It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Homosexual Conversion Therapy

page: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 10:38 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Haxsaw
a reply to: kaylaluv

oh it's gone to a small percentage now has it? this is still debatable, and I think you need to do a lot more reading before I bother educating you anymore, so please spare me

and, animals don't suffer from psychological mental disorders now either? wow ignorance must be bliss, start with googling the fact you are wrong on this, then you'll realise you actually have nothing worthy to say. Regardless of whether some humans have an innate disposition to do certain actions does not in any way make whatever those actions may be 'acceptable', and this is what is being debated, stop clutching at straws and dancing around the point.




official data reveal that gays and lesbians comprise between 2 percent and 4 percent of the population.


cnsnews.com...

At most, surveys have stated 10 percent (Kinsey report). That is still a small percentage (compared to 90%).

There is no debate.

I'm not dancing in the least. I'm saying straight out -- there is nothing wrong with being homosexual. Homosexuality in and of itself causes no harm to the general population. Prove that I am wrong instead of personal attacks.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   
this is not merely an abrahamic thing. many heterosexuals of various beliefs/non-beliefs, are not entirely thrilled with the idea of homosexuality because, well, they aren't homosexual themselves and the idea repulses them (not the people, but the idea of sex with a person of the same gender). that part isn't too hard to understand. homosexuals are not fond of heterosexuality either.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: undo
Point taken. It actually repulses me too. But repulsion and considering it unnatural are different things. "I don't understand it therefore it's not normal."

Just playing Devils Advocate

edit on 7-6-2014 by Degradation33 because: (no reason given)


(post by OpenEars123 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Additonal links of possible interest:

www.christianpost.com...



. . .

This story sounds eerily similar to the disaster witnessed in New Jersey last year, when transgender activist Brielle Goldani claimed to have been sent to a "conversion therapy torture camp" in Ohio in 1997. Goldani alleged to have been electroshocked at the month-long "True Directions" camp in an attempt to make him, now her, straight. Yet, an investigation published at WorldNetDaily.com revealed that the entire testimony was a fraud, taken directly out of a Hollywood production starring drag queen RuPaul.

Tall tales of "therapy torture" aside, the larger problem with this legislation is the foundation of facts, or lack thereof, to substantiate such prohibitions. While anti-therapy advocates assert that "rigorous studies" have found SOCE therapy to be "harmful" and "ineffective" for minors, there is no scientific foundation for this assertion. To date, there have been no outcome-based studies published in peer-reviewed journals that have followed minors undergoing SOCE therapy. Rather, these advocates have used sociological data to argue that efforts to change should be made illegal.
. . .

These clinical outcomes are consistent with epidemiological data that has found homosexual feelings in adolescence to be fluid, rather than fixed. Longitudinal studies by Savin-Williams & Ream (2007) and Ott et al. (2011) following large samples of youth found that seventy-five and sixty-six percent of adolescents, respectively, who initially identified their sexual orientation as "homosexual" or "unsure," reported exclusive heterosexual attraction at follow-up. In contrast, only two percent of youth who identified a heterosexual orientation in the Savin-Williams & Ream study reported a homosexual orientation at follow-up.

While most people would agree that forcibly subjecting gay-identified youth to undergo therapy to change sexual orientation is wrong, that does not mean the state should remove the option for youth (especially those who experience homosexual feelings due to sexual abuse) to explore the origins of their same-sex attractions and consider whether they want to pursue therapy that affirms their self-identified and preferred heterosexual identity.

. . .

But don't take my word for it; ask New York Mayor Bill De Blasio's wife, who was once a lesbian. When queried as to how she went from being a lesbian to falling in love with Bill, writer and poet Chirlane McCray said, "By putting aside the assumptions I had about the form and package my love would come in. By letting myself be as free as I felt when I went natural."

Just in case you were wondering, no reports have surfaced that indicate McCray was tortured or forced into this marriage. But then again, we're barely into 2014, and there is plenty of time for activists to make up stories that go unchallenged in the mainstream media.



usnews.nbcnews.com...




Nicolosi's theory is that men are attracted to other men because of how they were raised. He bases this notion on conversations he had early in his career with gay men.
.

