Analogy for Homosexuality
-
Pls summrize.
-
Where did you get all these craps from....
-
he got the article from NARTH. And wat NARTH really about is anti-APA. And wat is APA ?
American Psychological Association (abbreviated APA) is a professional organization representing psychologists in the U.S., with around 150,000 members and an annual budget of around $70m.
In fact they determine who is considered as psychologist or not
APA policy on the use of the title psychologist is contained in the General Guidelines for Providers of Psychological Services
And wat is NARTH ? Basically there is very little knowledge on how many members there r and how medical they really r. Its members have a golden rule to follow and tat is not to question whether homosexual is illness or not. They seems to be strongly affiliated with the church and it is spring out basically because APA state tat curing homosexual most of the time causes more harm than good. Even the court had rejected evidence from tis group
Dr. Rekers’ testimony was far from a neutral and unbiased recitation of the relevant scientific evidence. Dr. Rekers’ beliefs are motivated by his strong ideological and theological convictions that are not consistent with the science. Based on his testimony and demeanor at trial, the court can not consider his testimony to be credible nor worthy of forming the basis of public policy."
Let me summarise the fact with tis passage
The medical and scientific consensus in the United States is that conversion therapy is likely harmful and should be avoided because it may exploit guilt and anxiety, thereby damaging self-esteem and leading to depression and even suicide. There is a broad concern in the mental health community that the advancement of conversion therapy itself causes social harm by disseminating inaccurate views about sexual orientation and the ability of gay and bisexual people to lead happy, healthy lives. Most mainstream health organizations are critical of conversion therapy and no mainstream medical organization endorses conversion therapy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Psychological_Association
So u all decide who is more believable.
APA, the organisation of psychologist, the one tat determine the study of psychology and the mainstream medical and science organisation,
vs
NARTH, an organisation with pretty low information tat spring out in the last couple of years fighting against APA only on the issue of homosexual. And of course religious scriptures tat spoke against homosexual belongs to tis category as well
-
NARTH is set up by a circle of psychologists and psychiatrists, regardless of their differing religious adherences and philosophical persuasions, who believe that homosexuality is a developmental disorder and are dedicated to doing research to find out how therapy can help homosexuals overcome their homosexuality.
NARTH disagrees with APA's position that homosexuality cannot be changed, or at least it is "harmful" to change the homosexual.
NARTH is not anti-APA as some of the members in NARTH are also members in APA.
APA removed homosexuality from its directory of diseases (i.e. DSM III R) in 1973 due to political pressure from the American gay activists. In other words, APA's decision to de-pathologise homosexuality was due to ideology rather than scientific evidence.
Currrently little is known about homosexuality because research is discouraged since psychologists and psychiatrists may not get the funding they need from mental health and academic institutions to carry out their studies and experiments.
APA is very powerful and this is why mainstream mental health professionals listen to them. In America, it may be even illegal for therapists to convert homosexual client even if the client himself wants to change.
NARTH is set up to find out more about homosexuality, which the APA resists. APA's position is meant to determine the "status quo", but NARTH hopes to FIND OUT MORE about homosexuality.
-
Originally posted by Meat Bao:
Pls summrize.
Meat Bao,
Homosexuality is a developmental disorder which stems from poor relationships with same-sex parent or peers and therefore leading to neurotism and gender inferiority complex.
Homosexuals fall in love with members of their own sex because their legitimate emotional needs were not met during childhood and adolescence. These emotional needs become eroticized after puberty.
Homosexuals are actually heterosexuals who need homo-social and homo-emotional affirmation. Male homosexuals need masculine love and affirmation.
I personally recommend counselling, psychotherapy, and having a group of close male heterosexual friends for emotional, moral and spiritual support.
For more information, please visit:
http://unhappygay.wordpress.com
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
he got the article from NARTH. And wat NARTH really about is anti-APA. And wat is APA ?
American Psychological Association (abbreviated APA) is a professional organization representing psychologists in the U.S., with around 150,000 members and an annual budget of around $70m.
