So gay!!!

[Hopper]

Good work, Aint Hoppin! Ya finally come clean and just let your feelins out. Now we can each take our balls and go home.

Well, OK, then, Mo! As long as you're willing to let me take my balls with me, and not castrate me, like ya think should happen, I'm good with that!

 

[Hopper]

I'm still waiting for proof they do exist. Meanwhile, the federal court assuming the state courts/legislature undertook an action is not a guarantee that those bodies actually undertook said action.

1. Just sit and wait, then, eh, Eric. The record in both the Florida and California cases is presumably available to the public. However, I don't think there's a requirement that a complete copy of the record be personally delivered to every member of Jazzfanz.

Or maybe you can just keep checking the article Meese wrote in the Washington Post every day to see if it's been revised to include 1000 pages of the court record. Could happen, I spoze.

2. No it is not a guarantee that those bodies actually undertook said action. Are you under the impression that any such guarantee is required? Read it again, it explains what the "rational reason" test requires a court to do (hint: not much, in fact nuthin, in the way of demanding proof that the legislature is implementing the best conceivable policy).

 

[Hopper]

Considering the credibility you have invested in the Discovery Institute, NARTH, global-warming denialists, and relativity cranks that a little more research would have shown you to be unreliable, you seem to be either deluded or just lying about your checking out opposing views. Just now you are quoting Rekers (founding member of NARTH) on homosexuality. Did you really think you would see an unbiased, scientific summary from that?

Been takin lesson from Biley, Eric? You once again demonstrate the hopelessness of rationally discussing a topic with an ideologue.

 

[Hopper]

Eric, this whole tactic of referring to highly respected scientists as "denialists" and "cranks," simply because you have ideological reasons for preferring different "scientific" findings than they arrive at, really doesn't merit a response. But, for the benefit of others here, who may not be ideologues, I will note the following:

Contrary to your assertion, Dr. Rekers in not a "founding member" of Narth, but even if he was, so what? Here is a link to information about one of the three founding members, Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.

https://www.josephnicolosi.com/resume/

It states there that: Dr. Nicolosi is one of three founding members--and former President--of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), a 1,000-member professional association founded in 1992 (www.narth.com).


This is an organization of over 1,000 professionals who do indeed adhere to different views than are "popular" with gay advocates. In fact, my understanding is that it was founded, in part, to offset continuing cliams by the APA that " no major mental health professional organization has sanctioned efforts to change sexual orientation and many have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation."

According to NARTH itself:

"NARTH was founded in 1992 by Benjamin Kaufman, Charles Socarides and Joseph Nicolosi. In an article titled 'In Defense of the Need for Honest Dialogue,' Kaufman wrote that Socarides, Nicolosi and himself founded NARTH because the APA and similar professional organizations "had totally stifled the scientific inquiry that would be necessary to stimulate a discussion [about homosexuality]." Narth's homepage is given above for anyone interested.*

Needless to say, NARTH has been subjected to frequent and vicious attacks by gay activist groups. NARTH members have their own viewpoint, and are no doubt somewhat "biased" by that viewpoint, too. As was noted in an earlier post, the view now seems to be that virtually all "scientific research" on the topic is tainted by bias and no definite conclusions have been produced by that research. But any suggestion that NARTH members are biased while homosexual advocates are NOT biased is preposterous. Just as preposterous is the suggestion that any statement made by, or position taken by, NARTH is, ipsto facto, incorrect and unwarranted.


*NARTH has been gay-bashed so much that it's president has actually taken the time to address allegations that it is a right-wing, religious, gay-hating organization. If you go to the home page, about the first thing you'll see (upper left) is a link to a one or two page response to such allegations. Or, if you're interested, ya can just click here: https://www.narth.com/docs/addresses.html

In the interest of saving your time, I will make note of this sentence in the introduction: "Although some critics will remain skeptical and perhaps some even antagonistic, others desire accurate information." If you're not one of the "others," don't bother.

