Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

JimiTime

Corkfeen wrote: »

Jimi there is tons of evidence that shows the dangers of things such as conversion therapy. Suicides and depression tend to be far more likely amongst those who avail of it.

http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/the-lies-and-dangers-of-reparative-therapy

Psychological damage can easily occur through techniques that have no basis and are there to satisfy the ultra religious.

But which ones? Was causation established? If so, how? How thick is the evidence.
Also, if its to be spun as a safety issue, in terms of health, then what about the statistics that something like 65% of all new HIV cases in the US were from homosexuals? Thats a group that make up 3% of the population, yet with 65% of the HIV infections. Similarly for lots of other STD's. So one could spin it that an attempt is being made to lessen the risk for such a person. I think there is inconsistency, and that political motivations are truly what are at play.

Read an interesting response to the APA report that has been referred to here:

DR NE. Whitehead wrote:

Therapists have been offering therapies to help homosexuals for many decades. However the task force now demands a standard of proof of effectiveness for sexual-reorientation therapy which is impossibly high and is not required of other therapies.

The success rates of various therapies for addiction, for example, are similar to those for sexual-reorientation therapy, but addiction therapies are never attacked on the grounds that they have not been subjected to the impossibly rigorous tests proposed for therapy for homosexuals.

The only rigorous survey to test the effectiveness of sexual-reorientation therapy would be a longitudinal comparison of groups that received “treatment” versus “no treatment.” But since clients usually present with many co-morbid problems, particularly suicidality, mood disorders and substance abuse, the “no treatment” option would not be ethical. This means, therefore, that a rigorous test of reorientation therapy would be impossible.

The task force’s insistence on such high standards of proof for sexual-reorientation therapies is so highly selective that its motives must be suspected of being merely political, which would be reprehensible in an organization which claims to be science-based.

Would the committee recommend that therapy for obesity, drugs or alcoholism not be attempted because they have a high recidivism rate? The ethical position must surely be that anything that may work should be tried, though with appropriate safeguards and with appropriate informed consent.

Given the task force’s stated standards of therapeutic efficacy, the same research standards must be applied to testing gay-affirmative therapy — i.e., therapy which affirms the client’s homosexuality as good, equivalent to heterosexuality, and intrinsic to the client’s nature. In fact, even higher standards must be demanded because this therapeutic approach is largely untried, compared with the wealth of experience gained over many decades for traditional sexual-reorientation therapies. In fact, some common sense is needed, for traditional therapies which at least advocate same-sex sexual abstinence, will ultimately save many gay men’s lives. On the other hand, gay-affirmative therapy, which allows or encourages expression of an intense sexuality which often causes premature death, should have to meet extremely high standards of proof to be declared “safe.”

King Mob

JimiTime wrote: »

Also, if its to be spun as a safety issue, in terms of health, then what about the statistics that something like 65% of all new HIV cases in the US were from homosexuals? Thats a group that make up 3% of the population, yet with 65% of the HIV infections. Similarly for lots of other STD's. So one could spin it that an attempt is being made to lessen the risk for such a person. I think there is inconsistency, and that political motivations are truly what are at play.

Banning unproven, ineffective dubious and potential dangerous medical treatments is completely different to banning certain people from having sex.
One is common and a very appropriate thing to do, the other in an infringing on basic human rights.
Yet you pretend they are comparable for some reason.... almost as if you're the one with the political motivations...

Nodin

King Mob wrote: »

Banning unproven, ineffective dubious and potential dangerous medical treatments is completely different to banning certain people from having sex.
One is common and a very appropriate thing to do, the other in an infringing on basic human rights.
Yet you pretend they are comparable for some reason.... almost as if you're the one with the political motivations...

...almost as if - perish the thought- he was obsessed with what gays did.

Links234

JimiTime wrote: »

Yes I would, but thats not actually relevant. The fact that homosexual people exist that don't want to be homosexual, for whatever reason, and religious conviction is as valid a reason as any, THAT is whats relevant in this context.

