Reparative theropy

ALiberalTeen said:

Bondage you say? sounds kinda fun

Click to expand...

You, my dear, have a long way to go toward reparation, it seems.

Floatingaxe said:

You, my dear, have a long way to go toward reparation, it seems.

Click to expand...

Yeah, probably. I do want to change(most gays do) but reparative theropy seems like brainwashing.

ALiberalTeen said:

Yeah, probably. I do want to change(most gays do) but reparative theropy seems like brainwashing.

Click to expand...

It seems like brainwashing because it is.

MercyBurst said:

You look for a defense.

We look for Jesus.

Click to expand...

K, this refutes my post how, exactly?

Floatingaxe said:

Yes, you can become whole and "straight" by the healing power of the Holy Spirit when you give your whole self over to the will and purposes of God. Until such time, you will remain in your bondage.

Click to expand...

Concrete proof/evidence...please pony it up.

MrPirate said:

Can you explain the difference between racism and what is being discussed here?

Click to expand...

There is no difference.

Can you explain the difference between racism and what is being discussed here?

Click to expand...

If reparative therapy focused only on helping those homosexual people who want to learn to live a life of celibacy, then I would say that the comparison with racism is invalid.

However, as most reparative therapy attempts to make homosexual people heterosexual, the comparison with racism is quite valid. Similar "reparative therapies" were carried out by the government on young Aboriginal children in Australia by taking them from their parents and giving them to white foster parents or institutions to raise them in white culture. Just as this practice assumes that there is something superior about anglo-australian culture as opposed to Aboriginal culture, so reparative therapy assumes that there is something superior about being a heterosexual person than being a homosexual person. thus, the comparison to racism is valid.

Anyone interested in my take? I guarantee it'll tick people off in several directions. What it has going for it, is that it seems to be the truth.

First, sexual orientation is ingrown, not chosen -- the product of either (a) genetics, (b) congenital causes, (c) trauma, (d) events in early childhood, or (e) two or more of the above. No one --no one-- is completely sure of the causes, from a medical/psychological standpoint. (First person to attribute it glibly to "the Devil" gets reported as a Manichee, OK?)

Second, sexual orientation does not equate precisely to sexual behavior. An obvious example, which Mercy Burst brought up several months ago as an example for something else, is a runaway teenage boy who is naturally straight but is selling sexual favors to men to survive. (And it would be an interesting sidebar, but quite off topic, to identify who all is sinning in that case.) A man who is predominantly gay by orientation may enter into a straight marriage for any of a number of reasons, and appear to be happy and functional in it. And so on.

Sexual orientation is a spectrum, ranging from absolutely no interest in same-sex relations to the precise opposite. Most people fall somewhere along this, being technically bisexual, but suppress any behavior they believe immoral or "not them" in some other sense. (E.g., a good Catholic man may be largely attracted to women, find one or two men or teenage boys sexually attractive, honor the church's teaching about homosexuality, and condition himself out of regarding them as attractive.) This sort of selective conditioning appears to only work if (a) you do have a legitimate sexual outlet (not necessarily for active sex, but something it is considered licit to find attractive), or (b) you have an abnormally low sex drive.

Now: The sorts of reparative therapies offered by most "ex-gay ministries" do not work. In this sense: they do not restore a largely or totally gay person to healthy heterosexuality. They may be effective in conditioning him out of homosexual thought and behavior. But they do not, as a rule, result in "I am come that they might have life, and that more abundantly" that is Jesus's promise. The only studies that suggest they are effective 3% or more of the time are ones conducted by the ministry itself or those from Family Research Council and its friends and relations -- see notes on dishonesty of Paul Cameron provided by others. There is one ex-gay program I think is well done: it admits blatantly that it cannot cure you of being gay (acting on which it considers sinful), then enables you to live as a celibate gay or as a bisexual person with a wife who understands your sexuality.

Now, "with God all things are possible," and there are in fact some formerly gay people who no longer are gay, through God's grace. What they seem to have in common is, it was through direct divine intervention in their lives, and that was coupled with hard effort on their part as well.

Note the difference between this and the reparative therapies. The latter are human programs, designed to change people from who they are into what the program-runners consider is less sinful. The other is a direct miracle of God -- because He chose to intervene directly in the lives of certain people who were but no longer are gay.