 

[billyshelby]

This is an organization of over 1,000 professionals who do indeed adhere to different views than are "popular" with gay advocates. In fact, my understanding is that it was founded, in part, to offset continuing cliams by the APA that " no major mental health professional organization has sanctioned efforts to change sexual orientation and many have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation."

According to the US Bureau of Labor, there were 22,000 psychiatrists and 170,000 psychologists employed in this country last year. NARTH doesn't specify what they mean by 'professional,' but lets just say they were all psychiatrists and psychologists. That would mean about half of 1 percent of all mental health professionals directly affiliate themselves with NARTH.

 

[TroutBum]

I'd suggest using one of these. I can't believe your floozie mother didn't tell you about them.

Nice. First a shot at my wife, then my mother. I'm all a flutter awaiting the inevitible "When I was screwing your dad last night, lol!" joke.

 

[David Stern]

I'm only posting this because I feel very left out of this thread.

But gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they have no souls. Duh.

 

[billyshelby]

Contrary to your assertion, Dr. Rekers in not a "founding member" of Narth. Here is a link to information about one of the three founding members, Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.

You're right. He was only on the Founding Board of the Family Research Council, and a former 'officer and scientific advisor' to NARTH. And earlier this year, he resigned from NARTH's board over allegations he solicited a male prostitute. Other than that, he has no connections to the organization.

 

[One Brow]

1. Just sit and wait, then, eh, Eric. The record in both the Florida and California cases is presumably available to the public. However, I don't think there's a requirement that a complete copy of the record be personally delivered to every member of Jazzfanz.

It's also not a requirement that every person taking a position support it with evidence.

Or maybe you can just keep checking the article Meese wrote in the Washington Post every day to see if it's been revised to include 1000 pages of the court record. Could happen, I spoze.

Or, it could happen that a support of Prop 8 come up with some evidence that would support Meese's claim. I don't expect either to occur.

2. No it is not a guarantee that those bodies actually undertook said action. Are you under the impression that any such guarantee is required? Read it again, it explains what the "rational reason" test requires a court to do (hint: not much, in fact nuthin, in the way of demanding proof that the legislature is implementing the best conceivable policy).

So, we agree that the legislature and the sate courts may have had no rational reason for their actions, and the appeals court wouldn't no the difference. Works for me.

Been takin lesson from Biley, Eric? You once again demonstrate the hopelessness of rationally discussing a topic with an ideologue.

I find there to be a difference between people who reason from the evidence to a conclusion, and people who choose a conclusion and then pick evidence to justify it. The second style is a denialist style. By behavior, you have always treated both methods as being equally reliable.

Eric, this whole tactic of referring to highly respected scientists as "denialists" and "cranks," simply because you have ideological reasons for preferring different "scientific" findings than they arrive at, really doesn't merit a response.

Since that is not my tactic anyhow, you shouldn't respond to it. No sense setting up straw men. But then, why should sense enter the picture now?

What are my "ideological reasons" for saying that global warming is real, and humans do cause it, BTW? What are my "ideological reasons" for saying that mechanisms that have been verified by experiment can be relied upon? What are my "ideological reasons" for saying that sexual orientation is unchangeable for the majority of homosexuals? What are my "ideological reasons" for saying that the geometirc interpretation of General Relativity is valid, useful, and accurate?

Let me give you a list, and using what you know of my "ideological reasons", see if you can figure out who I think would be a denialist. I'll leave out the usual suspects (DI members, etc.) Make sure to use which "ideological reasons" apply in making these determinaitons.

Ariana Huffington, of the Huffington Post
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (son of the former US Attorney general)
Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged
Bill Maher, host of Politically Incorrect and Real Time
Christopher Hitchens, author of God Is Not Great
Deepak Chopra
Victor Reppert, of the blog Dangerous Idea
Dr. Jay Gordon, Hollywood pediatrician
Oprah Winfrey
Penn Jillette, magician

I'll send the answers to moevillini, just so you don't have to worry about me changing my answers after-the-fact.

But, for the benefit of others here, who may not be ideologues, I will note the following:

Contrary to your assertion, Dr. Rekers in not a "founding member" of Narth, but even if he was, so what?

