Posted on 06/02/2004 8:56:04 PM PDT by scripter
Is it hazardous to one’s mental health to change sexual identity from gay to straight? The National Mental Health Association, the nation’s oldest and largest mental health advocacy group made this charge in a recent statement to a gay oriented publication. In a May 28 article by Adrian Brune in the "Washington Blade," Lee Ann Browning-McNee, spokesperson for the NMHA was quoted as saying: “PFOX (Parents & Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays) talks a lot about gay reform, and we think those messages can actually be damaging to someone’s mental health. If you look at statistics of suicide, it’s easy to conclude that anyone who is sending out the message that homosexuality is wrong should not be at conferences supporting good mental health.”
First, a little background. PFOX, an advocacy organization for those who have or are in the process of reorienting their sexuality from gay to straight was denied space to exhibit at the NMHA’s annual convention. In this Blade article, Ms. Browning-McNee was explaining the NMHA rationale for this exclusion. So the mental health group seems to hold two related opinions: first, talking about “gay reform” is damaging to mental health and second, that anyone who asserts homosexuality is wrong or undesireable in some way undermines the mental health of others, maybe even leading to their suicide.
Let’s look at the first claim. Those who talk most about sexual identity change are those who have changed. In fact, 200 of them talked to Dr. Robert Spitzer in a research study published in the October, 2003 issue of the "Archives of Sexual Behavior." According to Dr. Spitzer’s work, 43% of men and 47% of women were markedly or extremely depressed before entering counseling to help transition from gay to straight. After the efforts to change were completed, only 1% of men and 4% of women felt depressed at the extreme level. Other participants reported similar but less dramatic improvements in their overall outlook and mental health. Now certainly there are some people who are not helped by such efforts, but why ignore the facts that for some, gay change has had a positive influence?
On the second rationale, Ms. Browning-McNee raises the specter of suicide to discourage the expression of any negativity concerning homosexuality. This is a tactic oft used in matters of morality. When one side declares a moral position, the other side claims offense to the point of suicidal despair. Ms. McNee thinks those who are ex-gay are wrong and misguided. Is she then responsible for undermining the mental health of ex-gays? No doubt she has made some of them angry but I don’t think I would hold her responsible for a depression.
Looking at the NMHA website concerning suicide, sexual orientation is not listed as one of the risk factors. However, being depressed is mentioned as one of the primary risk factors. If depression is a risk factor and ex-gays have reduced depression compared to their prior state, then wouldn’t becoming ex-gay actually reduce the risk of suicide for these individuals?
Admittedly the relationship between suicide risk, depression and sexual orientation is complicated and unsettled. We do know from research in the Netherlands that, despite social approval, homosexuals have more depression than straights. Some investigators have reported an increased link between suicide attempts and homosexuality. Given the already known link between depression and suicide, this could make sense no matter what the social climate for gays. However, some researchers dispute the idea of a link. Notably, after a 2001 review of the studies on suicide and homosexuality, gay researcher Ritch Savin-Williams asserted, “the assertion that sexual-minority youths as a class of individuals are at increased risk for suicide is not warranted.” He also asserted that sexual minority youth are more likely to exaggerate suicide attempts than straight youth, further complicating the picture. As a psychology professor, the picture is anything but clear. One thing I can see is that more research unbridled by ideology is needed.
Alas, political concerns seem to be at work in the NMHA position concerning ex-gays. Given the evidence that for some people mental health is actually enhanced by a gay to straight transition, why wouldn’t a responsible mental health organization want to study the matter further?
Looks to me like the NMHA could be hazardous to an open mind.
Ping.
Hey! No fair! You just want to pingify the good stuff...
;-)
Check post #2 - you're included in the pinglist too!
I think societies desire to become grandmothers will beat out societies desire to bugger.
I can't comment from personal experience, but I willing to hazard a guess: probably a step in the right direction.
Hey, finders keepers. :-)
I hope and pray you are right. It always grieves my spirit to read from fellow freepers who have already bought the lie.
It's called a refusal to admit they've been wrong all along.
The coversion from degeneracy is also a balm to their immortal soul. Liberals don't like that, don'tcha know!
Haven't seen you much since you supplied me with pro-life materials after we left Lucy's World to come here. You sent me a pix of a surgery where a fetus (i.e. very, very small human) had wrap his or her hand around the surgeon's finger. I know for a fact that picture made it to the Supreme Court steps.
Thank you so very much.
In a May 28 article by Adrian Brune in the "Washington Blade," Lee Ann Browning-McNee, spokesperson for the NMHA was quoted as saying: “PFOX (Parents & Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays) talks a lot about gay reform, and we think those messages can actually be damaging to someone’s mental health. If you look at statistics of suicide, it’s easy to conclude that anyone who is sending out the message that homosexuality is wrong should not be at conferences supporting good mental health.”
No, Lee Ann it's not "those messages" that are affecting their mental health, it's the lack of treatment due to the fact that the homosexual community infiltrated the APA (and other professional organizations) and were successful in getting homosexuality removed from the DSM.
And, Lee Ann, we know that the homosexual community is very adept at twisting statistics of suicide to support their agenda ( example posted here ).
An excerpt from "New Study Confirms Higher Level of Psychiatric Disorders Among Men and Women Engaging in Same-Sex Behavior:"
"Two recent studies published in the Archives of General Psychiatry found higher rates of psychiatric disorders among homosexually oriented men and women than among the heterosexual population (Herrell 1999 & Fergusson 1999). Those articles mentioned that a third study, not yet published, had confirmed their findings...
