So gay!!!

[billyshelby]

An essential corrollary to the "genetically caused" argument has always been that sexual idenity is not a "matter of choice" and is "unalterable," eh, Eric? Not only was this argument "brought" before the judge in this case (Perry v. SCHWARZENEGGER), he essentially, found as a "matter of fact," that it was true:

[Factual finding #46.] "Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation."

I guess this is the equilavent of sayin that either:

1. Research done by credible and respected professionals such as Robert Spitzer (video above) is "incredible" to this judge, or perhaps that

2. The supposed "best available defense" which was presented did not even call the judge's attention to such studies.

So you would convincingly offer up as defense a study that A) comprised 200 people; B) was drawn from a pool of people 'highly motivated' to change their sexual orientation; C) were largely drawn from lists provided by NARTH, an organization dedicated to reforming gay people of their homosexual affliction? I mean, you're kidding, right?

 

[Hopper]

Chem, maybe you got your notion of what is "normal" in sexual behavior from the archiac, yet very influential, Kinsey report, eh? This is an except from an interview with a prominent psychologist who did not believe that homosexuality was either "normal" or innate:

A.: "Kinsey stated it very clearly at the end of his report on male sexuality. He said that all types of sexual activity-- sex with the opposite sex, sex with the same sex, sex with both sexes, sex with children, sex with whips and chains, fisting sex, sex with animals--any kind of sex was normal...

Q.: In other words, according to Kinsey, sexual orientation is a matter of indifference to nature?

A.: Yes, and I can't help but laugh now, in this context, when I think of a psychiatric meeting we had in Atlanta in 1988. Dr. Richard Isay, a gay psychiatrist and a leading proponent and promoter of same-sex sex, was on a panel where someone asked him about a Kinsey-like statement that Isay had made--something about nature's indifference to any form of sexuality.

The questioner asked Isay about farm boys who might be attracted to sheep. Would he encourage these boys to have sex with sheep? With a straight face, Isay said this was entirely acceptable, "as long as the erotic attraction was satisfying to both the boy and the ewe." Here was the leading spokesman for the gay and lesbian caucus at the A.P.A., giving a rationale for bestiality."

On the topic of "homosexual education" he has this to say:

Q.: How do you feel about gay tutors in every dorm at Harvard?

A.: I'm from Harvard. I am appalled. This is just another form of child abuse, late-adolescent branch. Kids in their late teens are still vulnerable to assaults on their sexual identity. Many of them haven't yet come to full terms with their identities (and some of them may not do so until late in life). But bombarding them with misinformation and disinformation and enticements to try same-sex sex because they might like it--well that's a form of sexual subversion.

I can only think back on my first years at Harvard. What if I'd been told by a gay tutor, "Try it, you'll like it?" I was as horny then as any shy young man of 18 from a small town in Massachusetts, and I had had my eye on a sophisticated beauty from Manhattan who was attending Radcliffe. At that time, I was trying, in vain, to figure out ways of approaching this girl, who then seemed so unapproachable. What if I'd taken the easy road to orgastic relief--acceded to the suggestion of my gay tutor?

https://www.narth.com/docs/freedom.html

I wonder what he would have to say about confused 14 year olds being referred to local chapters of gay organizations for advice by "counselors" established in high school "safe rooms" by Glisten, eh?

 

[chemdude1232]

Hoppy, I really just meant "normal" in the sense that it happens with a high enough frequency - along my own metric of "high enough frequency," not Kinsey's - to merit the usage of "normal," nothing more and nothing less.

I hadn't read Kinsey - either his own interpretation or those of people he interviewed - when I made my supposedly infamous "normal" statement.

 

[Hopper]

Another excerpt from the interview of Dr. Socarides (who won the Distinguished Professor award from the Association of Psychoanalytic Psychologists, British Health Service in 1995) which elaborates some on the sources of, and theoretical underpinnings of, the queer theory the other article discussed:

"Q.: Sounds like a new fad in academe.

A.: Yes, and, like deconstructionism, which took American universities by storm in the 1980s, this fad also started in France, principally under the influence of Michel Foucault.

Q.: Who is Michel Foucault?

A.: You mean "who was he?" He died in 1984, still working on the third volume of his history of sexuality.

Q.: Did Foucault have a key idea?

A.: Yes. In all of his many writings, he tries to demonstrate that what most people consider as "normal" are mere human inventions. By implication, they're also arbitrary. In his History of Sexuality, Volume I: An Introduction, Foucault said that sex itself was a relatively recent historical construct.