It's exactly relevant, you can't just make a claim that there are people who don't want to be homosexual and brush away any circumstances that may lead to a person feeling like reparative therapy is their only option. We are talking about minors here if you don't recall, and LGBT youth are at serious risk of being thrown out of their homes by their own parents, so their reasons for seeing dangerous and damaging "therapies" as an alternative are incredibly relevant. It doesn't seem like much of a choice when they've got the proverbial loaded gun pointed at their head, and it would take someone extremely callous not to take that into consideration as long as the religious get what they want. And no, "religious conviction" is absolutely not a valid reason at all, because we're still talking about minors here!

old hippy

What is it with these zealouts(sic)? Always with the conversions, everybody must be converted to MY WAY of thinking and believing.

I'd rather be a "pervert" than a convert anyday.

JimiTime

old hippy wrote: »

What is it with these zealouts(sic)? Always with the conversions, everybody must be converted to MY WAY of thinking and believing.

I'd rather be a "pervert" than a convert anyday.

Where did anyone say they must be converted? What they do is what they do. If they choose to embrace their desires then good luck to them. I have not championed coercion at all. the opposite in fact. Its about those that exist WHO THEMSELVES, WANT to change.

ShooterSF

So till no response on whether we should allow minors to change their sexuality even if it were possible or even the one you'd only have to pay lip service to because you know the business would never happen, people changing from heterosexual to homosexual. Silence is deafening and all that.

King Mob

JimiTime wrote: »

Where did anyone say they must be converted? What they do is what they do. If they choose to embrace their desires then good luck to them. I have not championed coercion at all. the opposite in fact. Its about those that exist WHO THEMSELVES, WANT to change.

So again, would you support people who want to be cured of their heterosexuality?
How about minors who want to be gay, should they be allowed the opportunity? Should they be offered it?

Undergod

If someone wants to change their orientation, let 'em! Though the concept of wanting to be a different orientation raises some weird questions about orientation.

Shouldn't be available to minors.

Bannasidhe

King Mob wrote: »

So again, would you support people who want to be cured of their heterosexuality?
How about minors who want to be gay, should they be allowed the opportunity? Should they be offered it?

I have a friend who would love to be Gay. She tried so hard to fancy women but no matter how much she wanted it to happen, she still fancied only men - sadly she also fancied men who were low down dirty dogs.

For years she insisted that heterosexuality was just a phase and she would eventually grow out of it.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

Read an interesting response to the APA report that has been referred to here:

Dr NE. Whitehead wrote:

...

Neil Whitehead -- or "Dr Neil Whitehead Ph.D" as he's more frequently referred to on the internet -- does not have a qualification in psychiatry or psychology, but instead in the unrelated area of Biochemistry, and that from 1971. Within mainstream science, it's considered odd that somebody would write book-length documents on an area in which he appears to have no formal qualification, nor indeed, any scientific training at all. Creationists and similar self-publicists do it all the time, but that's another story.

Whitehead also seems to be connected to an outfit called NARTH, a virulently homophobic organization run by a deeply unpleasant individual named Joseph Nicolosi. NARTH is one of very few organizations in the USA which claims to be scientific, but which still promotes the thoroughly scientifically-discredited theory of psychoanalysis. NARTH, btw, is a prominent supporter of gay-conversion "therapy" and hit the headlines last year when its "scientific committee" claimed that black slaves were better off in the USA cutting cotton than they were in Africa:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_Research_%26_Therapy_of_Homosexuality#Gerald_Schoenewolf_controversy

Whitehead has also produced a book named "My Genes Made Me Do It!", a dreadful book-length screed in which the author claims to deliver the "scientific facts about homosexuality", a claim laid waste by the lies he starts delivering almost immediately (about the stats behind the RCC's pedophile scandal, for example; there are plenty more easily-trashable nonsense in the few pages that I bothered looking at).

I wouldn't quote Mr Whitehead on homosexuality any more than I'd quote Bozo the Clown on General Relativity.

