Political Crossfire Forums

[George W Bush]

UrielsFyre wrote:
What that all boils down to is this: You have absolutely no basis for your claims that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation. Therefore, you have no credibility and all you are doing is making things up as you go along.

Sure I do. Ive read about NARTH and Ive read accounts from men formerly calling themselves gay. Reparative therapy works.

Are you going to sit there and say these men are lying or what? What will be your excuse?

"Oh, it did not work for me THEREFORE it could NOT work for anyone else because, well, I am the EPITOME of Gay, and therefore, no one can be changed because I SAID SO" << this is the impression I get of you.

Heres an account: http://www.narth.com/docs/ben.html
The author of the article has a website: http://peoplecanchange.com/

[ToonArmyIsComing]

George W Bush wrote: Reparative therapy works.

I find it quite absurd to see one assert something so forcefully when there have been very little meaningful studies of these counseling methods' effectiveness and potential adverse side effects.

Besides, I have an issue with someone calling it "Reparative Therapy" as "Reparative" implies something is inherently wrong with the condition that is being "repaired".

[F'losrix]

George W Bush wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:
What that all boils down to is this: You have absolutely no basis for your claims that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation. Therefore, you have no credibility and all you are doing is making things up as you go along.

Sure I do. Ive read about NARTH and Ive read accounts from men formerly calling themselves gay. Reparative therapy works.

Are you going to sit there and say these men are lying or what? What will be your excuse?

"Oh, it did not work for me THEREFORE it could NOT work for anyone else because, well, I am the EPITOME of Gay, and therefore, no one can be changed because I SAID SO" << this is the impression I get of you.

Heres an account: http://www.narth.com/docs/ben.html
The author of the article has a website: http://peoplecanchange.com/
These are your sources????? A couple of organizations affiliated with the Catholic Church?

No wonder you have such a biased and twisted opinion on the matter.

I think we're done here. There is nothing more for us to discuss.

[Enoch]

George W Bush wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:
What that all boils down to is this: You have absolutely no basis for your claims that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation. Therefore, you have no credibility and all you are doing is making things up as you go along.

Sure I do. Ive read about NARTH and Ive read accounts from men formerly calling themselves gay. Reparative therapy works.

Are you going to sit there and say these men are lying or what? What will be your excuse?

"Oh, it did not work for me THEREFORE it could NOT work for anyone else because, well, I am the EPITOME of Gay, and therefore, no one can be changed because I SAID SO" << this is the impression I get of you.

Heres an account: http://www.narth.com/docs/ben.html
The author of the article has a website: http://peoplecanchange.com/
Those are hardly credible sources. They are organizations with a set agenda and are, therefore, extraordinarily biased.

Oh, and your impression, although amusing, is hardly accurate. My opinion, although hardly a definitive answer on the matter, at least comes from personal experience and a membership in the gay community. Whereas, on the other hand, all you have to base your opinion on is second-hand accounts posted by biased organizations.

Now, if you can find any credible source that says a gay man or woman can change orientations, show it to me. Until you can do just that, you have nothing to stand on.

[Lumina]

UrielsFyre wrote: George W Bush wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:
What that all boils down to is this: You have absolutely no basis for your claims that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation. Therefore, you have no credibility and all you are doing is making things up as you go along.

Sure I do. Ive read about NARTH and Ive read accounts from men formerly calling themselves gay. Reparative therapy works.

Are you going to sit there and say these men are lying or what? What will be your excuse?

"Oh, it did not work for me THEREFORE it could NOT work for anyone else because, well, I am the EPITOME of Gay, and therefore, no one can be changed because I SAID SO" << this is the impression I get of you.

Heres an account: http://www.narth.com/docs/ben.html
The author of the article has a website: http://peoplecanchange.com/
Those are hardly credible sources. They are organizations with a set agenda and are, therefore, extraordinarily biased.

Oh, and your impression, although amusing, is hardly accurate. My opinion, although hardly a definitive answer on the matter, at least comes from personal experience and a membership in the gay community. Whereas, on the other hand, all you have to base your opinion on is second-hand accounts posted by biased organizations.