“As I listened to these men, I started to hear common themes of their childhood,” Nicolosi said. “Overinvolved, intrusive mother, distanced, detached or hostile father, so that the boy did not bond with the father. That became the foundation of the understanding. I looked into the literature. I saw that there was an entire tradition of psychoanalytic understanding.”
.

So why not accept that his patients might be gay?
.

Knowing the reason for their same-sex attraction is consoling to patients, Nicolosi said. “They’re no longer weirdos or perverts or degenerates or whatever. Now they realize that their same-sex attraction is an attempt to repair a sense of not belonging to men.”


www.bpnews.net...




Among their findings:
.

-- 23 percent reported a successful conversion to heterosexual attractions.
.

-- 30 percent reported living a celibate life and were content with their reduction in homosexual attractions. Altogether, those latter two categories were combined for a 53 percent success rate, the researchers said.
.

-- 16 percent of subjects had modest decreases in homosexual attractions and weren't satisfied with their degree of change but were committed to continuing the process.
.

-- 7 percent had seen no decrease in homosexual attractions but had not given up trying to change.
.

-- 25 percent of subjects were considered "failures," either because they gave up on the process and once again identified as a homosexual (20 percent) or because they had not yet embraced a homosexual identity but nevertheless had given up (5 percent).
.

All the subjects were going through programs set up by Exodus International, a Christian ministry that seeks to help those who want to leave homosexuality. Although Exodus funded the study, Jones and Yarhouse agreed to conduct it only if all sides agreed that they would report the results no matter the outcome -- in other words, even if the findings embarrassed Exodus.
.

The latest findings were released four days after an American Psychological Association task force released a 130-page report that said "gay-to-straight" therapies are unlikely to work. That report got mixed reviews from conservatives, although APA's position on the issue is well-known: It believes homosexual attractions are "normal and positive variants" of human sexuality. The APA's website still states, "[T]here has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective."
.

"The APA has previously asserted, with absolute clarity, that sexual orientation change is not possible -- that it simply doesn't occur," Jones, of Wheaton College, told Baptist Press. "The best way to test that is to study people as they're attempting change and follow them over a long period of time. Our study found that a significant portion of that population reported very significant change."



Worth a gander also:

americansfortruth.com...

= = = =

imho . . .

Such a major change from an exclusively homosexual ideation and behavioral focus is at best, on average, quite difficult.

Apart from a major intervention by Holy Spirit WITHIN the person, I'm skeptical it can be very thoroughly achieved through therapy or by one's own personal strength. Theoretically I'd still hold it as possible but very difficult.

RESISTING the unwanted associations, images, memories, urges and REFOCUSING toward the desired heterosexual ones is just incredibly difficult, to challenging for most such folks.

Brains get hardwired from thousands of repeated connections, thoughts and behaviors--all the more so with the dopamine high associations that orgasm affords.

Nevertheless, there are successes . . . whether from a dramatic spiritual touch by Holy Spirit or a very tenacious, dogged years long process of therapy or personal "CHANGIN' ONE'S STINKIN' THINKIN' " approach.

It is still true on a list of variables that AS WE THINK IN OUR HEARTS, SO ARE WE.

And it IS POSSIBLE to refocus.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

well considering i don't think we were originally created as sexual in the first place but were given procreation as a solution to a problem (the newly procreative adam was lonely), the idea some mix and matching is going on, doesn't surprise me. the bottom line in all this is that it doesn't sound like a good idea to encourage people to try to pretend they arent gay, which would be the case if they were born that way. since it's hard to tell whether the person is suffering with sexual abuse at a young age or genetically predisposed to homosexuality, i don't think we should be trying to experiment with their lives and emotions.

ever hear of turner's syndrome? they are born with both genitalia. stuff happens.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   
There is all sorts of research, data, articles, papers and conclusions out there from leading psychologists, doctors, therapists, councilors, researchers and psychological associations. Almost every single one states that this therapy does more harm than good or is at best totally ineffective. To have this forced on a minor with this much research out there is a crime.

There is nothing wrong with being gay or transsexual.

This usually comes from a religious background shrouded in one of the three outdated Abrahamic religions or a mind clouded in ignorance.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: undo

I don't think heavy handed coerciveness works well in most cases regardless of the type of problem.

It is certainly problematic with regard to homosexuality.

However, so is heavy handed propagandizing saying the whole thing is a rosey bowl of peaches and nirvana.

