(NARTH) says homosexuals can change

[ke1985]

And your evidence for such proof is ? . . . . . . . .

May I ask where the evidence for your opinion is too?

 

[Washington]

May I ask where the evidence for your opinion is too?

Sure, but what does my opinion (whatever you're referring to) have to do with your assertion that NARTH has proof that homosexuality can be cured? All I'm looking for is this proof you say exists. I'm assuming you haven't simply concocted your claim out of thin air, but have at least read their proof, or of it. I still await.

 

[Supernaut]

Probably heterosexuals could change, if forced to.quote]

You know...the other day I was listening to Streisand and I started feeling a tingling inside. My immediate thought was oh my gosh...I am turning homosexual! But then it occured to me, I just really like the music...

 

[Belk]

You have not presented any proof that anal sex is not harmful to that region, nor that it is helpful. The very same is true with regard to oral sex.

If it is likely unhealthy to suck on the toes of an athlete after he's run a marathon in sweaty sneaker, it behooves me to imagine that a male sex organ, that has been inside someone's sweaty stinky old underwear all day is anymore healthy. And the fact is no offspring are derived by such antics. It is in fact worthless hype at its best.

Apparently you have mistaken me for another poster, as your response has nothing to do with anything I wrote. Here, I will list it out again for your convenience.

Now you just need to explain the logical progression from "Sex is how the human race procreates" to "Sex should only happen when humans want to procreate".

why do you feel you have the right to question anything about my sex life. Guess what? It's mine, unless I proposition you stay out of it.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I see we're well and truly entrenched in the "homosexuality=male/male anal sex" paradigm here. Well done.

As always, I wonder why are the anti-gay lobby so fixated on this particular act? Seerms they think about it a lot more than I, a homosexual person does.

Further, just throwing it out there, can you guys imagine the uproar if I started a thread suggesting heterosexuals should be forced through "therapy" to change their orientation? Just think about it for a second, and yet WE'RE the ones with an alledged agenda to recruit.

 

[nolongerhome]

As always, I wonder why are the anti-gay lobby so fixated on this particular act? Seerms they think about it a lot more than I, a homosexual person does.

That is understandable - you don't have a prostate, most of those posting in this thread do. If you had one, you might think about it a bit more

 

[Fenny the Fox]

That is understandable - you don't have a prostate, most of those posting in this thread do. If you had one, you might think about it a bit more

Ok then, as a guy, I find it odd how fixated people are on this aspect - on the whole anal sex thing. A bit of a pointless fix if you ask me.

 

[Corey]

Historical research is not without its considerations.

I'm passingly familiar with meta-analysis. Sadly, their little book report doesn't meet the criteria.

 

[Corey]

Appeal to Majority fallacy

Not quite. You see, the APA is an organization of credible scientists with no agenda other than understanding and explaining human behavior. That means when they put out position statements (like the one on homosexuality), it's based on sound, peer-reviewed experimental research. Appeal to majority only applies when the majority status isn't relevant to the topic. In this case, it's a group of human behavior scientists who happen to know what their talking about.

Please learn to apply the fallacies of informal logic correctly before using them.

 

[Saint Nihilo]

NARTH says that homosexuals can change their orientation through therapy? Yeah, and the Mormons used to say that dark-skinned people could get whiter by being more righteous. People pushing agendas aren't trustworthy when it comes to research. The APA is not pushing an agenda, they are just reporting finding. Their research, done without a meta-narrative agenda (such as Christianity), about homosexuality is not biased but NARTH's is. So, who to trust?

Another point I would like to make is the fact that the testimony of so many homosexuals saying, "I cannot change," means nothing to Christians even when they try and say "I have felt god in my soul" equals proof of a deity. See the hypocrisy here? My testimony is true but yours is false. Why? Because I am right and you are wrong. Period. Nice logic. Lovely, indeed.

So, we can't be gay because it is against nature. But we should be celibate...because that is just so natural.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Apparently you have mistaken me for another poster, as your response has nothing to do with anything I wrote. Here, I will list it out again for your convenience.

Now you just need to explain the logical progression from "Sex is how the human race procreates" to "Sex should only happen when humans want to procreate".

why do you feel you have the right to question anything about my sex life. Guess what? It's mine, unless I proposition you stay out of it.

Sorry, but a society should keep a small tab on everyone's sex life. We don't want there to be any rape going on, but if it does happen, it is societies business. As long as you are keeping it consensual, society should just ignore you, but I (well, society in general) has the right to ask you if everything is consensual.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Not quite. You see, the APA is an organization of credible scientists with no agenda other than understanding and explaining human behavior. That means when they put out position statements (like the one on homosexuality), it's based on sound, peer-reviewed experimental research. Appeal to majority only applies when the majority status isn't relevant to the topic. In this case, it's a group of human behavior scientists who happen to know what their talking about.

Please learn to apply the fallacies of informal logic correctly before using them.

Best be careful. While as an organization, the APA has not alternative agendas, some individual members will have them.

 

[Maren]

Interesting that the APA just released its own evaluation of reparative therapy -- one might think that NARTH realized the APA was releasing this report at their convention and did this to "counter" the APA's report. The full text of the APA report is here.

It's also interesting to note that the APA's conclusions differ greatly from NARTH's, particularly in that the APA looked for evidence the change was maintained after therapy ended and it sees it is largely this difference that caused the APA to find different results from NARTH. From their report:

These studies show that enduring change to an individual’s sexual orientation is uncommon. The participants in this body of research continued to experience same-sex attractions following SOCE and did not report significant change to othersex attractions that could be empirically validated, though some showed lessened physiological arousal to all sexual stimuli. Compelling evidence of decreased same-sex sexual behavior and of engagement in sexual behavior with the other sex was rare. 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 samesex attractions or increase other-sex sexual attractions through SOCE.

 

[Belk]

Sorry, but a society should keep a small tab on everyone's sex life. We don't want there to be any rape going on, but if it does happen, it is societies business. As long as you are keeping it consensual, society should just ignore you, but I (well, society in general) has the right to ask you if everything is consensual.

I disagree. If anything non consensual happens I will bring it to the proper authorities, as should anyone I do anything non consensual to. I don't need anyone in my bedroom keeping tabs on me.