In fact they determine who is considered as psychologist or not
APA policy on the use of the title psychologist is contained in the General Guidelines for Providers of Psychological Services
And wat is NARTH ? Basically there is very little knowledge on how many members there r and how medical they really r. Its members have a golden rule to follow and tat is not to question whether homosexual is illness or not. They seems to be strongly affiliated with the church and it is spring out basically because APA state tat curing homosexual most of the time causes more harm than good. Even the court had rejected evidence from tis group
Dr. Rekers’ testimony was far from a neutral and unbiased recitation of the relevant scientific evidence. Dr. Rekers’ beliefs are motivated by his strong ideological and theological convictions that are not consistent with the science. Based on his testimony and demeanor at trial, the court can not consider his testimony to be credible nor worthy of forming the basis of public policy."
Let me summarise the fact with tis passage
The medical and scientific consensus in the United States is that conversion therapy is likely harmful and should be avoided because it may exploit guilt and anxiety, thereby damaging self-esteem and leading to depression and even suicide. There is a broad concern in the mental health community that the advancement of conversion therapy itself causes social harm by disseminating inaccurate views about sexual orientation and the ability of gay and bisexual people to lead happy, healthy lives. Most mainstream health organizations are critical of conversion therapy and no mainstream medical organization endorses conversion therapy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Psychological_Association
So u all decide who is more believable.
APA, the organisation of psychologist, the one tat determine the study of psychology and the mainstream medical and science organisation,
vs
NARTH, an organisation with pretty low information tat spring out in the last couple of years fighting against APA only on the issue of homosexual. And of course religious scriptures tat spoke against homosexual belongs to tis category as well
Smart move, stupidissmart!!!
-
Originally posted by thetruthsetsyoufree:
Meat Bao,
Homosexuality is a developmental disorder which stems from poor relationships with same-sex parent or peers and therefore leading to neurotism and gender inferiority complex.
Homosexuals fall in love with members of their own sex because their legitimate emotional needs were not met during childhood and adolescence. These emotional needs become eroticized after puberty.
Homosexuals are actually heterosexuals who need homo-social and homo-emotional affirmation. Male homosexuals need masculine love and affirmation.
I personally recommend counselling, psychotherapy, and having a group of close male heterosexual friends for emotional, moral and spiritual support.
For more information, please visit:
http://unhappygay.wordpress.com
How about you chop it off and tell us whether you can still lust?
-
Peopl slp with who why u huan lo?
U noe global warming is a more pressing problem not?
-
Originally posted by motoway:
Peopl slp with who why u huan lo?
U noe global warming is a more pressing problem not?
wrong lor
i say penguins are the more problematic problem
-
Seriously, I think TS needs help than anyone does.
I personally recommend counselling, psychotherapy, etc.......
-
NARTH is set up by a circle of psychologists and psychiatrists, regardless of their differing religious adherences and philosophical persuasions, who believe that homosexuality is a developmental disorder and are dedicated to doing research to find out how therapy can help homosexuals overcome their homosexuality.
NARTH disagrees with APA's position that homosexuality cannot be changed, or at least it is "harmful" to change the homosexual.
NARTH is not anti-APA as some of the members in NARTH are also members in APA.
APA removed homosexuality from its directory of diseases (i.e. DSM III R) in 1973 due to political pressure from the American gay activists. In other words, APA's decision to de-pathologise homosexuality was due to ideology rather than scientific evidence.
Currrently little is known about homosexuality because research is discouraged since psychologists and psychiatrists may not get the funding they need from mental health and academic institutions to carry out their studies and experiments.
APA is very powerful and this is why mainstream mental health professionals listen to them. In America, it may be even illegal for therapists to convert homosexual client even if the client himself wants to change.
NARTH is set up to find out more about homosexuality, which the APA resists. APA's position is meant to determine the "status quo", but NARTH hopes to FIND OUT MORE about homosexuality.
So in short, APA is really the leading authority on psychology while NARTH is set up by a relatively much smaller circle of people which no medical institute take their words seriously and US court reject their findings.