An endless train of one night stands and sex outside of primary relationships as well as other complications . . . e.g. 20 years shorter life span . . . are not glorious factors suggesting that the orientation is exclusively wonderful.

An extremely tiny minority of homosexual relationships are long term enduring and monogamous. That's sad. Regardless of perspective or religious issues or whatever, that's JUST SAD.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: amazing

The research is fraught with horrendous methodological junk/problems.

The irresponsible, unfounded propagandizing on all sides is off the scale--particularly with the "pro" groups.

The whole research picture is MOSTLY one of "research" ran by outrageously screamingly "pro" biased "researchers" and groups and is GREATLY MORE THAN A LITTLE SUSPECT from the git-go.

The research from the 'you can change' group is typically not greatly better.

Pontificating on the basis of junk research by mostly propagandists on either side, is . . . disingenuous and terminally stupid while pretending to be erudite.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Degradation33

wh...wh...what?
I said "So let me knock this ridiculous argument on the head, just because apes do something doesn't make it acceptable human behaviour"

You said "You actually didn't knock crap on its head. Actually I'm saying it doesn't need a justification, as it is normal"

Are you serious? you're going around in circles, which one is it?

A/ if an animal or human does something future/past/present we should accept it as your version of 'normal' and accept and condone it...which if so then leads me back to my original statement which in a nutshell says you want a lawless society, and in that case I'm sure you'll find a friend in the late man who went by many names including 'the beast' and 'Aliester Crowely' and his lawlessness.

or

B/We can't look at any action that a human does and try to class it as 'acceptable' or encourage it just because another animal or human may do it(past, future, or present) due to the abhorrent way of life that would be inherited with this ideology, and we don't sit here going around in circles changing the discussion to what is 'normal'(rather than acceptable) in an attempt to side-step the real issue here.

or

C/ we do as you and others are attempting to do and sit here and talk about why you think absolutely all actions are 'normal' basically just because 'we can do them', and ignore the fact that what we are discussing is whether or not they should be accepted and encouraged, which I'm sure you can understand by default is basically 'A' in disguise.

or

D/we all just nod our head and agree with your misguided homosexual brainwashing and pretend we have no cognitive development whatsoever and that you aren't trying to play a game of semantics in hope of fooling like minded individuals

Don't try semantics on me, it's not going to work, for instance we could sit here and debate the definition of the word 'normal' as a start, then maybe in 200 years we can work out a common definition of a single sentence, you know what I'm getting at and I know what you're trying to do. Fulfilling your ego based on ignorance wont win an argument either.

So it's good to see you missed the point(again), you said "it doesnt need justification" because it's been seen in animals yet as I stated I don't believe the thread is about whether it falls under your definition of 'normal', because clearly your definition of normal entails anything that might have been done by animals or humans in the past(future or present for that matter), and I don't think anyone here is suggesting that everything that's falls under that category should be encouraged and/or accepted in our societies.

So this gets us back to the whether homosexuals should be dissuaded from partaking in their lust for the same sex and more to the point whether homosexual conversion therapies should be encouraged. So far we've established that what an animal does should have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what we regard as 'acceptable', so push aside that part of your indoctrination and misguided so called 'scientific' homosexual dogma (or control memes if you like), and move on.

At the end of the day you've put your faith in one or more things just like everyone else on earth, be it a bunch of scientists more learned than yourself in a certain field, be it the spaghetti monster, the big bad wolf, the easter bunny, GOD, or even jumping to the conclusion that you can throw a bit of time at a prehistoric ape and it will turn into a human, whether you like it or not it all requires faith, the difference between you and I is that I can admit it takes faith, whilst it's apparent you would be a zealous Darwin thumper who denies his indoctrination requires any faith at all and protest that his indoctrination is all based on facts.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: undo

I don't think heavy handed coerciveness works well in most cases regardless of the type of problem.

It is certainly problematic with regard to homosexuality.

However, so is heavy handed propagandizing saying the whole thing is a rosey bowl of peaches and nirvana.

An endless train of one night stands and sex outside of primary relationships as well as other complications . . . e.g. 20 years shorter life span . . . are not glorious factors suggesting that the orientation is exclusively wonderful.

An extremely tiny minority of homosexual relationships are long term enduring and monogamous. That's sad. Regardless of perspective or religious issues or whatever, that's JUST SAD.