Now, if you can find any credible source that says a gay man or woman can change orientations, show it to me. Until you can do just that, you have nothing to stand on.

The only gay men I've ever known who "changed" their orientation eventually returned to their homosexuality. Both atttempted to change very sincerely and for spiritual reasons and were so ashamed by their "failure" that they both dropped out of sight. I still think of them often and regret terribly their sense of "failure." They were wonderful, wonderful people.

[George W Bush]

UrielsFyre wrote: George W Bush wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:
What that all boils down to is this: You have absolutely no basis for your claims that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation. Therefore, you have no credibility and all you are doing is making things up as you go along.

Sure I do. Ive read about NARTH and Ive read accounts from men formerly calling themselves gay. Reparative therapy works.

Are you going to sit there and say these men are lying or what? What will be your excuse?

"Oh, it did not work for me THEREFORE it could NOT work for anyone else because, well, I am the EPITOME of Gay, and therefore, no one can be changed because I SAID SO" << this is the impression I get of you.

Heres an account: http://www.narth.com/docs/ben.html
The author of the article has a website: http://peoplecanchange.com/
Those are hardly credible sources. They are organizations with a set agenda and are, therefore, extraordinarily biased.

Oh, and your impression, although amusing, is hardly accurate. My opinion, although hardly a definitive answer on the matter, at least comes from personal experience and a membership in the gay community. Whereas, on the other hand, all you have to base your opinion on is second-hand accounts posted by biased organizations.

Now, if you can find any credible source that says a gay man or woman can change orientations, show it to me. Until you can do just that, you have nothing to stand on.

You know what is funny?

If someone says, "oh, I am gay".

You seem to believe them. You seem to accept that. You would parade around their "feelings" in this regard. Supportive.

However, the second they say, "I used to be gay. I am now straight."

Are they liars to you?

Consider this: what better source for the case of change, than a persons subjective discussion. There is no better source for that. Is there? You seem to want scientists, doctors, to evaluate and put numbers on sexuality.

However, if you cannot accept another persons realization of their truth, you have an agenda of your own.

otherwise, accept that people can change without this stubborn need to "back it up" with scientific data, of which you would only accept if it supported your ideals.

So, let me close by saying the difference between you and I is that I accept people unconditionally, I accept their feelings of being gay or straight. I wouldnt tell them their feelings are NOT REAL, if that is what they wanted. You may think illuminating the topic of reparative therapy is an attempt to indoctrinate someone into the sexuality-change movement. That is the petty observation that is easily rejected when you consider the enumerable ways one can conduct themselves and the choices in life.

Now, let me ask: Would you want to upset the people who changed, and are now happy? If so, quite a selfish motivation, dont you think? If someone is happy the way they are, you seem to want to tell them how gay they are despite the way they feel. Dont fault me for rejecting your motivation as selfish. Because it is.

[George W Bush]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: George W Bush wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:
What that all boils down to is this: You have absolutely no basis for your claims that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation. Therefore, you have no credibility and all you are doing is making things up as you go along.

Sure I do. Ive read about NARTH and Ive read accounts from men formerly calling themselves gay. Reparative therapy works.

Are you going to sit there and say these men are lying or what? What will be your excuse?

"Oh, it did not work for me THEREFORE it could NOT work for anyone else because, well, I am the EPITOME of Gay, and therefore, no one can be changed because I SAID SO" << this is the impression I get of you.

Heres an account: http://www.narth.com/docs/ben.html
The author of the article has a website: http://peoplecanchange.com/
These are your sources????? A couple of organizations affiliated with the Catholic Church?

No wonder you have such a biased and twisted opinion on the matter.

I think we're done here. There is nothing more for us to discuss.

I happen to be atheist/agnostic so have not "motive" other than to show that people can change if they want to. It has happened. Are you saying it cant happen? Well then, It cant for you. But, its pretty obnoxious to presume someone elses perspective is not right simply because of your own subjective experience.

Yes, we are done here. You will not be able to justify your continuing dissatisfaction with anothers successful experience with change for their better.

[George W Bush]

Lumina wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: George W Bush wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:
What that all boils down to is this: You have absolutely no basis for your claims that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation. Therefore, you have no credibility and all you are doing is making things up as you go along.