Second, religion is much more powerful than "gay activists". They definitely have much more people and r more extremist about such issues. In fact in the 1970's even non religious people r biased against gays then. U think gays r so powerful to force the whole organisation of psychologists to change their stand ? Unlikely.
and thirdly, there r already tons of research conducted on "converting gays". The answer is they r harmful and useless. It is just tat some people refuse to accept these scientific findings. After so many years since NARTH set up, they still failed to convince anyone.
And lastly, gays contribute to economy and lead meaningful purposeful happy lives. I don't see wat is the problem at all. Why change something tat can make them feel guilty of themselves, become unhappy and cannot accept wat they really r because some books say they should.
I think u need to see the point tat converting them is difficult and they end up unhappy. Asking them to just accept who they really r immediately makes them happy individuals without any problems to society or themselves at all. Why don't u think deeper why r u insisting homosexual to become normal
Homosexuality is a developmental disorder which stems from poor relationships with same-sex parent or peers and therefore leading to neurotism and gender inferiority complex.
Homosexuals fall in love with members of their own sex because their legitimate emotional needs were not met during childhood and adolescence. These emotional needs become eroticized after puberty.
Homosexuals are actually heterosexuals who need homo-social and homo-emotional affirmation. Male homosexuals need masculine love and affirmation.
I personally recommend counselling, psychotherapy, and having a group of close male heterosexual friends for emotional, moral and spiritual support.
These r non scientific statements. The scientific statement is converting gays does more harm than good and they still remain gay anyway
-
The APA Vote On Same-Sex Marriage:
The Inside StoryBy Joseph Berger, M.D.
Dr. Joseph Berger is a Psychiatrist in Toronto. He is a Past President of the Ontario District Branch of the American Psychiatric Association and an Assembly Representative to the APA. He has contributed a number of articles to the NARTH Bulletin.
In the mid-1970's, the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) voted to remove the diagnostic category of "Homosexuality" from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, generally known asDSM and now in its fourth edition.
The vote at the time was highly controversial and divisive, and was widely understood as being political. The protocols, or reasons for the proposal, made it clear at the time that the intention was to reduce stigma and discrimination, and that the vote was not intended to indicate any final scientific determination regarding homosexuality.
Unfortunately, as is often the case, what is done by one generation with the best of intentions to improve social relationships becomes interpreted by the next generation as representing a solidly-based scientific conclusion.
Following the American Psychiatric Association's move, a number of other professional mental health organizations also took various positions declaring in one way or another, their support for the notion that homosexuality was not a disease or disorder, and that homosexuals were normal and psychologically healthy.
Within the American Psychiatric Association itself, over the next thirty years a very active Gay-Lesbian Caucus proceeded to instigate a number of other official position statements, which included the declaration that a particular form of psychotherapy intended to offer interested self-identified homosexuals the possibility of becoming comfortably heterosexual was unacceptable, potentially harmful, and should be banned.
Indeed, in more recent years the APA--pushed by this Gay-Lesbian Caucus--came very near to issuing a ban on any form of psychotherapy with self-identified homosexuals-- even if they wished for such psychotherapy themselves and came to a therapist purely voluntarily-on the grounds that as homosexuality was not an illness or a disease there cannot be any treatment.
Fortunately, this aroused considerable opposition-especially from outside the organization-and soon after was followed by the intervention of Dr. Robert Spitzer who is often looked upon as the "father" of DSM 3 and 4 and who was a major figure in the original effort to de-list homosexuality from the DSM.
Dr. Spitzer made the extraordinary gesture of saying "I'm a scientist, I'm prepare to re-examine the data," and then he conducted a review of a number of patients whose names were given to him by different psychotherapists.
Dr. Spitzer concluded that contrary to extremist gay activist claims, some people who had identified themselves as homosexual before therapy had in fact become comfortably heterosexual during the course of long-term psychotherapy. Did this mean that they never again experienced a homosexual fantasy or thought or desire? Of course, not. But just as the ex-alcoholic or the ex-drug addict has to recognize the factors that may precipitate a craving for the substance, and then use the tools learned to combat the craving, so too, do some formerly homosexual patients have to learn what may precipitate such fantasies and desires and how to deal with those when they arise.