Q.: And what was the logical consequence of this idea?

A.: Foucault attempted, in his own life, to liberate himself by breaking out of the construct. In fact, he tried to deconstruct himself by indulging in all manner of polymorphous perversities.

Q.: Did he succeed?

A.: In his personal program? Yes. During three separate appointments as a visiting professor at Berkeley, he became quite entranced with the gay bathhouses of San Francisco. He was absolutely fascinated with the S & M scene across the Bay, and succeeded in de-constructing himself, quite literally. On June 25, 1984, he died of AIDS at the Hospital de la Salpetriere in Paris, the very institution he had studied in Madness and Civilization..."

Hmm, died of AIDS after becoming "fascinated by the S & M scene," "entranced with the gay bathhouses of San Francisco," and "indulging in all manner of polymorphous perversities," eh? Whooda thunk, I ax ya?

 

[moevillini]

Foucault? As in the pendulum guy? he truly was a swinger, eh?

 

[Hopper]

Foucault? As in the pendulum guy? he truly was a swinger, eh?

Good one, Mo! Probly that guy's grand-baby, who went plumb hog-wild with the genetic characteristics he done inheirited, eh?

 

[Hopper]

It sounds like Hudson and Ricketts were trying to enact some form of political correctness here.

Wow, Eric, I have a little trouble believin you said that. This is so typically representative of the commie-*** Marcusian approach to selective tolerance and the hypocritical tactics (we refuse to tolerate your viewpoint, but you must, in the name of "tolerance," adopt ours) used by the PC crew. The word "homophobe" becomes completely divorced from it's meaning, and is routinely used by homosexuals of all stripes to attempt to slur (by suggesting the existence of a pathological pyschological disorder) anyone who expresses the slightest disagreement with their ambitious agenda. That's all fine, of course.

But let some sober, fair-minded professionals point out that the term is being misused and suddenly those professionals are accused of trying to establish "political correctness," eh? The irony and hypocrisy is virtually overwhelming.

 

[Gameface]

So after 27 pages of this I'm going to assume all parties are near an agreement based on mutual understanding and respect? Maybe just a few more pages to go and we'll be there?

 

[Hopper]

So after 27 pages of this I'm going to assume all parties are near an agreement based on mutual understanding and respect? Maybe just a few more pages to go and we'll be there?

Very astute, Game!

 

[One Brow]

According to you and the homosexual judge who ruled on this case, mebbe, eh, Eric? Below is a very frank, and much fuller, explication, by Spitzer himself, of his methodology, his reasons for believing his evidence was "credible" and the nature of his findings. It does NOT agree with your summary, I'm afraid:

I watched the whole thing, and I didn't see where what he said disagreed with how I laid out the results of the data. For example, if you can manage to move yourself from fully homosexual to bisexual with homosexual tendencies, I would expect there to be a considerable improvement in your heterosexual relationships. Further, he confirms in the interview that for some people, there was no change, at all, and that he suspects the rate of success is well below 30% (he tosses out 2% as an aside). So, if the vast majority of the most committed people who have undergone therapy experience no change at all, the Judge Walker's statement is correct as applied to the most common sort of individual homosexual.

A.: Yes, and I can't help but laugh now, in this context, when I think of a psychiatric meeting we had in Atlanta in 1988. Dr. Richard Isay, a gay psychiatrist and a leading proponent and promoter of same-sex sex, was on a panel where someone asked him about a Kinsey-like statement that Isay had made--something about nature's indifference to any form of sexuality.

The questioner asked Isay about farm boys who might be attracted to sheep. Would he encourage these boys to have sex with sheep? With a straight face, Isay said this was entirely acceptable, "as long as the erotic attraction was satisfying to both the boy and the ewe." Here was the leading spokesman for the gay and lesbian caucus at the A.P.A., giving a rationale for bestiality."

Approval is not a rationale.

I wonder what he would have to say about confused 14 year olds being referred to local chapters of gay organizations for advice by "counselors" established in high school "safe rooms" by Glisten, eh?

That it would be a bad idea to pressure them if they were still unsure of their sexual identity, of course. Personally, I was sure of my orientation even before the age of 14, so I can see where a homosexual person might be as well. I think a safe room is a great idea for them. However, I also had a couple of friends who were much less sure of their orientations, and while a safe room where there was no pressure, just the freedom to talk and think, might have been helpful, care should be taken to reduce peer pressure to experiment one way or the other.

