Posted on 07/27/2004 9:05:34 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
Homosexuality in Perspective. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1979.
Brief Description: Between 1968 and 1977, the Masters and Johnson Institute worked with 67 clients and their opposite-sex partners who came to them for the treatment of "homosexual dissatisfaction."
Stated Goal of Therapy/Treatment:
Conversion or reversion to heterosexuality. enabling clients to function heterosexually, so they can then choose how they want to live. No specific attempt was made to reduce or eliminate homosexual behaviour, desires or fantasies...
Length of Treatment:
2 weeks, with daily therapy sessioons.
... At the time of publication, follow-up ranged from 1 to 5 years. While the goal was a five year follow-up, some clients had only been treated within the past five years(pp. 400-401).
Clients who successfully completed treatment without returning to homosexuality or being "lost to follow-up":
23 males, and 6 females, a total of 29 out of 67 original clients.
**Minimum Final Success Rate: 43.2%**: Clients who successfully completed treatment without returning to homosexuality or being "lost to follow-up".
Cross References: Nicolosi# 10 HAFS# 1-3
Reviewed and Critiqued in: Diamant 1987, Fine 1987, Gonsiorek 1981, Haldeman 1991, Haldeman 10994, Harry 1984.
(Excerpt) Read more at newdirection.ca ...
Homosexual behavior was once ot considered normal because of the underlying causes connected with it, and the sexual fixations caused by it, and other factors which are too numerous to mention. These causes of homosexuality were catalouged, diagnosed and documented for over seventy yewras, prior to 1973. In 1973, homosexuality was declared to be "normal" because they said that many homosexuals had no observable stress associated with their lifestyle, and could function on their jobs and weren't incapacitated socially because of their condition. It has been observed, documented and stated that many "happy" sociopaths meet all the above requirements...should they be declared "normal"? The same applies to pedophiles, it has been stated. Should they be declared "normal"?
Yes people can change. This study, the Spitzer study, the Throckmorton study and others all show the same thing...many homosexuals who never had any heterosexual encounters in their past, have now been successfully converted to fully heterosexual sexual behavior...and have continued to stay heterosexual.
Just think about it. These results were gained with only 2 weeks of therapy, intense as it was. Just think of all the results that could be gained if therapy were offered for 6 months or even a year for homosexuals.
As well, there have been some homosexual groups who have recognized the results as being rock solid science, yet state that since the therapies aren't 100% effective, the therapy shouldn't be offered at all. They say that it is discriminatory to those who don't want to change or can't seem to change.
That's about the dumbest thing that I had ever heard when I heard about it and seen the quotes for myself. Would scientists stop developing drug treatments for certain cancers if the cure rate was only 30-50%? No they wouldn't. As well, Wouldn't that be discriminatory to those who wanted to change, and could and were denied treatment?
No, these results(M&J) have been thorougly examined, scrutinized and put to extensive peer-review. And the M&J studies haven't been found "wanting." Other, more recent studies, also show the same thing: Homosexuals, who even though they have never had any prior heterosexual experiences, who were dissatisfied with their sexual orientation, have had remarkable success in becoming converted to heterosexual-only. The Spitzer study(2001), and the Throckmorton study had comparable results to the M&J study.
You can say what you want, results are results. And the M&J study had results that stuck even after 5 years.
You have that right, homosexuals want more than tolerance, they demand acceptance of their deathstyle.
And they certainly don't tolerate mere tolerance from others. They have had that for years now, and weren't happy with it. They want more.
An estimated 20,000+ have left the homosexual lifestyle...er, deathstyle.
Homosexuality is a paraphilia whether the paraphiliacs insist that it isn't, or not.
Please elaborate on "disproven". It hasn't been "disproven", only disestablished by putsch within the APA. A conciliary vote doesn't equal peer-reviewed proof or even a consensus. If there were a new consensus, then never so many of the members of one of the three APA's (I think it was the American Psychiatric Association, but since the page has been taken down, I don't know which it was) would still, in 2000, dissent from the orthodox view promulgated by the putschists, that says that homosexuality is innate and therefore not disordered -- the analogy in debate, iirc, being handedness.
The survey that was taken down did not ask the question whether the members believed that homosexuality is disordered. I would have loved to see their response to that one. But as long as the inmates are in charge, it's long odds against that question's being asked.
Or do you disagree? May we look forward soon, in your opinion, to a dispassionate new round of discussion of that question among the APA?