Sure I do. Ive read about NARTH and Ive read accounts from men formerly calling themselves gay. Reparative therapy works.

Are you going to sit there and say these men are lying or what? What will be your excuse?

"Oh, it did not work for me THEREFORE it could NOT work for anyone else because, well, I am the EPITOME of Gay, and therefore, no one can be changed because I SAID SO" << this is the impression I get of you.

Heres an account: http://www.narth.com/docs/ben.html
The author of the article has a website: http://peoplecanchange.com/
Those are hardly credible sources. They are organizations with a set agenda and are, therefore, extraordinarily biased.

Oh, and your impression, although amusing, is hardly accurate. My opinion, although hardly a definitive answer on the matter, at least comes from personal experience and a membership in the gay community. Whereas, on the other hand, all you have to base your opinion on is second-hand accounts posted by biased organizations.

Now, if you can find any credible source that says a gay man or woman can change orientations, show it to me. Until you can do just that, you have nothing to stand on.

The only gay men I've ever known who "changed" their orientation eventually returned to their homosexuality. Both atttempted to change very sincerely and for spiritual reasons and were so ashamed by their "failure" that they both dropped out of sight. I still think of them often and regret terribly their sense of "failure." They were wonderful, wonderful people.

good for them for doing as they see fit. glad to see they went back to being homosexuals because that is probably what they were meant to be.

[Starnexus]

Doesn't matter what causes heterosexuality or homosexuality. We're both just as human and deserve to have our rights respected in the same way. Why can certain people not understand that??

[F'losrix]

I see that we're not quite done yet....

George W Bush wrote: I happen to be atheist/agnostic so have not "motive" other than to show that people can change if they want to.
:lol: Being an atheist doesn't do a thing to alter the fact that your sources are biased. Nor does it prove that you have no motive beyond your actual statements. But it would be pointless for me to speculate further on what your motives might be. Suffice it to say I remain skeptical.

George W Bush wrote: It has happened. Are you saying it cant happen?
I've stated my position quite clearly already, but I'll reiterate:

1) I have serious doubts that anyone can alter their actual orientation

2) I have no doubt that people can alter their behavior

3) Their happiness either way is a personal issue and not in dispute. That said, if they use their personal experience as a springboard to try to argue that all homosexuals can and should change, I take issue with those claims. Especially in light of the fact that the testimonies we hear to this effect come from biased sources with a political agenda, or with close ties to groups known to have one (possibly because they've been set up for the very purpose of giving some political group's arguments legitimacy through the appearance of being 'apolitical' themselves.)

George W Bush wrote: But, its pretty obnoxious to presume someone elses perspective is not right simply because of your own subjective experience.
It's hardly limited to 'my own subjective experience'. You conveniently ignore the low 'success' rate of ex-gay groups along with the statements of those who have been through these programs and have first-hand knowledge of the methodologies, and have found them ineffective. You conveniently ignore the stance of professional mental health organizations that have evaluated these programs and likewise found the methodology questionable, even to the point of doing more harm than good in some cases.

George W Bush wrote: Yes, we are done here. You will not be able to justify your continuing dissatisfaction with anothers successful experience with change for their better.
I'm not 'dissatisfied' with others alleged successful experiences, but I remain highly skeptical as to the veracity of their claims. I've provided enough justification in support of that skepticism, in my own opinion. If you want to continue to hold a different opinion, that's certainly your prerogative.

[Mare Tranquillity]

George W Bush wrote:
Ive read about NARTH and Ive read accounts from men formerly calling themselves gay. Reparative therapy works.

Are you going to sit there and say these men are lying or what? What will be your excuse?

"Oh, it did not work for me THEREFORE it could NOT work for anyone else because, well, I am the EPITOME of Gay, and therefore, no one can be changed because I SAID SO" << this is the impression I get of you.

Heres an account: http://www.narth.com/docs/ben.html
The author of the article has a website: http://peoplecanchange.com/

As with so many issues, people in the "reparative therapy" discussion tend to paint sexual orientation as a black and white, an all or nothing distinction. People really fall on a spectrum with pretty much dedicated homosexuals on one end and pretty much dedicated heterosexuals on the other. There are a lot of people somewhere out in the middle who can sort of go either way depending on their situation and motivation. Someone from this middle ground who has thought of themself as "homosexual" but who gets religion can perhaps change their behavior and appear to have changed their innate sexual orientation, but there is no way to tell if they actually have. The fallacy lies in trying to use them as proof that ANYBODY can change.