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

Neil Whitehead -- or "Dr Neil Whitehead Ph.D" as he's more frequently referred to on the internet -- does not have a qualification in psychiatry or psychology, but instead in the unrelated area of Biochemistry, and that from 1971. Within mainstream science, it's considered odd that somebody would write book-length documents on an area in which he appears to have no formal qualification, nor indeed, any scientific training at all. Creationists and similar self-publicists do it all the time, but that's another story.

Whitehead also seems to be connected to an outfit called NARTH, a virulently homophobic organization run by a deeply unpleasant individual named Joseph Nicolosi. NARTH is one of very few organizations in the USA which claims to be scientific, but which still promotes the thoroughly scientifically-discredited theory of psychoanalysis. NARTH, btw, is a prominent supporter of gay-conversion "therapy" and hit the headlines last year when its "scientific committee" claimed that black slaves were better off in the USA cutting cotton than they were in Africa:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_Research_%26_Therapy_of_Homosexuality#Gerald_Schoenewolf_controversy

Whitehead has also produced a book named "My Genes Made Me Do It!", a dreadful book-length screed in which the author claims to deliver the "scientific facts about homosexuality", a claim laid waste by the lies he starts delivering almost immediately (about the stats behind the RCC's pedophile scandal, for example; there are plenty more easily-trashable nonsense in the few pages that I bothered looking at).

I wouldn't quote Mr Whitehead on homosexuality any more than I'd quote Bozo the Clown on General Relativity.

I. Am. In. AWE!

MagicMarker

JimiTime just got served.

Sarky

MagicMarker wrote: »

JimiTime just got served.

Pfft, truth won't work on him, he's Christian.

NuMarvel

Well, now we know why Jimi didn't include a link to Mr Whitehead's statement...

Here's a link to the full statement if anyone's interested - http://www.narth.com/docs/whiteheadcomm.html.

Nodin

Sarky wrote: »

Pfft, truth won't work on him, he's Christian.

And a rampant homophobe - a rather unholy combination.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Neil Whitehead -- or "Dr Neil Whitehead Ph.D" as he's more frequently referred to on the internet -- does not have a qualification in psychiatry or psychology, but instead in the unrelated area of Biochemistry, and that from 1971. Within mainstream science, it's considered odd that somebody would write book-length documents on an area in which he appears to have no formal qualification, nor indeed, any scientific training at all. Creationists and similar self-publicists do it all the time, but that's another story.

Whitehead also seems to be connected to an outfit called NARTH, a virulently homophobic organization run by a deeply unpleasant individual named Joseph Nicolosi. NARTH is one of very few organizations in the USA which claims to be scientific, but which still promotes the thoroughly scientifically-discredited theory of psychoanalysis. NARTH, btw, is a prominent supporter of gay-conversion "therapy" and hit the headlines last year when its "scientific committee" claimed that black slaves were better off in the USA cutting cotton than they were in Africa:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_Research_%26_Therapy_of_Homosexuality#Gerald_Schoenewolf_controversy

Whitehead has also produced a book named "My Genes Made Me Do It!", a dreadful book-length screed in which the author claims to deliver the "scientific facts about homosexuality", a claim laid waste by the lies he starts delivering almost immediately (about the stats behind the RCC's pedophile scandal, for example; there are plenty more easily-trashable nonsense in the few pages that I bothered looking at).

I wouldn't quote Mr Whitehead on homosexuality any more than I'd quote Bozo the Clown on General Relativity.

So where do his points fall down? Not saying they don't fall down, but you've quoted nothing of substance there.

Nodin

JimiTime wrote: »

So where do his points fall down? Not saying they don't fall down, but you've quoted nothing of substance there.

What has he quoted that is of no substance?

Also you might answer these questions put to you earlier -

King Mob wrote:

So again, would you support people who want to be cured of their heterosexuality?
How about minors who want to be gay, should they be allowed the opportunity? Should they be offered it?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81117762&postcount=1419

JimiTime

Nodin wrote: »

And a rampant homophobe

'Rampant' homophobe. Love it

So Jimi, how can i be a RAMPANT homophobe like you?

Well, you need to have a moral objection to homosexual sex.

And then we beat the ones that don't conform?

Ehh no, what they do is up to them.

Ey? So we just hate them, and do nothing??

