I have found that it is helpful to actually read what somebody has said before replying. You don't even know what preceded this so you don't have a clue what the comments you misquoted out-of-context even mean.
Just for you, here is exactly what I said. I omitted NOTHING. The discussion you are misquoting deals with the irrelevant opinions of organizations which signed the "resolution" that are not mental health agencies, highlighted below. Since all of the cognitive dissonents here cannot understand what I said. Here is the obverse.
The ONLY signers of the APA resolution whose opinions on the efficacy of reparative therapy are those which are mental health professionals, i.e. the American Psychological Association, and National Association of School Psychologists. All the others are NOT mental health professionals and their opinions about any mental health trreatment is no more valid than that of the NRA or NASCAR.
In Appalachia, in many churches, there is a quaint practice known as
snake handling. Those who participate in this, believe that if their faith is great enough they can
take up the serpent and, even if bitten, it will not harm them. Although this is an exclusively religious practice, it is illegal under state laws.
In the western U.S. there are religious groups which practice plural marriage. This religious practice has also been declared illegal under U.S. and state laws.
Two exclusively religious practices, which have been prohibited by law because of the
potential harm they may do.
In 1997, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) issued a resolution stating, in part,
the . . . potential for harm of therapies that seek to reduce or eliminate same-gender sexual orientation. This was followed, in 1999, by a similar joint
document issued by the AAP, ACA, AASA, AFT, APsyA, ASHA, IAH, NASP, NASW., and NEA.
Whereas the ethics, efficacy, benefits, and potential for harm of therapies that seek to reduce or eliminate same-gender sexual orientation are under extensive debate in the professional literature and the popular media (Davison, 1991; Haldeman, 1994; Wall Street Journal, 1997);
In 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American Counseling Association (ACA), American Association of School Administrators (AASA), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), American Psychological Association (APsyA), American School Health Association (ASHA), Interfaith Alliance Foundation (IAH), National Association of School Psychologists (NASP), National Association of Social Workers (NASW) and National Education Association (NEA) jointly issued a document titled: "Just the facts about sexual orientation."[sup]3[/sup] They:
. . .
Condemned reparative therapy as potentially harmful and of little or no effectiveness
This seems impressive, but the opinions of educators, administrators, theologians, etc., who are not mental health professionals, such as the American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association are no more authoritative regarding the subject of faith based homosexual ministries, than the opinions of the National Rifle Association or National Association of Stock Car Auto Racing.
It has been thirty four years since homosexuality was removed from the APA Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), and it has been ten years since the APA resolution, referenced above. In all that time, how much, if any, actual, vs. alleged
potential harm, by faith based treatment programs, has ever been studied or documented, by any qualified mental health professional or organization? I submit there have been zero studies, and zero documentation.
If all those hundreds, perhaps thousands, of APA
mental health professionals, including,
arguendo, the signatories of the 1999 joint paper, are truly concerned about the
potential harm, as alleged, why, in the past 10 30 years, have NONE of them ever conducted a professional study to document and evaluate any such alleged harm?
I have seen several studies by
professionals, with PhDs behind their names, posted here, all touted as
proof that homosexuality is genetic, inborn, inherited, unchangeable, etc., etc., etc. If there is so much
potential harm in faith based ministries and programs, as alleged, why havent the APA, and other,
experts taken aggressive, positive legal steps to have those programs declared unlawful, by the courts, as was done with other potentially harmful religious practices, i.e.
snake handling and
plural marriage?
It would seem that professionals, will spend millions trying to prove homosexuality, undoubtedly including their own, is inherited, genetic, unchangeable, etc. but have not, will not spend one dollar studying any alleged potential harm to homosexuals seeking treatment, paying scant lip service to it in obscure non-binding
resolutions. Their actions, rather lack thereof, clearly show how little the APA, and all the other professional organizations, really care about the alleged potential harm.
That raises the question why, would professional mental health organizations and practitioners be opposed to alternate treatment programs, alleging these programs are potentially harmful, yet after 10-30 years never supporting those claims? Several answers present. The first is, perhaps many of those
professionals are not Christian and are opposed to any Christian ministry, whether it is related to mental health or not.
The $econd an$wer i$ al$o a very real po$$ibility. P$ychatri$t$ and P$ychologi$t$ charge large fee$, a$ much a$ $100 +, per hour. I $uppo$e it could be
potentially harmful if a P$ychiatri$t or P$ychologi$t wa$ forced to mi$$ a few weekly golf $e$$ion$, becau$e $ome potential patient$ are $eeking help from relatively inexpen$ive faith based ministries.