I agree, his being a founder is not relevant.

In fact, my understanding is that it was founded, in part, to offset continuing cliams by the APA that " no major mental health professional organization has sanctioned efforts to change sexual orientation and many have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation."

So, it was founded to support a specific conclusion.

As was noted in an earlier post, the view now seems to be that virtually all "scientific research" on the topic is tainted by bias and no definite conclusions have been produced by that research.

Actually, that was a view of same-sex parenting research, not reparative therapy.

But any suggestion that NARTH members are biased while homosexual advocates are NOT biased is preposterous.

Is it as preposterous as the claim that all such stuides are biased? I think not.

Just as preposterous is the suggestion that any statement made by, or position taken by, NARTH is, ipsto facto, incorrect and unwarranted.

Not at all. It is ipso facto untrustworthy and dedicated to a pre-dertermined conclusion.

In the interest of saving your time, I will make note of this sentence in the introduction: "Although some critics will remain skeptical and perhaps some even antagonistic, others desire accurate information." If you're not one of the "others," don't bother.

Well, as long as they say the information is accurate, that settles it for you, Hopper?

BTW, I found a site which did examine various studies, and came up with some success rates for reparative therapy. The largest was 0.5%

https://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_exod1.htm

 

[Scat]

BTW, I found a site which did examine various studies, and came up with some success rates for reparative therapy. The largest was 0.5%

https://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_exod1.htm

So it is possible then?

 

[One Brow]

So it is possible then?

For a very small percentage of gay people, it seems to be possible.

 

[TroutBum]

So it is possible then?

I could shove a lump of coal up my ***, squeeze real tight, and maybe produce a diamond.

So it is possible then?

 

[billyshelby]

It may be possible, but the underlying point is we're still a long ways away from an effective cure.

 

[TroutBum]

It may be possible, but the underlying point is we're still a long ways away from an effective cure.

Haha, "cure".

You're such a disease.

 

[Hopper]

Or, it could happen that a support of Prop 8 come up with some evidence that would support Meese's claim. I don't expect either to occur.

It already has occurred, according to Meese. The prop 8 supporters put evidence into the record at trial, unless maybe the judge refused to admit it, in which case the record would reflect that refusal so the refusal itself would be part of the "record." In this very thread I have posted findings of a lesbian advocate which refute Judge Walker's claim, so you really don't have to look very far if you're looking for that type of evidence, ya know?

So, we agree that the legislature and the sate courts may have had no rational reason for their actions, and the appeals court wouldn't no the difference. Works for me.

To begin with, Eric, "the legislature" is a diverse body of people, all of whom may have had slightly different reasons for voting as they did on a particular bill. You're missing (or perhaps, in wiseass fashion, just trying to distort) the point. To the extent you are trying to insinuate that appellate court's do not know or care if a rational reason for legislation exists, you are simply wrong. That said, the state has no burden to convince the judge that he too would have voted for it, or anything near, or like, that. They certainly don't have to prove the legislation in question is "wise" or anything of the sort. That's why Walker's ruling is so suspect and vulnerable on legal appeal. The appellate court could feel that the wisest thing Walker ever did was to vote "no" on prop 8 (as a voter, not a judge) and still feel overwhelmingly compelled to overturn his ruling.

Let me give you a list, and using what you know of my "ideological reasons", see if you can figure out who I think would be a denialist. I'll leave out the usual suspects (DI members, etc.) Make sure to use which "ideological reasons" apply in making these determinaitons.

Ariana Huffington, of the Huffington Post
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (son of the former US Attorney general)
Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged
Bill Maher, host of Politically Incorrect and Real Time
Christopher Hitchens, author of God Is Not Great
Deepak Chopra
Victor Reppert, of the blog Dangerous Idea
Dr. Jay Gordon, Hollywood pediatrician
Oprah Winfrey
Penn Jillette, magician

I don't know who half these people are, let alone their ideology, but I'll go with Maher, because I know you disagree with his stance on certain medical cures, how's that?

So, it was founded to support a specific conclusion.