Ehh, no. We love them like we should all our neighbours.

How often should we obsess about them?

Obsess? Why, are they doing something to you?

No, but they're out there aint they.

So?

Well they're all doing homosexually stuff.

Thats their business.

Well there IS this anti-bullying campaign getting rolled out in schools that involves telling children to get to know their inner tranny and the like.

Aha, so now its going to affect more than just the consenting adults engaged in the acts we happen to morally object to.

Yeah, can we go beat them now?

No, remember 'Love thy neighbour'. However, thankfully in this here democracy, we can raise our concerns about the societal impact of such things, and look to resist such political agenda's.

So will we ever get to beat them?

'fraid not.

Hate em?

'fraid not.

Yer not very rampant are you!

Oh, very much so. Nodin gave me the badge its here on my mantel piece.

Anyway, I better leave it there, as the weasels are out, and I'm beginning to talk to myself:)

King Mob

JimiTime wrote: »

'Rampant' homophobe. Love it



Anyway, I better leave it there, as the weasels are out, and I'm beginning to talk to myself:)

Good thing too, you looked a bit pathetic when you tried to brush off Rob's destruction of your last post.
If you kept quoting discredited psuedoscientists and bigots and ignoring basic simple questions, who know just how sad you might seem.

JimiTime

King Mob wrote: »

Good thing too, you looked a bit pathetic when you tried to brush off Rob's destruction of your last post.
If you kept quoting discredited psuedoscientists and bigots and ignoring basic simple questions, who know just how sad you might seem.

As I said, the weasels are out;) Of course, you could take the guys points apart if you wish too. No-one seems that interested though. They'd rather play the man than the point it seems. Convenient, it could be said, but I'll be reading if anyone gives a sh1t enough to.

King Mob

JimiTime wrote: »

As I said, the weasels are out;) Of course, you could take the guys points apart if you wish too. No-one seems that interested though. They'd rather play the man than the point it seems. Convenient, it could be said, but I'll be reading if anyone gives a sh1t enough to.

Lol I wonder how much irony you can fit into one sentence without noticing....

And robin's points do also attack his points, showing that he is not qualified to make them and is biased enough to make them up.

So since you are now admittedly ignoring the question I think the answer is clear.
You don't support the idea of people being cured of the heterosexuality. You can't admit that as it shows you points to be hypocritical hot air, hence why you've dodged the question.

Nodin

JimiTime wrote: »

'............

Well there IS this anti-bullying campaign getting rolled out in schools that involves telling children to get to know their inner tranny and the like.

Aha, so now its going to affect more than just the consenting adults engaged in the acts we happen to morally object to.
..............

Lovely stuff. The mask slipped there, btw.

You haven't answered the questions put to you.

In the unlikely event you missed them -

King Mob wrote:

So again, would you support people who want to be cured of their heterosexuality?
How about minors who want to be gay, should they be allowed the opportunity? Should they be offered it?

MrPudding

robindch wrote: »

Neil Whitehead -- or "Dr Neil Whitehead Ph.D" as he's more frequently referred to on the internet -- does not have a qualification in psychiatry or psychology, but instead in the unrelated area of Biochemistry, and that from 1971. Within mainstream science, it's considered odd that somebody would write book-length documents on an area in which he appears to have no formal qualification, nor indeed, any scientific training at all. Creationists and similar self-publicists do it all the time, but that's another story.

Whitehead also seems to be connected to an outfit called NARTH, a virulently homophobic organization run by a deeply unpleasant individual named Joseph Nicolosi. NARTH is one of very few organizations in the USA which claims to be scientific, but which still promotes the thoroughly scientifically-discredited theory of psychoanalysis. NARTH, btw, is a prominent supporter of gay-conversion "therapy" and hit the headlines last year when its "scientific committee" claimed that black slaves were better off in the USA cutting cotton than they were in Africa:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_Research_%26_Therapy_of_Homosexuality#Gerald_Schoenewolf_controversy

Whitehead has also produced a book named "My Genes Made Me Do It!", a dreadful book-length screed in which the author claims to deliver the "scientific facts about homosexuality", a claim laid waste by the lies he starts delivering almost immediately (about the stats behind the RCC's pedophile scandal, for example; there are plenty more easily-trashable nonsense in the few pages that I bothered looking at).