Wow, Eric, I have a little trouble believin you said that. This is so typically representative of the commie-*** Marcusian approach to selective tolerance and the hypocritical tactics (we refuse to tolerate your viewpoint, but you must, in the name of "tolerance," adopt ours) used by the PC crew. The word "homophobe" becomes completely divorced from it's meaning, and is routinely used by homosexuals of all stripes to attempt to slur (by suggesting the existence of a pathological pyschological disorder) anyone who expresses the slightest disagreement with their ambitious agenda. That's all fine, of course.

Wow, Hopper, I have a little trouble believing you said that. This is so typically representative of the denialist Christian approach to loaded language and hypocritical terminology (we refuse to allow you to use appropriately descriptive words, but you must, in the name of "truth", adopt our usage) used by the conservative crowd. The word "homophobe" becomes completely divorced from it's meaning, and is routinely rejected by homophobes of all stripes in an attempt to justify (by denying the existence of a basic emotional aversion) any who endorses their opresive adenda. That's all fine, of course.

But let some sober, fair-minded professionals point out that the term is being misused and suddenly those professionals are accused of trying to establish "political correctness," eh? The irony and hypocrisy is virtually overwhelming.

Since those sober, fair-minded professionals acutally stated that they were attempting to remove the perjorative aspect of the terminology, that is exactly parallel to the type of political correctness you ususally rail against. Of course, this form of political correctness happens to agree with your preference, so that makes it fine and dandy to you. The irony and hypocrisy is indeed overwhelming, but here it is not being exhibited by me.

 

[Hopper]

I watched the whole thing, and I didn't see where what he said disagreed...he suspects the rate of success is well below 30% (he tosses out 2% as an aside). So, if the vast majority of the most committed people who have undergone therapy experience no change at all, the Judge Walker's statement is correct as applied to the most common sort of individual homosexual.

People can read, hear, and understand for themselves, Eric, so I'm not gunna get into any prolonged discussion about what Spitzer really said. I will simply briefly note that he also threw out percentages of 10% and 15%, all while admitting he did not know the percentage. What he did say, very emphatically, is that he was sure the percentage was NOT ZERO, which, he says, was the only thing his study attempted to determine. That clearly contradicts the judge's "factual finding" that "No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation."

Approval is not a rationale.

The approval was not presented as the "rationale," it was merely the conclusion which followed from it. The "rationale" was the Kinsey/Isay position that since nature is "indifferent" to sexuality, all sex, even child molestion and bestiality is "normal" and *therefore* acceptable. A very weak, and easily refutable, "rationale" to be sure, but don't confuse the conclusion with the premise.

Since those sober, fair-minded professionals acutally stated that they were attempting to remove the perjorative aspect of the terminology, that is exactly parallel to the type of political correctness you ususally rail against.

Yeah, right, eh, Eric? Their intent was clearly to clarify the proper medical use of the term NOT to abolish it. As I understand it, the paper which you say is attempting to establish "political correctness" is entitled "A strategy for the measure of homophobia," was published in the Journal of Homosexuality, 5, 357–372, was designed to measure "homophobia," and in fact developed a scale to do so which is still being used.

They merely noted that the technical meaning had been "diluted" by those with ulterior, non-scientific motives, and suggested that it was scientifically incorrect to identify any and all negative perceptions of homosexuality as clinical homophobia. They therefore proposed that a valid, and necessary (to professionals, at least), distinction between clinical homophobia and uses of the term for purposes of distorted innuendo should be made, to avoid confusion. It seems you WANT to cling to the inapproprite use (via distortion) of a medical term because to do so helps, from an disingenous POLITICAL perspective, to advance the cause that you seem to be zealously commited to achieving.

George Weinberg, a psychologist, coined the term and intended it as a technical one. According to wiki "he describes the concept as a medical phobia." The mere fact that a person does not give 100% support and approval to every claim made by a homosexual does NOT, ipso facto, serve as a valid diagnosis of the existence of a medical phobia, sorry.

Nice try, though. Really.

 

[TroutBum]

Homosaywhat?!

 

[One Brow]

People can read, hear, and understand for themselves, Eric, so I'm not gunna get into any prolonged discussion about what Spitzer really said.

Good move.

I will simple briefly note that he also threw out percentages of 10% and 15%, all while admitting he did not know the percentage. What he did say, very emphatically, is that he was sure the percentage was NOT ZERO, which, he says, was the only thing his study attempted to determine. That clearly contradicts the judge's "factual finding" that "No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation."