Dr. Spitzer's conclusions, not surprisingly, came under vicious attack and reference has been made in theNARTH Bulletin to some of the criticisms of Spitzer, and the very weak foundations upon which those attacks are based.
But the APA Gay-Lesbian Caucus has moved on from fighting Spitzer to campaigning for support for same-sex marriage, and won an initial vote on this topic at the May 2006 meeting of the Assembly of the APA.
What Happened?
It is unlikely that most NARTH members are aware of how that vote came about and what steps will follow. As I am a member of the Assembly of the APA, I am taking this opportunity to share how this particular vote was achieved.
The APA is a large organization; it has 35,000 members, and as is true of most organizations of that size, and even larger, it has a professional staff to carry out its numerous and complicated daily activities. That professional staff is accountable to and overseen by a lay board and executive elected from the general membership.
The lay leadership is mainly made up of about 300 members of the parliament or "Assembly" of the APA. These are representatives from each state or district branch over the U.S. and Canada, plus representatives from various allied and affiliated groups.
But a 300-member group cannot supervise the professional staff on a close and immediate basis, therefore, from the Assembly is elected a much smaller Executive group in the APA, which is called the "Board of Trustees." It usually makes the final decisions for or against any new initiatives.
Early in 2006, the Gay-Lesbian Caucus had been proposing a motion that the APA support same-sex marriage.
The Board asked some of its sub-committees to examine the proposal, and to some people's surprise, those committees emerged quite divided, and in some cases rather strongly negative to the proposal.
The Gay-Lesbian Caucus nevertheless wanted to push on with its proposal and to take that to the next meeting of the larger Assembly, which was being held at the time of the general business meeting of the APA. This is held just before the much broader annual academic meeting of the organization, which in May 2006 was in Atlanta, Georgia.
When we, the members of the Assembly, gathered in Atlanta at the opening of the conference on a Friday afternoon, we were told that debate and discussion on the proposal would take place on the following Sunday before the conclusion of the Assembly, and that the press would be in attendance.
Various plenary and caucus group meetings take place on Friday and Saturday, and in at least one of these, one of the largest groups within the APA, psychiatrists from Massachusetts, indicated their intention to offer an alternative proposal, a proposal that they claimed was more scientifically based rather than the political proposal put forth by the Gay-Lesbian Caucus.
On the Sunday morning when the great debate was supposed to take place, a representative speaking on behalf of the Gay-Lesbian caucus introduced their proposal, and then the chairpersons of the main geographical areas into which the assembly is divided-there are seven of them-was asked to indicate how their particular area viewed this proposal. Most indicated that their area had been in favour, though in some cases, there was considerable division and the margin in favor was very small.
At that point though, the area that contains Massachusetts (Area 1 in the Assembly) announced its intention to offer its alternative proposal.
This threw the meeting into its first chaos, as a number of assembly members protested that they hadn't been given notice of this alternative proposal or had a chance to read and study it.
Those proposing it indicated that it had been available at a reference table from the beginning of the plenary session and was available to anyone to read.
Debate came to a stop while many members read the alternative proposal.
When it was deemed that sufficient time had been given to enable members to read and consider the alternative proposal, a request for a vote on it was made. But instead of the more usual vote by voice first--yes or no--then followed, if necessary, by counting heads, this vote request was then modified into a particular type of vote that requires filling out a ballot form, which has to be handed in and counted.
This obviously takes up a lot of time because there are close to 300 people voting. In addition, each of their votes is not a single vote but is actually representative of a much larger official number of members whom they are representing, which according to the area they live in or the organization they represent, may be hundreds of people. This made the final vote even more complicated.
So, while the vote was performed, and then collected and counted, the meeting continued with completely different business. Actually, much of the intervening business was various farewells and gifts to people completing their terms of office as representatives or officials.
