I bit, and went through their thing on the website. Circular logic.
Basically, they said that since homosexuality is not a mental disorder, any treatment for it falls outside of mainstream psychological treatment. As a result, it cannot possibly work, and what little research there is on the matter supports this, including the two major lawsuits currently pending on the matter.
So, for those trying to follow this:
It doesn’t work because the APA voted on homosexuality NOT being a mental disease in 1973. Only a psychologist can treat a mental disorder, and they voted that it wasn’t.
All of this from a website with ‘science’ in the title.
The best part was in the last slide, where one reputed psychologist did a study indicating that conversion therapy DOES work. But, they added that the reputed psychologist later ‘recanted’ the study based on the methodology of it.
So, the study was flawed, but the way the APA concluded homosexuality wasn’t a mental disoder was by a show of hands at a convention. That’s literally how it happened - they voted on it, and it disappeared from the DSM IV.
That’s how climate chance became science - by polling.
Any science that is divided into two groups with these titles - believers and deniers - isn’t a science. Quad era demonstratum.
YES, I read that. I think it was homosexual agenda promoting fact #5 if I am not mistaken. Looking at what Spitzer actually wrote "I believe I owe the gay community an apology for my study making unproven claims of the efficacy of reparative therapy," .
The statement deals only with the unproven accuracy of efficacy claims. In other words, how well the therapy works (how many were treated successfully) was not conclusively proven using the conventional accepted statistical methods of proving such claims. This does not imply the therapy does not work, it simply implies that its predicted success rate (effectiveness within a population) is unproven. NARTH addresses this 'disparity' in general:
Anti-Gay?! NARTH President Addresses Misperceptions about NARTH
While Success Rates are Similar to Some other Issues, Therapy for Unwanted Homosexuality Seems to be held to a Higher StandardWhile studies on therapy for unwanted homosexual attractions seem to yield varying success rates, ranging from 30%-70%, these rates seem to be no different than success rates for many other therapeutic issues.1 For example, one study on outcomes in ministry settings (Jones and Yarhouse, 2007) revealed success rates that were comparable to a similar study on the treatment for depression. There is no question that depression should be treated, even though neither therapy, nor medication, nor a combination of both, yield success rates of 100%. Another example is that of personality disorders. It is commonly accepted within the therapeutic profession that personality disorders do not fully resolve, regardless of the therapeutic modality offered. While some forms of therapy appear more effective than others in treating personality disorders, it is clear that clients who are diagnosed with such disorders will continue beyond therapy to struggle with some issues related to their diagnosis. Yet, despite the fact that the condition is not completely alleviated through therapy, we do not hear of attempts to stop therapists from offering treatment for personality disorders.2
Similarly, in the field of addictions, where there is debate over both etiology and treatment, we find varying success rates, but we do not see any model of treatment to be successful 100% of the time. In fact, there is a high recidivism rate in the addictions field, yet the work continues undisputed. In addition, those who successfully receive treatment for substance abuse, eating disorders, and other behavioral addictions continue to describe themselves as addicts long after their therapy ends, and some will claim that label for the rest of their lives, even after the initial presenting problem is resolved. In many ways, reorientation therapy is quite similar to therapy for other issues. Yet, it seems clear that therapy for unwanted homosexuality is held to a standard higher than therapy for any other issue, a standard unattainable in the mental health field.
I would say that the homosexual agenda promoting fact #5 is at best irrelevant and at worst a misrepresentation of a scientific reality being used to promote a political agenda.
It sure does sound like “defining it away.”
Much as modern homosexual activists try to define their perversion away by politicking for an associated shack-up to be called “marriage.”