More PROOF that EX-GAY Minstries DON't WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

davedjy said:

Fundies read and WEEP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/pdf.php?id=31

Click to expand...

The APA is as biased liberally as you get. Nice try.

Can you please provide the actualy study insted fo dogmatic statements?

I have yet to see a valid study especially for statemens like this..

Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem?
No. Psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an
illness, a mental disorder, or an emotional problem. More than 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific
research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself, is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or
social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals
and society had biased information.
In the past, the studies of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the
resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about such people who were not in therapy, the idea
that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue.

Click to expand...

NewGuy101 said:

The APA is as biased liberally as you get. Nice try.

Click to expand...

wow!

I have not seen a single comment of yours that is not biased.

davedjy said:

[SIZE=-1]Fundies read and WEEP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/SIZE]

http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/pdf.php?id=31

Click to expand...

The alleged proof from the article.

Close scrutiny of these reports, however. show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of these claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective that condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented; for example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported over time, as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention.

The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to patients. In 1997, the Association's Council of Representatives passed a resolution reaffirming psychology's opposition to homophobia in treatment and spelling out a client's right to unbiased treatment and self-determination. . .

Click to expand...

"Factors that cast doubt" and "concern," is NOT proof of anything.

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.
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, 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 haven’t 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,” are willing to 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.

davedjy said:

ALL major mental health foundations oppose it! Good enough for them, good enough for me.

Btw, if ANYONE would be biased it would be those with A HIDDEN SPIRITUAL AGENDA TO TRY TO FIX YOU.

Click to expand...

Again where is the evidence? You do nothing but run your mouth.

davedjy said:

[SIZE=-1]ALL major mental health foundations oppose it! [Yeah, right! This is how they oppose it, "Factors that cast doubt" and "concern about potential harm."!] Good enough for them, good enough for me.

Btw, if ANYONE would be biased it would be those with A HIDDEN SPIRITUAL AGENDA TO TRY TO FIX YOU.[/SIZE]

Click to expand...

How would you know about anyone's agenda but your own? You read the scribblings spray painted on a freeway overpass? I was not aware that any agency/ministry was using force to do anything to anybody. Faith based ministries have no "hidden spiritual agenda."

Kinda reminds me of an old schtick from Hee Haw. Nurse Goodbody would show the star of the week into "Dr." Archie's office. The star would move his arm, or something, around, and say "Doc, whenever I do that, it hurts." The "Dr." would whack him with a rubber chicken, "Then, don't do that!"

People who do not like what any faith based ministry does, simple, Don't go there. If anyone has credible, evidence, not scribblings from a public rest room wall, that any agency is violating the law or causing harm to people then that "evidence" should be taken to an appropriate law enforcement agency.

People who just make noise about some vague, unspecified "potential harm" should back it up or pack it up.

Der Alter said:

How would you know about anyone's agenda but your own? You read the scribblings spray painted on a freeway overpass? I was not aware that any agency/ministry was using force to do anything to anybody. Faith based ministries have no "hidden spiritual agenda."

Kinda reminds me of an old schtick from Hee Haw. Nurse Goodbody would show the star of the week into "Dr." Archie's office. The star would move his arm, or something, around, and say "Doc, whenever I do that, it hurts." The "Dr." would whack him with a rubber chicken, "Then, don't do that!"

People who do not like what any faith based ministry does, simple, Don't go there. If anyone has credible, evidence, not scribblings from a public rest room wall, that any agency is violating the law or causing harm to people then that "evidence" should be taken to an appropriate law enforcement agency.

People who just make noise about some vague, unspecified "potential harm" should back it up or pack it up.

Click to expand...

The second APA paper, presented by Dr. Ariel Shidlo and Dr. Michael Schroeder, reported findings from a study of 202 homosexuals who were recruited through the Internet and direct mailings to groups advocating conversion therapy. Most of the participants (178, or 88%) reported that efforts to change their sexual orientation had failed. Only 6 (3%) achieved what the researchers considered a heterosexual shift. Drs. Shidlo and Schroeder also reported that many respondents were harmed by the attempt to change. The research by Drs. Shidlo and Schroeder has recently been published (Schroeder & Shidlo, 2001; Shidlo & Schroeder, 2002

Click to expand...

...........

NewGuy and Der Alter, APA is the center of psychological studies. It's the only approve organization in all of my Psychology classes and it's very strict on its ethics code with includes restraining from biases behavior. They're the opposite of bias and trying to say otherwise is the typical "if it doesn't agree, it's just bias" cop-out argument.

eastcoast_bsc said:

...........
The second APA paper, presented by Dr. Ariel Shidlo and Dr. Michael Schroeder, reported findings from a study of 202 homosexuals who were recruited through the Internet and direct mailings to groups advocating conversion therapy. Most of the participants (178, or 88%) reported that efforts to change their sexual orientation had failed. Only 6 (3%) achieved what the researchers considered a heterosexual shift. Drs. Shidlo and Schroeder also reported that many respondents were harmed by the attempt to change. The research by Drs. Shidlo and Schroeder has recently been published (Schroeder & Shidlo, 2001; Shidlo & Schroeder, 2002

Click to expand...

First, you did NOT cite your source.

"6 (3%) achieved what the researchers considered a heterosexual shift" I thought faith based did not work at all.