Finally, it's important to note that the Scriptures on sex relate to its abuse -- the abuse of others, particularly family members, the use of casual sex exclusively for personal gratification, prostitution, etc. To generalize from the "anti-gay" commands to any instance of gay sex is very much like deciding that the commandments against rape, incest, and fornication also forbid sexual intercourse within marriage -- it is, after all, the same act.

This does not prove anything on what BAFriend has been calling "promosexual" stuff -- what it's saying, IMO, is that there have been some uncalled-for actions against gay people by those zealous to save them from themselves, that have misrepresented an assortment of arguable issues.

Perhaps we can find some common ground by locating a middle that we agree on, then tackle the tough issues together?

MrPirate said:

The professions who know what they are talking about reject reparative therapy

From the APA position statement:

In the past, defining homosexuality as an illness buttressed society's moral opprobrium of same-sex relationships. In the current social climate, claiming homosexuality is a mental disorder stems from efforts to discredit the growing social acceptance of homosexuality as a normal variant of human sexuality.

1. APA affirms its 1973 position that homosexuality per se is not a diagnosable mental disorder. Recent publicized efforts to repathologize homosexuality by claiming that it can be cured are often guided not by rigorous scientific or psychiatric research, but sometimes by religious and political forces opposed to full civil rights for gay men and lesbians. APA recommends that the APA respond quickly and appropriately as a scientific organization when claims that homosexuality is a curable illness are made by political or religious groups.
2. As a general principle, a therapist should not determine the goal of treatment either coercively or through subtle influence. Psychotherapeutic modalities to convert or "repair" homosexuality are based on developmental theories whose scientific validity is questionable. Furthermore, anecdotal reports of "cures" are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm. In the last four decades, "reparative" therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure. Until there is such research available, APA recommends that ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals' sexual orientation, keeping in mind the medical dictum to first, do no harm.
3. The "reparative" therapy literature uses theories that make it difficult to formulate scientific selection criteria for their treatment modality. This literature not only ignores the impact of social stigma in motivating efforts to cure homosexuality; it is a literature that actively stigmatizes homosexuality as well. "Reparative" therapy literature also tends to overstate the treatment's accomplishments while neglecting any potential risks to patients. APA encourages and supports research in the NIMH and the academic research community to further determines "reparative" therapy's risks versus its benefits.

Click to expand...

It isn't a phychological problem, rather it's a spiritual problem. So I really don't care what the APA says about it. Most of them are humanistic atheists anyway. Remember that while you agree with them.

By the way, Jesus is in the business of repairing spirits. Tell us what the APA thinks about Jesus. Should we care about that either?

davedjy said:

K, this refutes my post how, exactly?

Click to expand...

Why not look for Jesus instead of looking for excuses?

MercyBurst said:

Why not look for Jesus instead of looking for excuses?

Click to expand...

You presume I haven't...I have already found the truth, which I give Jesus credit for.
I don't need an "excuse", I believe that I am exactly the way I'm supposed to be.

MercyBurst said:

It isn't a phychological problem, rather it's a spiritual problem. So I really don't care what the APA says about it. Most of them are humanistic atheists anyway. Remember that while you agree with them.

By the way, Jesus is in the business of repairing spirits. Tell us what the APA thinks about Jesus. Should we care about that either?

Click to expand...

okaaaaay, so if a person doesn't know Jesus, that person isn't to be taken seriously?

MercyBurst said:

It isn't a phychological problem, rather it's a spiritual problem.

Click to expand...

The desire to lie about homosexuals and justify personal prejudice…well I think that is both a psychological problem and a spiritual problem

So I really don't care what the APA says about it. Most of them are humanistic atheists anyway. Remember that while you agree with them.

Click to expand...

So do you have any actual proof to back this up or is it just a flame directed at a respected scientific organization?

By the way, Jesus is in the business of repairing spirits. Tell us what the APA thinks about Jesus. Should we care about that either?

Click to expand...

Is Jesus lying about homosexuality?
No

Is reparative therapy lying?
Yes


So it seems as soon as Jesus starts lying and promoting something that is actively harmful then the APA might have something to say on the topic. Until then you can keep your straw man

So I really don't care what the APA says about it. Most of them are humanistic atheists anyway. Remember that while you agree with them.

Click to expand...

well there's at least 4 people in my psychology classes who are Christians and not humanistic atheists, and we're all planning on becoming psychologists or behavioural scientists. a senior psychology lecturer at my uni is a deacon in the Orthodox Church, and there are thousands of Christian psychologists worldwide who are members of organisations such as APA or the Australian Psychological Society who are not humanistic atheists.