What is very important to understand is that all debate/discussion had been stopped, and that, in fact, up to this point there had been no discussion. There has just been the presentation of the original proposal; the brief indication from each area of their caucus preference; and the presentation of an alternative proposal.
There had been no actual debate or discussion in the usual sense, of people speaking for and against the proposal, other than the original presenter. Nor, were any individuals free to challenge, question or refute many of the false and/or distorted claims made by the proposers.
Eventually, the counters came back with the result that the alternative Massachusetts proposal had been defeated by approximately a 55-44 majority vote.
At this point, we had reached the time when the debate was supposed to end, and the hall was to be cleared for the next event.
So, without any further debate or discussion, a quick hand vote was taken on the original Gay-Lesbian proposal. Perhaps half the members had already left, many to catch planes, while others went off to other meetings.
The motion won on a hand vote.
This is how the APA Assembly voted to support same-sex marriage. There was no real debate and no real discussion. There was nothing remotely "scientific" about this vote by the APA.
From the Assembly, the matter went to the Board of Trustees. The Board is aware that there are a number of members very much opposed to the motion. It is seen as highly divisive, as going against the current trend in American society, and as dragging what should be a professional scientific organization into supporting a controversial political social issue and thus harming the reputation and credibility of the organization.
But on the other hand, the Gay-Lesbian caucus has been very successful in its endeavors in recent years. Many of its members are individually nice and decent people and many of their colleagues don't want to upset or offend them in any way. Therefore, they are willing to grant Gay-Lesbian members what they demand because they are nice people - without really thinking through the possible consequences of such a move.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
So in short, APA is really the leading authority on psychology while NARTH is set up by a relatively much smaller circle of people which no medical institute take their words seriously and US court reject their findings.
Second, religion is much more powerful than "gay activists". They definitely have much more people and r more extremist about such issues. In fact in the 1970's even non religious people r biased against gays then. U think gays r so powerful to force the whole organisation of psychologists to change their stand ? Unlikely.
and thirdly, there r already tons of research conducted on "converting gays". The answer is they r harmful and useless. It is just tat some people refuse to accept these scientific findings. After so many years since NARTH set up, they still failed to convince anyone.
And lastly, gays contribute to economy and lead meaningful purposeful happy lives. I don't see wat is the problem at all. Why change something tat can make them feel guilty of themselves, become unhappy and cannot accept wat they really r because some books say they should.
I think u need to see the point tat converting them is difficult and they end up unhappy. Asking them to just accept who they really r immediately makes them happy individuals without any problems to society or themselves at all. Why don't u think deeper why r u insisting homosexual to become normal
These r non scientific statements. The scientific statement is converting gays does more harm than good and they still remain gay anyway
You are unaware of how politically powerful the gay lobby is in America. They are very well-funded.
-
Originally posted by thetruthsetsyoufree:
You are unaware of how politically powerful the gay lobby is in America. They are very well-funded.
You are just farking biased. -
SAY NO TO HOMOS !
-
You are unaware of how politically powerful the gay lobby is in America. They are very well-funded.
As said, how much do u think the population of USA in the 1970's believes in bible. I guess more than 86%. If they follow 10% tilth law (some give more some give less), tat will be 8.6% of the population income in USA. In fact no president of america is ever non bible believers (53% would not vote for atheist president). In fact very very very few politicians voted into congress r ever non bible believers (one out of thousands throughout US history). They won't be supported. And during voting they always talk about religion as one of the key issues. It just show how powerful religion is in USA
Now lets look at Gay side. How much population u think r gay in 1970's ? I bet it is less than 5%. U think tis 5% can counter the over whelming religious people ? How many US public gay r voted in (zero) ? Face it la ! If the vote does not reflect the organisation majority opinion, surely u guys can counter proposed and chop of the statement on homosexual conversion therapy. So many years had passed yet tis statement still stand. Wat does it show ?
Trying to say religion influence in USA is lesser than gay influence is really... untrue. Since religious carry a much heavier influence, fund and power, then why complain ? Gays r the handicaps in tis fight. They emerge victorious despite losing in influence. Wat does tis show ?