up of 1000 members.. APA is made up of 132,000 members.. APA is the still by default the professional body governing the state of psychological development in the world..
About NARTH:
NARTH was founded in 1992 as a "non-profit, educational organization dedicated to the research, therapy and prevention of homosexuality." It currently consists of "more than 1,000 mental-health professionals." These are believed to be psychiatrists, psychologists, other therapists, social workers, and behavioral scientists. 4,5 (This number represents a small percentage of mental health professionals; the American Psychological Association alone has over 132,000 members.) Anyone who is sympathetic to their goals who is not a therapist is asked to join as a "Friend of NARTH." Many conservative Christian ministries have done this.
The association states that their members follow many different religions and ethical systems, ranging from Roman "Catholic, Jewish, Mormon, Baha'i, Protestant, to secular humanist/atheist." The vast majority of its members are believed to be from the conservative wings of Christianity and Judaism.
NARTH is becoming widely accepted among some Evangelical Christian ministries, because it is the only professional mental health organization that teaches that sexual orientation is a disorder, that it is chosen, and that it can be changed through effort.
They hold annual meetings at the same locations as the American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA). They publish their NARTH Bulletin three times a year.
NARTH Personnel:
Their Executive Director/Secretary Treasurer is Joseph Nicolosi of the Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic in Encino CA. Their president is Charles Socarides, of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York NY. Both have written widely on reparative therapy and helped found NARTH. -
NARTH used to collaborate with APsaA.. However, Socarides (NARTH president) misrepresent APsaA's position on gay issues (to spread further discrimination against homosexuals) to the point that he was asked to leave.. How credible can such an organisation be?
NARTH/APsaA conflict:
The Human Rights Campaign reported in 1999 that NARTH President, Charles Socarides, had "run into trouble with the American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA), of which he is a member. According to a letter from Dr. Ralph Roughton of the APsaA, Socarides misrepresented the position of the APsaA in a published paper and a court affidavit. Socarides attempted to make it appear that the APsaA agrees with his positions on homosexuality. He did this by quoting an APsaA document written in 1968, which supported his views and which he called the 'official position' of the APsaA, while ignoring a 1990 revised statement that drastically contradicted his views. The Executive Committee of the APsaA instructed the organization's attorney to write a letter to Socarides asking him to cease this misrepresentation and threatening legal action if he continued. Additionally, the APsaA newsletter decided to stop printing advertisements for NARTH meetings because the organization does not adhere to APsaA's policy of non-discrimination 'and because their activities are demeaning to our members who are gay and lesbian,' according to Roughton." -
can..Originally posted by Honeybunz:Can we use physical structure of our body as a support to the argument? in that case..since a guy has a hole in the back isn't gay sex part of nature? the prostate gand just happens to be located where only shoving something up your @$$ can reach..so anatomically speaking..isn't homosexuality part of nature too? -
Psychoanalysis? That's alot of pseudo-science anyway...
http://skepdic.com/psychoan.html