Research on transgender people has shown that the dividing line between male and female is also not hard and fast like most people think. It used to be that if you had the XX chromosome pattern you were female and if you had the XY then you were male. Not any more, science has discovered 9 (count them...NINE) different chromosome patterns in people. We have a rainbow and we're still trying to describe it with black and white terminology.

What it comes down to is that gender and sexual orientation are far more fluid and difficult to pigeon-hole than people want to accept. We need to begin accepting people as who they are without slapping "good" or "bad" labels on them based on anachronistic religious superstitions. As I recall, that guy, Jesus, said "Love thy neighbor as thyself," maybe we should try that and stop trying to make everybody be just like us.

[Enoch]

Mare Tranquillity wrote: George W Bush wrote:
Ive read about NARTH and Ive read accounts from men formerly calling themselves gay. Reparative therapy works.

Are you going to sit there and say these men are lying or what? What will be your excuse?

"Oh, it did not work for me THEREFORE it could NOT work for anyone else because, well, I am the EPITOME of Gay, and therefore, no one can be changed because I SAID SO" << this is the impression I get of you.

Heres an account: http://www.narth.com/docs/ben.html
The author of the article has a website: http://peoplecanchange.com/

As with so many issues, people in the "reparative therapy" discussion tend to paint sexual orientation as a black and white, an all or nothing distinction. People really fall on a spectrum with pretty much dedicated homosexuals on one end and pretty much dedicated heterosexuals on the other. There are a lot of people somewhere out in the middle who can sort of go either way depending on their situation and motivation. Someone from this middle ground who has thought of themself as "homosexual" but who gets religion can perhaps change their behavior and appear to have changed their innate sexual orientation, but there is no way to tell if they actually have. The fallacy lies in trying to use them as proof that ANYBODY can change.

Research on transgender people has shown that the dividing line between male and female is also not hard and fast like most people think. It used to be that if you had the XX chromosome pattern you were female and if you had the XY then you were male. Not any more, science has discovered 9 (count them...NINE) different chromosome patterns in people. We have a rainbow and we're still trying to describe it with black and white terminology.

What it comes down to is that gender and sexual orientation are far more fluid and difficult to pigeon-hole than people want to accept. We need to begin accepting people as who they are without slapping "good" or "bad" labels on them based on anachronistic religious superstitions. As I recall, that guy, Jesus, said "Love thy neighbor as thyself," maybe we should try that and stop trying to make everybody be just like us. That is really interesting. Do you have any links about the 9 different chomosome patterns? I would love to read it.

[Enoch]

George W Bush wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: George W Bush wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:
What that all boils down to is this: You have absolutely no basis for your claims that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation. Therefore, you have no credibility and all you are doing is making things up as you go along.

Sure I do. Ive read about NARTH and Ive read accounts from men formerly calling themselves gay. Reparative therapy works.

Are you going to sit there and say these men are lying or what? What will be your excuse?

"Oh, it did not work for me THEREFORE it could NOT work for anyone else because, well, I am the EPITOME of Gay, and therefore, no one can be changed because I SAID SO" << this is the impression I get of you.

Heres an account: http://www.narth.com/docs/ben.html
The author of the article has a website: http://peoplecanchange.com/
Those are hardly credible sources. They are organizations with a set agenda and are, therefore, extraordinarily biased.

Oh, and your impression, although amusing, is hardly accurate. My opinion, although hardly a definitive answer on the matter, at least comes from personal experience and a membership in the gay community. Whereas, on the other hand, all you have to base your opinion on is second-hand accounts posted by biased organizations.

Now, if you can find any credible source that says a gay man or woman can change orientations, show it to me. Until you can do just that, you have nothing to stand on.

You know what is funny?

If someone says, "oh, I am gay".

You seem to believe them. You seem to accept that. You would parade around their "feelings" in this regard. Supportive.