I think you have your universals and existensials confused. Your acting like the jugde stated "any individual" or "Credible evidence supports a finding that no individual". However, the credible evidence is that, for most individuals, such a change is impossible. Moreover, even in the ones that did change, they did not change to the the degree that they altered from being heterosexual to homosexual.

The approval was not presented as the "rationale," it was merely the conclusion which followed from it. The "rationale" was the Kinsey/Isay position that since nature is "indifferent" to sexuality, all sex, even child molestion and bestiality is "normal" and *therefore* acceptable. A very weak, and easily refutable, "rationale" to be sure, but don't confuse the conclusion with the premise.

I'm not so confused that I would throw child molsetation into a discussion of bestiality and pretend the same statement covered both. Nor do I accept Dr. Socarides' implication that "natural" was a justificaiton for child molestation to Dr. Kinsey. Explaining a phenomenon is not the same as approving it.

... was designed to measure "homophobia," and in fact developed a scale to do so which is still being used. ... It seems you WANT to cling to the inapproprite use (via distortion) of a medical term because to do so helps, from an disingenous POLITICAL perspective, to advance the cause that you seem to be zealously commited to achieving.

I've noticed you have focused on "homophbia" as opposed to "homophobe". It's a nice attempt to change the topic, but futile. Anglophobe do not necessarily suffer from Anglophobia, many of them just hate the English, for whatever reason (killed their parents in a war, etc.). Similarly, I don't ever recall saying that all homophobes have homophobia, and the English suffixes don't make that implication. Still, I understand you PC types can't just take words as they are, you have to try to force everyone else to use some unusual, unnecessary derivation. You PC guys are all alike.

 

[Hopper]

I think you have your universals and existensials confused. Your acting like the jugde stated "any individual" or "Credible evidence supports a finding that no individual".

Of course that's what he means.

However, the credible evidence is that, for most individuals, such a change is impossible.

What does "most" have to do with the judge's factual finding? "Most" don't have the motivation to change that Spitzer said was there in the cases he studied. IMPOSSIBLE, you say? Very glib of you. I'm sure you can prove that, eh?

"The American Psychological Association created a Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation which reviewed the relevant research literature...Based on its review of the studies that met these standards, the Task Force concluded that "[E]nduring change to an individual's sexual orientation is uncommon."

https://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_changing.html

Since when has "uncommon" meant IMPOSSIBLE, I wonder? Other than for you and the gay San Francisco judge, I mean?

"Few studies provided strong evidence that any changes produced in laboratory conditions translated to daily life. Thus, the results of scientifically valid research indicate that it is unlikely that individuals will be able to reduce same-sex attractions or increase other-sex sexual attractions through SOCE" (pp. 2-3). "

Likewise, since when does "few" mean "none," or "unlikely" mean "IMPOSSIBLE?" Here again, the "likelihood" of orientation change would definitely depend on motivation, which your average bathhouse queen don't have to begin with.

If the judge's point is that no amount of therapy is likely to deter a homo like Foucault, who is determined to "break out of the construct" by engaging in all manner of polymoprhous perversity, then no one would argue. But that aint what he said, eh?

As Spitzer already pointed out, he found it inconceivable that the "gay lobby" in the APA would allow an official position to endorse or support "converson therapy." Spitzer said the only question was whether they would ABSOLUTELY PROHIBIT it on grounds that it was "unethical."

Apparently they have been unable to accomplish that goal (see below) and it is not the least bit surprising that even the less stringent, more "liberal" psychological associaion could only say: "the American Psychological Association concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation."

But of course any claim of "insufficient evidence to SUPPORT," is quite different than a claim that a positive result from conversion therapy is demonstrably IMPOSSIBLE, as you claim.

The American Psychiatric Association, to which Spitzer belongs, and which is composed of MD's, not merely those with non-medical academic degrees, is often confused the the American Psychological Association (cited above). As I read this website (which comes from a "rainbow" coalition at UC Davis) Psychiatrists have NOT changed their official position from the one adopted in 1998, which concludes:

"The American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as 'reparative' or 'conversion' therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon a prior assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation. The American Psychiatric Association recognizes that in the course of ongoing psychiatric treatment, there may be appropriate clinical indications for attempting to change sexual behaviors."

Notice that, as much as the gays would LIKE to, they have, for reasons of insufficient evidence, been unable to successfully oppose the use of "reparative therapy." The most they can say is that such therapy should not be based on the assumption that homosexuality is either (1) a per se mental disorder or (2) a condition which, as an apriori matter, SHOULD be changed. Beyond that, "The American Psychiatric Association recognizes that in the course of ongoing psychiatric treatment, there may be appropriate clinical indications for attempting to change sexual behaviors."