I don't agree with you about the "extremely tiny" minority of monogamous homosexual relationships. I will say, however, that young people in general have a tendency to want lots of sex. There is a big problem with STDs among high school and college students who are heterosexual. There is a lot of sex going on with multiple partners, which can be dangerous. All the more reason for sex education and the promotion of monogamous relationships - among homosexuals AND heterosexuals. That is one reason why I can't understand why we aren't fully embracing gay marriage. We should be encouraging committed relationships, not discouraging them.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: amazing

The research is fraught with horrendous methodological junk/problems.

The irresponsible, unfounded propagandizing on all sides is off the scale--particularly with the "pro" groups.

The whole research picture is MOSTLY one of "research" ran by outrageously screamingly "pro" biased "researchers" and groups and is GREATLY MORE THAN A LITTLE SUSPECT from the git-go.

The research from the 'you can change' group is typically not greatly better.

Pontificating on the basis of junk research by mostly propagandists on either side, is . . . disingenuous and terminally stupid while pretending to be erudite.


Your wrong, my friend. Look up any leading psychologist or medical association and their stance on this. It's not junk science or junk research if all the leading scientific studies say the same thing.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: amazing


This usually comes from a religious background shrouded in one of the three outdated Abrahamic religions or a mind clouded in ignorance.


theoretically, this came about as a result of the demands on the people of israel. first, they couldn't enter the temple if they weren't genetically whole. and that stemmed from even further back where noah was warned of an impending cataclysm, because he was genetically whole (perfect in his generations). this assumes there was a genetic template from which humans were originally formed, and the deviations are the result of degradation of the original dna copies over time, instead of evolving, this suggests we are devolving genetically. so let's say you wanna reset the ecosystem. are you going to want healthy typical people specimens or people with variants of all kinds of potential issues, one of which (homosexuality) doesn't inspire repopulation.

so it was part of their law that in order to maintain that favor with the guy who created them, they must maintain themselves as healthy genetic specimens, even going as far as to do the stoning to death stuff to keep it weeded out of their population. jesus of course, wasn't a fan of stoning people for any reason, encouraged us to overlook each other's weak points and so on. totally different paradigm. which is why this thread is so frustrating to read



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

I encourage you to check the stats out on long term monogomous homosexual relationships.

IIRC, it's less than 2% . . . perhaps less than 1%.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Haxsaw

I said without using a Theistic argument, it appears you both can't do it, and avoided the question. Faith? In what? Observation, empirical, and psychological evidence?

Answer these if you will...

What makes you believe it's not acceptable?
What dictates acceptable human behavior?
What makes you think the behavior is learned?
What makes humans different from other animals?
Why shouldn't being true to ones nature be encouraged?

As an aside I am a huge fan of Crowley. Thelema is a huge influence of my own personal praxis. And yes, I am for the "might is right" type of existence.




edit on 7-6-2014 by Degradation33 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-6-2014 by Degradation33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

WRONG.

1. This is my profession with a PhD in clinical psychology. My PhD program was rife with Tavistock trainers--that is trainers who trained the leading--top bosses and leading Tavistock consultants. They were master "change agents" in terms of organizations and even political change.

2. I KNOW the degree of propagandizing within the profession. I KNOW that much "research" in this subject area is essentially a stacked deck by poor design from the beginning.

3. There's plenty of discussion available in even professional papers about how stacked the deck is BY THE "PROFESSIONALS" and certainly the PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS.

4. The decision decades ago changing the category from disorder to a lifestyle choice was A POLITICAL EFFORT THAT SUCCEEDED. It was NOT based on science AT ALL.

5. You can continue to be impressed with the POLITICAL PROPAGANDIZING BY THE PROFESSION, if you wish. I'm not.

.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Degradation33




I said without using a Theistic argument, it appears you both can't do it


are you including me in that "you both can't do it"?



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

it doesn't make sense though. if it's a choice, then how can it be a genetic disorder? and if it's a genetic disorder, how can it be a choice? why are we only given two sides of this coin to examine?



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: undo

No, bad use of language/punctuation. "Both" meaning:
1. Can't make an argument not based on religious ideology
2. Avoided the question in that regard.
edit on 7-6-2014 by Degradation33 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join