"Drs. Shidlo and Schroeder also reported that many respondents were harmed by the attempt to change." How many is "many?" How many were actually harmed? How were they harmed? How serious was the alleged harm? Were they hospitalized? This statement has no meaning.

Please refer to to my previous post. People who do not like what any faith based ministry does, simple, Don't go there. If anyone has credible, evidence, not scribblings from a public rest room wall, that any agency is violating the law or causing harm to people then that "evidence" should be taken to an appropriate law enforcement agency.

People who just make noise about some vague, unspecified "potential harm" should back it up or pack it up.

Der Alter said:

First, you did NOT cite your source.

"6 (3%) achieved what the researchers considered a heterosexual shift" I thought faith based did not work at all.

"Drs. Shidlo and Schroeder also reported that many respondents were harmed by the attempt to change." How many is "many?" How many were actually harmed? How were they harmed? How serious was the alleged harm? Were they hospitalized? This statement has no meaning.

Please refer to to my previous post. People who do not like what any faith based ministry does, simple, Don't go there. If anyone has credible, evidence, not scribblings from a public rest room wall, that any agency is violating the law or causing harm to people then that "evidence" should be taken to an appropriate law enforcement agency.

People who just make noise about some vague, unspecified "potential harm" should back it up or pack it up.

Click to expand...

Go read the study. I am not going to spoon feed you. I led you to the water, now drink of it.

shown in the work of Michael Schroeder and Ariel Shidlo, a scientific measure of success arrives at very different results. Out of a sample of 202 people who met the criteria laid down (that they were initially primarily gay), the following facts emerged:

1) Many of the therapists were behaving unethically. For example 1/4 of those who had been through the treatments had been pressured into joining, almost none of those who felt it wasn't working were given advice on alternative counseling, and most were misled about the position of the APAs and about the supposed success rates of 'ex-gay' treatments. See Responses of US professional bodies to 'ex-gay' treatments.



2) Most patients go through an initial 'honeymoon' with the 'ex-gay' movement, followed later by disillusion.



3) Because of the hostility and lack of support by most 'ex-gay' therapists to 'failures', most patients continued to lie to their therapists about their progress. This is almost certainly the reason why Exodus and Narth therapists continue to claim 30-50% success rates, when outsiders find much less.



4) Based on self-reporting by the patients to Schroeder and Shidlo, 14% did manage long-term to either greatly reduce or completely stop homosexual practices. Of these, 5% were 'struggling'. Another 5% reported being reasonably happy (almost all of this group were celibate).



5) Only 4% (i.e. 8 patients) reported a shift in sexual orientation from 5 or more to 3 or less on a 1-7 scale of hetero/homosexual balance. Of these - the only ones who could perhaps be classified as 'ex-gays' - 7 out of 8 put down as occupation that they were 'ex-gay' counselors. The eighth person refused a follow-up interview. Obviously there is a serious conflict of interest/secondary gain issue among this group. ​

Click to expand...

TheFathersDaughter said:

[SIZE=-1]NewGuy and Der Alter, APA is the center of psychological studies. It's the only approve organization in all of my Psychology classes and it's very strict on its ethics code with includes restraining from biases behavior. They're the opposite of bias and trying to say otherwise is the typical "if it doesn't agree, it's just bias" cop-out argument.[/SIZE]

Click to expand...

There are 2 APA, I know what both are. You are referrring to the American Psychological Association, the other is the Psychiatric association.

Your post is not relevant to anything that I have or will post. Please show me the part that talks about bias?

And OBTW one of my minors was Psychology, over 3 decades ago.

Exactly. MINORS.

I want to major in psych and even become a criminal psychologist one day. I spend my free time studying the field. Either way, both of those organizations, and I have heard of both, concentrate on forwarding their research without bias opinion which you insist is present when it obviously isn't. Your list merely proves MY point. I don't really see what you were getting at with that post.

eastcoast_bsc said:

[SIZE=-1]Go read the study. I am not going to spoon feed you. I led you to the water, now drink of it.[/SIZE]

Click to expand...

I take that to mean you can only cut/paste bits and pieces which, out-of-context, seem to support your argument but you are unable to back up what you say. Your second post does NOT answer my questions. It consists of vague generalities and unsupported assumptions.

OTOH I almost never say anything I cannot back up!

TheFathersDaughter said:

[SIZE=-1]Exactly. MINORS.

I want to major in psych and even become a criminal psychologist one day. I spend my free time studying the field. Either way, both of those organizations, and I have heard of both, concentrate on forwarding their research without bias opinion which you insist is present when it obviously isn't. Your list merely proves MY point. I don't really see what you were getting at with that post.[/SIZE]

Click to expand...

You haven't majored in anything, YET, so don't be criticizing what you do not know or understand.

I'm glad that the APA "concentrate on forwarding their research without bias opinion" Where did I insist any such bias was present?

Which list are you talking about? Which post are you talking about? As far as I can tell you don't have a point.

Der Alter said:

You haven't majored in anything, YET, so don't be criticizing what you do not know or understand.

I'm glad that the APA "concentrate on forwarding their research without bias opinion" Where did I insist any such bias was present?

Which list are you talking about? Which post are you talking about? As far as I can tell you don't have a point.

Click to expand...

It would seem that “professionals,” are willing to 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.”

Click to expand...

Trying to tell me that's not bias is like NewGuy trying to tell me calling all liberal whiney isn't an insult.