However, the second they say, "I used to be gay. I am now straight."

Are they liars to you?

Consider this: what better source for the case of change, than a persons subjective discussion. There is no better source for that. Is there? You seem to want scientists, doctors, to evaluate and put numbers on sexuality.

However, if you cannot accept another persons realization of their truth, you have an agenda of your own.

otherwise, accept that people can change without this stubborn need to "back it up" with scientific data, of which you would only accept if it supported your ideals.

So, let me close by saying the difference between you and I is that I accept people unconditionally, I accept their feelings of being gay or straight. I wouldnt tell them their feelings are NOT REAL, if that is what they wanted. You may think illuminating the topic of reparative therapy is an attempt to indoctrinate someone into the sexuality-change movement. That is the petty observation that is easily rejected when you consider the enumerable ways one can conduct themselves and the choices in life.

Now, let me ask: Would you want to upset the people who changed, and are now happy? If so, quite a selfish motivation, dont you think? If someone is happy the way they are, you seem to want to tell them how gay they are despite the way they feel. Dont fault me for rejecting your motivation as selfish. Because it is. You have an extraordinarily distrorted view of me if you accuse me of not accepting people. My whole basis for calling your sites biased is because of the nature of the organizations reporting the information. Using NARTH to back up your claims that people can, somehow, change sexual orientations is ridiculous. It is an organization whose sole reason for existence is to change gay men and women "back" in to straight individuals. Whether or not that can be done, I don't know but am disinclined to believe.

NARTH is a biased organization, therefore the information they put forth is biased as well. If there are people that NARTH claim turned straight who, later, returned to being gay do you really think that the fine people at NARTH would report that? No, because it would go against their goal. It is tantamount to using PETA as a definitive source on animal cruelty. Since that is one of PETA's prime missions, it is exceedingly unlikely that they would post information that contradicts their claims. Neutrality in source citation is the key to proper debate. So, before you get on your soapbox about what kind of person I am and my motives, I would ask you to do something: examine the reasons I have stated for not trusting NARTH, find a neutral source, and then come back here and try to tout your knowledge on the matter.

[Mare Tranquillity]

UrielsFyre wrote: That is really interesting. Do you have any links about the 9 different chomosome patterns? I would love to read it.[/quote]

This is the first reference I could locate.

http://www.geocities.com/karyn_ts/tech.htm

Professor Julie A. Greenberg, writing in the Summer 1999 issue of the Arizona Law Review...

[Lumina]

Just one ref?

[Mare Tranquillity]

Lumina wrote: Just one ref?

You have a compute don't you? One reference gets you started and then you do your own research because you know I'm not making it up. :-D

[George W Bush]

UrielsFyre wrote: You have an extraordinarily distrorted view of me if you accuse me of not accepting people. My whole basis for calling your sites biased is because of the nature of the organizations reporting the information. Using NARTH to back up your claims that people can, somehow, change sexual orientations is ridiculous. It is an organization whose sole reason for existence is to change gay men and women "back" in to straight individuals. Whether or not that can be done, I don't know but am disinclined to believe.

NARTH is a biased organization, therefore the information they put forth is biased as well. If there are people that NARTH claim turned straight who, later, returned to being gay do you really think that the fine people at NARTH would report that? No, because it would go against their goal. It is tantamount to using PETA as a definitive source on animal cruelty. Since that is one of PETA's prime missions, it is exceedingly unlikely that they would post information that contradicts their claims. Neutrality in source citation is the key to proper debate. So, before you get on your soapbox about what kind of person I am and my motives, I would ask you to do something: examine the reasons I have stated for not trusting NARTH, find a neutral source, and then come back here and try to tout your knowledge on the matter.

NARTHs "agenda" is to help people. Someone said (maybe it was you) they are a "catholic" orginization. Where on their site does this say this? In particular, where is it in their organizational policy webpage can you cite this? Quite frankly, I dont think youve given it much of a read. Most of it is interesting.

Just as with everything else in life, there will be areas where you do not support all philosophies/beliefs. One of Narth's statements is in regards to their belief that same-sex marriage is not good. I dont support this ideal.
Does this mean I shouldn't support their motivation to help people who want help?