I wouldn't quote Mr Whitehead on homosexuality any more than I'd quote Bozo the Clown on General Relativity.

This is a bit like the introduction to the Gillian McKeith chapter in the excellent "Bad Science". It opens with something along the lines of "This chapter is about Gillian McKeith, or to give her her full medical title, Gillian McKeith."

MrP

JimiTime

King Mob wrote: »

And robin's points do also attack his points, showing that he is not qualified to make them and is biased enough to make them up.

So he attacks his points, by not dealing at all with his points. Gotcha. I'll give you this KM, you are consistent.

So since you are now admittedly ignoring the question I think the answer is clear.

You are free to invent any answer you want.

You don't support the idea of people being cured of the heterosexuality. You can't admit that as it shows you points to be hypocritical hot air, hence why you've dodged the question.

You can believe that if you wish, I don't mind. The irrelevance of the question remains though, and only serves as an attempt to once again try to play the man than the point. As i said KM, you're consistent. Like on other threads, people think they have these killer questions, and assume people ignoring them is due to something other than them being irrelevant or stupid. You are free to assume such things, but continue to feel free to make a relevant point to the topic. Lobbing explicit and implicit insults at each other is fun, admittedly, but sometimes its good to deal with the points. Though if you want to continue to just have the craic, sure no bother.

JimiTime

Nodin wrote: »

Lovely stuff. The mask slipped there, btw.

You haven't answered the questions put to you.

In the unlikely event you missed them -

The mask? Not at all, as I said, thats what obviously makes me a RAMPANT homophobe.

Nodin

JimiTime wrote: »

The mask? Not at all, as I said, thats what obviously makes me a RAMPANT homophobe.

The questions - If you'd be as good as to answer please -

King Mob wrote:

So again, would you support people who want to be cured of their heterosexuality?
How about minors who want to be gay, should they be allowed the opportunity? Should they be offered it?

Delirium

JimiTime wrote: »

But which ones? Was causation established? If so, how? How thick is the evidence.
Also, if its to be spun as a safety issue, in terms of health, then what about the statistics that something like 65% of all new HIV cases in the US were from homosexuals? Thats a group that make up 3% of the population, yet with 65% of the HIV infections. Similarly for lots of other STD's. So one could spin it that an attempt is being made to lessen the risk for such a person. I think there is inconsistency, and that political motivations are truly what are at play.

Read an interesting response to the APA report that has been referred to here:

Originally Posted by DR NE. Whitehead
Therapists have been offering therapies to help homosexuals for many decades. However the task force now demands a standard of proof of effectiveness for sexual-reorientation therapy which is impossibly high and is not required of other therapies.

The success rates of various therapies for addiction, for example, are similar to those for sexual-reorientation therapy, but addiction therapies are never attacked on the grounds that they have not been subjected to the impossibly rigorous tests proposed for therapy for homosexuals.

The only rigorous survey to test the effectiveness of sexual-reorientation therapy would be a longitudinal comparison of groups that received “treatment” versus “no treatment.” But since clients usually present with many co-morbid problems, particularly suicidality, mood disorders and substance abuse, the “no treatment” option would not be ethical. This means, therefore, that a rigorous test of reorientation therapy would be impossible.

The task force’s insistence on such high standards of proof for sexual-reorientation therapies is so highly selective that its motives must be suspected of being merely political, which would be reprehensible in an organization which claims to be science-based.

Would the committee recommend that therapy for obesity, drugs or alcoholism not be attempted because they have a high recidivism rate? The ethical position must surely be that anything that may work should be tried, though with appropriate safeguards and with appropriate informed consent.