No it was founded to permit an honest discussion and to pursue scientific research even if tacitly disallowed by the APA, and to discuss their results, even if those results were disapproved of by the APA.

Not at all. It is ipso facto untrustworthy and dedicated to a pre-dertermined conclusion.

Thanks for the admission. The 1000+ honest, competent, credentialled professionals who are members of (and even all the non-members who simply agree with) Narth may not appreciate your slander and character assassination, but I do. You are to be commended for freely disclosing your thoroughly partisan stance on this topic.

 

[Hopper]

BTW, I found a site which did examine various studies, and came up with some success rates for reparative therapy. The largest was 0.5%

https://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_exod1.htm

That's kinda funny, eh, Eric? I go to that very website, and the first thing I notice is statements like this:

"Unfortunately, reparative therapy still remains experimental; there appears to be no reliable data on either its effectiveness or its dangers. No long-term studies have never been done...Unfortunately, as of 2001-MAY, no study of conversion therapy has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Those studies that have been conducted have many deficiencies. Often complete data has been withheld. This makes the "conversion rate" impossible to estimate accurately."

So I wonder how this guy came to his conclusions. First he says Narth studies (which generally claim about a 30% success rate) show nothing--hmmm.

But THEN, he takes Spitzers findings, which showed 37 "success stories" from a small sample of 200 and, GET THIS, treats the percentage of success as though it came from a sample size of 100,000! By doing so, he gives Spitzer's study a .04% success rate.

No doubt THIS is YOUR idea of a fair, impartial, methodologically sound, scientifically objective analysis of the research, eh?

Sounds very professional, too, ya know? The site is called "religious tolerance." When you click on the "about us" tab, you find that this "organization" consists of 5 people. A very "diverse" and no doubt "representative" mainstream group, too. It says there: "We are a multi-faith group. As of 2010-FEB, we consist of one Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Wiccan and Zen Buddhist. Thus, the OCRT staff lack agreement on almost all theological matters..."

What the hell is a "wiccan," anyway?


Keep that good, impartial, reliable science comin, now, Eric, hear?

 

[One Brow]

It already has occurred, according to Meese.

Which, since Meese chose not to share such evidence, means nothing to me.

The prop 8 supporters put evidence into the record at trial, unless maybe the judge refused to admit it, in which case the record would reflect that refusal so the refusal itself would be part of the "record."

Or, when crossed-examined on the evidence, the people who made claims for it fell apart and were unable to justify that the studies meant what they were claimed to mean.

In this very thread I have posted findings of a lesbian advocate which refute Judge Walker's claim, so you really don't have to look very far if you're looking for that type of evidence, ya know?

Refuting Walker's claim, to the degree it happened, it not the same as supporting Meese's claim (which the advocate also refuted).

To the extent you are trying to insinuate that appellate court's do not know or care if a rational reason for legislation exists, you are simply wrong.

Except, you already acknowledged we don't have a guarantee that happened in the one particular case.

I don't know who half these people are, let alone their ideology, but I'll go with Maher, because I know you disagree with his stance on certain medical cures, how's that?

Assuming you are correct, what would be my "idealogical reason" for disagreeing with his stance on medical cures?

There's no hurry to answer. Feel free to take your time comparing the track record of these people to the "idealogical reasons" you claim I use to call people denialists.

No it was founded to permit an honest discussion and to pursue scientific research even if tacitly disallowed by the APA, and to discuss their results, even if those results were disapproved of by the APA.

If their discussion was honest and their pursuits scientific, it would not have been disallowed by the APA. If their results were positive, they would not be disapproved of by the APA.

Thanks for the admission. The 1000+ honest, competent, credentialled professionals who are members of (and even all the non-members who simply agree with) Narth may not appreciate your slander and character assassination, but you are still to be commended for freely disclosing your thoroughly partisan stance on this topic.

I believe the overwhelming majority of APA members wish to return the thanks to you for considering them to politcally-minded hacks who don't care about actually helping patients.