In regards to the citation that Narth does not document the cases where people rebound into their homosexual role, why should they? That says more about their intention for happiness of others than of some sadistic cover-up operation. In other words NARTH respects and advocates a persons choices. I am sure they highlight the difficulties and struggles one may face when choosing to change their sexuality. However, any seed of doubt - such as telling someone, "you cannot do this. because I said so. and I should know, because i tried and it did not work" is a selfish, ego-inflated, pompous mindset.

Theres a broader spectrum of orientation than hetero's and homo's believe. This is what NART proposes. However, they have their opinions, and I dont have to agree with everyone of them. I do agree that people can change, and the only reference to that is on the inside. No weblink, encyclopedia or doctor can back that up. When someone tells their story about changing their sexuality, how on earth do you have the right to tell them they are wrong, and their methods are bs?

[George W Bush]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: I see that we're not quite done yet....

George W Bush wrote: I happen to be atheist/agnostic so have not "motive" other than to show that people can change if they want to.
:lol: Being an atheist doesn't do a thing to alter the fact that your sources are biased. Nor does it prove that you have no motive beyond your actual statements. But it would be pointless for me to speculate further on what your motives might be. Suffice it to say I remain skeptical.


I am reminding you there is nothing religious about my opinion, as you seem to believe with the citation that NARTH are a catholic organization. However, where did you see they are catholic? Then again, Sam Walton is christian. Does this make Wal-Mart a christian organization?

Skeptical Mystic wrote:
George W Bush wrote: It has happened. Are you saying it cant happen?
I've stated my position quite clearly already, but I'll reiterate:

1) I have serious doubts that anyone can alter their actual orientation

2) I have no doubt that people can alter their behavior

3) Their happiness either way is a personal issue and not in dispute. That said, if they use their personal experience as a springboard to try to argue that all homosexuals can and should change, I take issue with those claims. Especially in light of the fact that the testimonies we hear to this effect come from biased sources with a political agenda, or with close ties to groups known to have one (possibly because they've been set up for the very purpose of giving some political group's arguments legitimacy through the appearance of being 'apolitical' themselves.)


Your serious doubts are your own.
However, I agree that one cannot use their personal experience as springboard to say that all homosexuals can change.
Can you use your personal experience to say that all gays cannot change?
I think you said, "I have serious doubts" gays can change.

If "healing" from some unwanted mindset is a political agenda, then I guess there should be more politicians in the world because its not such a happy place especially when we call people who change, "liars with a political agenda".

Skeptical Mystic wrote:
George W Bush wrote: But, its pretty obnoxious to presume someone elses perspective is not right simply because of your own subjective experience.
It's hardly limited to 'my own subjective experience'. You conveniently ignore the low 'success' rate of ex-gay groups along with the statements of those who have been through these programs and have first-hand knowledge of the methodologies, and have found them ineffective. You conveniently ignore the stance of professional mental health organizations that have evaluated these programs and likewise found the methodology questionable, even to the point of doing more harm than good in some cases.


Yes. I do find it obnoxious that these organizations against NARTH would dictate the validity of an individuals success stories. I would feel the same about NARTH if they rejected an individuals decision to drop out of therapy and remain happy in their homosexual role. However, they dont do this - as I said, their goal is individual happiness among the scrutiny of a society increasingly intolerant of alternative explanations outside the APA.

Skeptical Mystic wrote:
George W Bush wrote: Yes, we are done here. You will not be able to justify your continuing dissatisfaction with anothers successful experience with change for their better.
I'm not 'dissatisfied' with others alleged successful experiences, but I remain highly skeptical as to the veracity of their claims. I've provided enough justification in support of that skepticism, in my own opinion. If you want to continue to hold a different opinion, that's certainly your prerogative.

That is your feeling. That is not the feeling of those wanting change. You can be skeptical all you want. Does that invalidate someones belief that NARTH works? You seem to think so. Yet, I am not asking you to provide a link that proves your orientation. However, I would not use your (or countless other homosexuals) to validate anothers feelings.