"The findings," says the authors, "support the assumption that people with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders."
The researchers note that when the American Psychiatric Association debated in 1973 about whether or not to delete homosexuality from the diagnostic manual, many psychiatrists supported deletion because of the supposed "equality in mental health status of homosexual and heterosexual people." Yet there is now substantial disconfirming evidence of that equality in mental-health status, the authors say, and "recent studies applying a more rigorous methodology" show that there is "substantial support" for the idea that gay men and lesbians are, indeed, less psychologically healthy than heterosexuals.
Sandfort et al. list other studies which support their findings. In one, "young people with a homosexual or bisexual orientation were found to be at increased risk of major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance abuse/dependence, and suicidal behaviors."
In another study, "middle-aged men who reported ever having had male sex partners were at higher lifetime risk for various suicidal symproms...even after controlling for substance abuse and depressive symptoms."
The authors of the Sandfort study suggest a number of possible reasons for the difference in mental-health status. They suggest loneliness, difficulty in finding and keeping longterm partners due to the lesser stability of gay relationships, different social norms of the gay world (i.e., the acceptance of promiscuity), and the stress of social stigma--although the latter is, the authors admit, considerably less of a factor in The Netherlands (from which they drew the study population) than in other Western countries..."
"... Neither of these bodies of evidence is decisive. To be sure, findings supporting a biological contribution to homosexuality undermine the early psychoanalytic explanations. But the evidence is not all in, and even today it is too early to prejudge the issue. More important, even if homosexuality is shown to be genetically based, biological determination does not preclude a condition from being a disorder or from being treated. Some forms of depression and anxiety are known to have biological causes but are nevertheless considered psychiatric disorders and are often effectively treated, both biologically and psychologically.
The second argument, that homosexuality is not associated with other conditions recognized as psychopathologies, also falls short. It begs the question as to whether homosexuality in and of itself is a psychopathology. From the fact that a person can be perfectly healthy except for a broken bone, we would not argue that fractures are not medical problems. One could just as well argue that because many people with phobic anxieties manage to cope well, live full lives, and show no symptoms other than their narrowly focused anxiety, phobias are not psychopathologies. Furthermore, several of the disorders retained in DSMII also do not necessarily involve subjective distress (e.g., fetishism).
We are also aware of the vicious attacks on anyone who opposes the homosexual propganda that "change is impossible:"
Berzon was incensed that the magazine would accept an advertisement for A Parent's Guide, a book which views homosexuality as a developmental condition rather than a core identity. Berzon claimed that Epstein's magazine should have refused to print the ad. She threatened to organize a boycott against the magazine, and then followed up by sending out a flurry of postings on gay and lesbian internet sites in order to gain support for an organized boycott... A story about the conflict was published in the December 10th issue of the gay magazine The Advocate, by columnist Michelangelo Signorile.
"When the editor in chief of Psychology Today reveals his support for so-called conversion therapies to turn gays straight, what does that say about the state of American psychology?" asked Signorile"Signorile then described Epstein and his work as editor of Psychology Today in unflattering terms. He said the editor was a publicity seeker who "might view such a position [advertising a non-gay-affirmative book] as an attention grabber." However, Signorile warned, editor Epstein would do well to remember what the gay community had succeeded in doing not so long ago to Dr. Laura. In a series of acrimonious and very public protests, gay activists were instrumental in forcing Dr. Laura's television show off the air by flooding the airwaves, the print media, and the streets outside the TV studio with protests that frightened off her advertisers...Reorientation Therapy and the Politically Correct American Psychological Association
Your research is awesome. Irrefutable. The only argument the pro-"gay" crowd can possibly come up with is name calling.
When debating with them, it is noteworthy that they NEVER, not once, debate facts. They cannot. Their arguments are based on skewed emotion, lies, and slogans.
They have not a leg to stand on.
Your research deservers a very wide audience.
Thank you!
When debating with them, it is noteworthy that they NEVER, not once, debate facts. They cannot. Their arguments are based on skewed emotion, lies, and slogans.
Indeed. In her book "The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left's Assault on Our Culture and Values ," Tammy Bruce wrote:
"What I had been unable to articulate about my colleagues on the Left has been expressed by Dr. M. Scott Peck in his discussion of evil in his book People of the Lie. Peck, who is unapologetic in his blending of psychiatry and theology, says evil people (as he terms them) have "an unshakable will to be right and will not consider the possibility that they are wrong. ... Their main weapon, interestingly enough, is the lie with which they distort reality to look good to themselves, and to confuse others." Add to that the phenomenom of groupthink, and you have what the Left offers us today." (Pg. 30)
The section entitled "Damage and the Left's Malignant Narcissism" (Pg. 26) is also very revealing.
For additional info on "The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left's Assault on Our Culture and Values," see reply numbers 216, 226, 264 and 271 in scripter's Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Revision 1.1) ( Note: reply 246 is also useful ).
Tammy Bruce is amazing. I've got to read her book. I just bought "The Hidden Hitler" yesterday - found it at a used bookstore, can tell it's never been cracked open!
I read "The People of the Lie" a few years ago, I wouldn't mind going through it again.
Some people DO choose evil. Actually, my understanding is that if a person doesn't voluntarily and consciously choose the side of Good, they by default choose the side of dark, since we are all born into ignorance. Kind of like the doctrine of "original sin" except that we can't blame any forefathers or foremothers, we chose to come to the world of birth and death ourselves. But that's a detail - the important point is that the "natural man" slides downward unless he/she makes that choice to go towards truth and light, or as many would say - (self included) - God.
BTTT
Bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.