Nor is it the least bit surprising that the "rainbow" coalition COMPLETELY MISREPRESENTS this position as "a position statement opposing reparative therapy."

 

[billyshelby]

Would it have helped if the Judge had said, "It hasn't been been proven that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation any more than heterosexuals can?" Because that's the gist of his statement. It seems like you're semantically trying to create a loophole which is only theoretical to begin with. It's not like Spitzer is the only guy who ever tried to find out if homosexuals can be be 'cured.' The defense had NARTH and countless other religious organizations that claim to make it rain who could have presented all kinds of studies (or least anecdotal evidence) with even better results. Doesn't mean they would have been believable.

Did you even bother to read the conditions and criticisms of Spitzer's study?

1. 200 "ex-homosexuals" and "ex-lesbians" defined in terms that aren't accepted by the medical community
2. Nearly all were hand selected amongst tens of thousands from NARFA and Religious Groups.
3. Nearly all were highly religious themselves.
4. All desperately wanted to change to begin with.
5. The 'results' were based on 45 minute telephone conversations.
6. There were no tests or controls, merely the word of the subjects on what changes occurred.
7. It was rejected as unfit to publish by then president of the APA, and has been roundly criticized for its methods.

If that's the best study going, I can fully understand why it was not submitted as evidence.

 

[Hopper]

7. It was rejected as unfit to publish by then president of the APA

I done said as much in my first post. Too bad that homo don't control all peer-reviewed publications, I spoze, cuz that's where it was published.

 

[Hopper]

Would it have helped if the Judge had said, "It hasn't been been proven that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation any more than heterosexuals can?"

Naw, that would make sense, at least in the sense that direction of change makes no difference. If he claimed it was impossible for either to happen, that would be just as plumb stoopid, though.

Spitzer repeatedly acknowledged, even emphasized, that his study had been heavily criticized by virtually every homo alive. If you and Eric wanna start postin millions of such "criticisms," help yourselves, eh?

 

[billyshelby]

Without knowing the legal side to this, he stated as a factual finding based on evidence presented it was 'impossible,' right? He might have had to make the statement I suggested if he had the ridiculous Spitzer study in front of him, but I wouldn't have been surprised if he dismissed it for lack of credibility and made the same statement. This is semantics, not mischaracterization.

 

[Hopper]

...if he had the ridiculous Spitzer study in front of him, but I wouldn't have been surprised if he dismissed it for lack of credibility and made the same statement. This is semantics, not mischaracterization.

Leave it to some untrained, yet highly motivated, zealot to call a study which has been conducted, explained, and endorsed by a highly distinguished Columbia Professor with a half century of experience, and many others of similar professional standing, to call the study "ridiculous," eh? These homos know EVERYTHING more better than EVERYBUDDY else, I tellya!


Your typical M.O. quickly exhibits itself, eh, Biley? Go on ahead witcho BAD self, I aint gunna play no more.

 

[billyshelby]

Leave it to some untrained, yet highly motivated, zealot to call a study which has been conducted, explained, and endorsed by a highly distinguished Columbia Professor with a half century of experience, and many others of similar professional standing, to call the study "ridiculous," eh? These homos know EVERYTHING more better than EVERYBUDDY else, I tellya!


Your typical M.O. quickly exhibits itself, eh, Biley? Go on ahead witcho BAD self, I aint gunna play no more.

It's no more absurd for me to call it 'ridiculous' than it is for you to assert it's rock solid science. In this instance, there are aspects of it which anyone can understand, but lets skip that. This study has not been well received by the academic community. I could post all the links, but what's the point? You already know this. You don't care. It's A study by a doctor who claims it IS possible under the most advantageous of circumstances, produced poor results even under those circumstances, but concedes it is 'highly unlikely in the overwhelming majority of the gay community' (his words). It's also the same doctor who said it was "totally absurd" that everyone is born straight and that homosexuality is a choice.

I barely even get what you think this study means, or it's relevance in the bigger picture. Your best argument, as I see it, is that it hasn't been definitively proved that gays aren't confused or diseased. And the doctor whose study you're lauding doesn't believe that either. It seems like you want to build a concrete wall around a blade of grass with the idea a field might grow. But you don't want to fully embrace the religious right because that weakens your argument from a rational standpoint. So you're left with the blade of grass. Protect it well.