[F'losrix]

George W Bush wrote: I am reminding you there is nothing religious about my opinion, as you seem to believe with the citation that NARTH are a catholic organization.
It appears that I erred in calling them a Catholic organization - they're more Mormon than Catholic. If you review who the officers are, the fact that they're a religion-based group becomes pretty obvious. Let's start with Joseph J. Nicolosi, Ph.D., President (Encino, CA) Director, Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic, Psychologist. Hmm, a web search on this clinic turns up nothing but links to ex-gay and anti-gay material (and rebuttals). No web presence for the clinic itself, apparently. This guy seems to be involved with just about every ex-gay 'ministry' in existance.

NARTH's vice-president is the director of LDS Family Services and an adjunct professor at Brigham Young. The Mormon's don't exactly have a reputation for tolerance, especially when it comes to homosexuality. What they profess tolerance for is ex-gays, not those they perceive to be wantonly wallowing in sin.

The treasurer is the also the director of Evergreen International - another Mormon organization focused on changing sexual orientation. (well, they claim no affiliation to the church itself, though they "sustain the doctrines and standards of the Church without reservation or exception."

The exectutive secretary Co-Founder and Co-Director of JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality)

The governing board includes the director of Desert Hope Ministries, "a non-profit 501(c) corporation, whose ultimate goal and reason for existence is to bring a fresh and relevant message of hope and renewal to the evangelical church on God's design for relationships, intimacy, sexuality, and gender."

With a gang like that in charge, one can hardly expect their approach to be unbiased.

George W Bush wrote: Sam Walton is christian. Does this make Wal-Mart a christian organization?
Comparing Wal-Mart to NARTH? Please, we're not that naive.

Skeptical Mystic wrote:
Can you use your personal experience to say that all gays cannot change? I think you said, "I have serious doubts" gays can change.
I stand by my statement. Again, you're trying to make it sound as if my doubts are based on my personal experience alone. Since I've already fully addressed this, no further response is needed beyond pointing out your deceptive tactics.

George W Bush wrote: If "healing" from some unwanted mindset is a political agenda, then I guess there should be more politicians in the world because its not such a happy place especially when we call people who change, "liars with a political agenda".
Keep this up, and you'll end up on ignore. I don't respond to distortions of my statements, twisted about for rhetorical purposes, except to point out that the people who try it are walking on very thin ice.

Quote: Skeptical Mystic wrote:
George W Bush wrote: But, its pretty obnoxious to presume someone elses perspective is not right simply because of your own subjective experience.
It's hardly limited to 'my own subjective experience'. You conveniently ignore the low 'success' rate of ex-gay groups along with the statements of those who have been through these programs and have first-hand knowledge of the methodologies, and have found them ineffective. You conveniently ignore the stance of professional mental health organizations that have evaluated these programs and likewise found the methodology questionable, even to the point of doing more harm than good in some cases.


Yes. I do find it obnoxious that these organizations against NARTH would dictate the validity of an individuals success stories. I would feel the same about NARTH if they rejected an individuals decision to drop out of therapy and remain happy in their homosexual role. However, they dont do this - as I said, their goal is individual happiness among the scrutiny of a society increasingly intolerant of alternative explanations outside the APA.
A skepticism based not on the message, but on the questionable qualifications of those involved and methodology used, plus the extremely low 'success' rate. Call that intolerance all you like, I don't care.

George W Bush wrote: That is your feeling. That is not the feeling of those wanting change. You can be skeptical all you want. Does that invalidate someones belief that NARTH works? You seem to think so.
Do not presume to know what I think. Does it invalidate their belief? No - their belief is their belief. Does that mean the rest of us shouldn't look at NARTH's claims with a healthy dose of skepticism? Quite the contrary.

George W Bush wrote: Yet, I am not asking you to provide a link that proves your orientation. However, I would not use your (or countless other homosexuals) to validate anothers feelings.
And what you still don't get is that NARTH and similar organizations are doing their best to argue that our feeligns about our own orientation are invalid.

[George W Bush]

Skeptical Mystic wrote:

we agree to disagree.

you have your experiences, and I read about many otherwise.

I reject your claim reparative therapy does not work. There is alot of people who can disagree with you. NARTH has links.

Dont write them off as having an agenda besides wanting to be who they are regardless of how much pride another gay person may have.