Given the task force’s stated standards of therapeutic efficacy, the same research standards must be applied to testing gay-affirmative therapy — i.e., therapy which affirms the client’s homosexuality as good, equivalent to heterosexuality, and intrinsic to the client’s nature. In fact, even higher standards must be demanded because this therapeutic approach is largely untried, compared with the wealth of experience gained over many decades for traditional sexual-reorientation therapies. In fact, some common sense is needed, for traditional therapies which at least advocate same-sex sexual abstinence, will ultimately save many gay men’s lives. On the other hand, gay-affirmative therapy, which allows or encourages expression of an intense sexuality which often causes premature death, should have to meet extremely high standards of proof to be declared “safe.”

Whitehead obviously doesn't understand how therapy with regards to addiction works if he thinks it's comparable to the sexuality reconditioning that is banned from being carried out on minors.

Addiction therapy works (AFAIK) by getting a person to accept that it is part of them and that they have to work to control that desire. It doesn't attempt to condition them to be addicted to something less harmful. A closer comparison to reconditioning therapy would be to suggest that addicts be treated with aversion therapy and a steel rod.

And Whiteheads involvement in a gay-conversion group shows that he isn't approaching the subject of homosexuality from a place of benevolence towards homosexuals. Rather he is treating it as a negative mental trait to be eradicated.

JimiTime

koth wrote: »

Whitehead obviously doesn't understand how therapy with regards to addiction works if he thinks it's comparable to the sexuality reconditioning that is banned from being carried out on minors.

Thats not actually what he's done if you look at it again.


Therapists have been offering therapies to help homosexuals for many decades. However the task force now demands a standard of proof of effectiveness for sexual-reorientation therapy which is impossibly high and is not required of other therapies.

The success rates of various therapies for addiction, for example, are similar to those for sexual-reorientation therapy, but addiction therapies are never attacked on the grounds that they have not been subjected to the impossibly rigorous tests proposed for therapy for homosexuals.


He's not comparing the two, but rather calling the APA to account for demanding a standard of proof that is not called for elsewhere. He compares the addiction therapy not in application, but rather in terms of success. Saying that the success rates for both are similar, yet the reparation therapy is considered bogus, while the addiction therapy is not.

And Whiteheads involvement in a gay-conversion group shows that he isn't approaching the subject of homosexuality from a place of benevolence towards homosexuals. Rather he is treating it as a negative mental trait to be eradicated.

TBH, its going to be very difficult to approach this topic without bias. What CAN be done, is that the points raised can be looked at on their own merit. I think its rather odd to completely ignore a point, because you think the person making it is whatever (Not saying you did, just saying in general). I suppose that makes for a difficult topic, as its so politically and emotionally charged.

Delirium

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats not actually what he's done if you look at it again.


Therapists have been offering therapies to help homosexuals for many decades. However the task force now demands a standard of proof of effectiveness for sexual-reorientation therapy which is impossibly high and is not required of other therapies.

The success rates of various therapies for addiction, for example, are similar to those for sexual-reorientation therapy, but addiction therapies are never attacked on the grounds that they have not been subjected to the impossibly rigorous tests proposed for therapy for homosexuals.


He's not comparing the two, but rather calling the APA to account for demanding a standard of proof that is not called for elsewhere. He compares the addiction therapy not in application, but rather in terms of success. Saying that the success rates for both are similar, yet the reparation therapy is considered bogus, while the addiction therapy is not.

He is comparing the two, purely on effectiveness. The first problem he has is that addiction therapy/counselling has a wealth of medical data/case studies documenting how it works and why.

Reconditioning therapy has zero data to back it up. All data/information was scrutinised just like addiction therapy has been. So no double standard exists, rather reconditioning failed to meet the standard taht has been met by work done in the field of addiction therapy.

TBH, its going to be very difficult to approach this topic without bias. What CAN be done, is that the points raised can be looked at on their own merit. I think its rather odd to completely ignore a point, because you think the person making it is whatever (Not saying you did, just saying in general). I suppose that makes for a difficult topic, as its so politically and emotionally charged.

The points were looked at on their own merits and good reasons were given as to why there is no substance to the points.

Giving information about the person who made the point isn't harmful, especially if it's shown that he is involved in a group that are involved practises that the medical community have said are dangerous and have no effectiveness on patients.