Of course, you could prove me wrong just by pointiont out on the NARTH website a position or discussion that reparative therapy mauy be unwise, given the miniscule success rate and the potential to harm a patient by trying to force changes they can't make. How about one that says celibacy is the better goal than changing orientation? How about any signs of a free-flowing debate between different parties? Surely you don't think all 1000 minds think exactly the same on this issue.

 

[One Brow]

That's kinda funny, eh, Eric? I go to that very website, and the first thing I notice is statements like this:

"Unfortunately, reparative therapy still remains experimental; there appears to be no reliable data on either its effectiveness or its dangers. No long-term studies have never been done...Unfortunately, as of 2001-MAY, no study of conversion therapy has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Those studies that have been conducted have many deficiencies. Often complete data has been withheld. This makes the "conversion rate" impossible to estimate accurately."

So I wonder how this guy came to his conclusions.

You mean, besides using the 2001 Spitzer study and the 2002 Schroeder & Shidlo study? You have some problem with the progression of years?

Or, do you mean that we still don't have a random smaple of people entering therapy? The Exodus study is based on a complete patient list, and so comes pretty close to that.

First he says Narth studies (which generally claim about a 30% success rate) show nothing--hmmm.

Looking for specifically a change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation, NARTH studies show nothing because they don't measure this, or at least don't specify that they are measuring this. They focus on behavior.

But THEN, he takes Spitzers findings, which showed 37 "success stories" from a small sample of 200 and GET THIS treats the percentage of success as though it came from a sample size of 100,000! By doing so, he gives Spitzer's study a .04% success rate.

Based on how Spitzer's data was collected, do you have a reason to say the 100,000 is wrong? Do you think the 200 participants were randomly selected?

No doubt THIS is your idea of a fair, impartial, methodoligically sound, scientifically objective analysis of the research, eh?

Nothing about the Spitzer study is a fair, impartial analysis of a success rate, as Spitzer himself says.

Any criticism to direct at the Exodus study (0.3%), or Schroeder & Shidlo (0.5%)?

What the hell is a "wiccan," anyway?

More colloquially, a witch.

Keep that good, impartial, reliable science comin, now, Eric, hear?

I'm not a scientist, but I beleive in the scientific method? The men running NARTH do not.

 

[Hopper]

Which, since Meese chose not to share such evidence, means nothing to me.

Everything you don't know, which, unfortunately is a LOT (a LOT for me too) means nothing to you, Eric, so what? I don't choose to deny the existence of something (a fire goin on down the street) I am told about, just because I aint been down there myself yet. You seem to have no such constraints on your denials, though.

[ If their discussion was honest and their pursuits scientific, it would not have been disallowed by the APA. If their results were positive, they would not be disapproved of by the APA.

Sure. That why Spitzer paper was denounced by the APA, and that's why the president claimed, according to Biley, at least, that Spitzer's findings were "unworthy of publication." "A homo opposes it, therefore it's unfit falsehood" seems to be the criterion here.

Of course, you could prove me wrong just by pointiont out on the NARTH website a position or discussion that reparative therapy mauy be unwise, given the miniscule success rate and the potential to harm a patient by trying to force changes they can't make. How about one that says celibacy is the better goal than changing orientation? How about any signs of a free-flowing debate between different parties? Surely you don't think all 1000 minds think exactly the same on this issue.

Go there yourself sometime...I'm not that familiar with it, but I consistently see them reporting (and not interrupting with comment) the findings of opposing groups, such as the claim that children of gay couples are much better adjusted than those of heterosexual couples. They faithfully report the positions and position statements of the APA. Of course this includes what seem to be the perennial attempts by the powerful gay lobby in the APA to "outlaw" reparative therapy--which they haven't quite been able to accomplish notwithstanding their "full court press."

 

[Hopper]

Based on how Spitzer's data was collected, do you have a reason to say the 100,000 is wrong? Do you think the 200 participants were randomly selected?

I'm not a scientist, but I beleive in the scientific method? The men running NARTH do not.

Eric, are you just deliberately trying to insult me and my intelligence by acting as though I more stupid than a box of rocks? Or do you, God forbid, pose this as a "serious" question?