And was Democritus "outdated" with his atomic theory, when the Neoplatonists held sway? I suppose he was, by your analogy -- but he was still objectively more correct than anyone else who propounded on essences in classical antiquity.
Oh, and for convenience, I'm going to start numbering the APA's. In my usage I propose to distinguish among them as follows:
APA1 = American Psychiatric Association, keepers of the DSM.
APA2 = American Psychological Association, persecutors of Paul Cameron.
APA3 = American Psychotherapy Association.
If someone has a better way to distinguish them without all the extra keystrokes, I'm open.
You didn't answer the question, but instead indulged in ad hominem against people in the psych community who disagree with you.
That isn't stating your reasons for holding a particular opinion, because ad hominem isn't a reason. It's an appeal to motive in lieu of support.
Either it isn't necessary, or else a proof one way or the other would prove lethal to the other side's contention that, other things being equal, gay is okay.
Those subjective words like "outmoded" and "outdated" - social Darwinism at its finest!
IOW, because something was a certain way in the past, it must be bad or wrong or stupid. Progress means whatever way we are already going, so let's speed it up so we get there faster.
As for disproven, the debate on the pulled thread did not end in your favor. Homosexuality was taken off the list of mental disorders because of politics, not because homosexuals were found to be normal.
It's a politically motivated position. Gay essentialism gives gays minority status equivalent to race and, if the argument were fully accepted in court, subject laws against homosexual behavior to strict scrutiny. Which is the whole idea. Every initiative of the gay cabal has been aimed toward winning court cases predicated on denial of rights, arguing analogically from the civil rights movement. Their public propaganda has been geared toward preparing the ground for those court cases, to obtain the acquiescence of the public to the court victories after the fact -- not to secure a favorable consensus for legislation. See this interview, page five:
Evan Wolfson interview, 2001, post James Dale and Baehr vs. Lewin (Hawaiian SSM lawsuit).
The Supreme Court basically bought into essentialism with Lawrence because five justices were determined to do so, even if it meant overturning precedent set less than 20 years ago by the Supreme Court itself. Never sell the Big Lie technique short -- Madsen and Kirk, GLAAD and the HRC, have made it work like a cheap watch. The problem is, the logical sequel is that democracy is ineffectual, because the 2% stuffed the 98% -- and worthless, because we've demonstrated that we can't defend our basic institutions against a determined, sociopathic minoritarian attack.
We still have one last chance, with an amendment to the Constitution. Failing that, they win everything and promptly begin persecuting churches, as per my post above. No holdouts, and no prisoners.
And then NAMBLA comes for the kids.
You're free to believe what you like. You're free to wish the APA hadn't reclassified homosexuality back in 1973. You're free to keep insisting that homosexuals are mentally ill. Everyone has a right to be wrong, including you.
For one, homosexuality hasn't been seen as a mental disorder for thousands of years as you claim. In fact, the word 'homosexual' is of fairly recent origin. In many, if not most, cultures in history, homosexuality has co-existed without distinction or particular persecution. You probably already know about ancient Greece.
Secondly, even if it was classified as a mental illness for thousands of years (which it was not), it would have been so based on a faulty presumption, not any "proof".
Your arguments have no validity.
You're talking about so-called conversion therapy? Which homosexual groups have called it "rock solid science" and where can I find this testimony? I don't buy it.
The question is, do I have anyone that I would ask to do that for me? It seems a lot to ask just so I can have another way to get my jollies.
But, to each his own as long as I don't have to deal with hate-crime legislation on his account.
The word you're looking for isn't "normal", it's "normative". Shalom.
I wouldn't say that, but neither would I say that because something was held to be a certain way in the past, that that alone provides validity or proof that the past presumption was correct. Nor should we be afraid of questioning past presumptions. They have frequently been wrong.
I see the thread was pulled with JimRob telling you to "back off". I can only imagine all the love and good vibes I missed.
Simply because I've been on both sides of this debate, and I learned that previously, I was ignorant and incorrect.
Stupid statement. English is a fairly recent language. That means nothing and points out your typical debate "style."
In many, if not most, cultures in history, homosexuality has co-existed without distinction or particular persecution. You probably already know about ancient Greece.
You name one and then claim "many, if not most." Another Stupid statement. I actually mentioned ancient Greece once and was taken to task by a student who set me straight that homosexual behavior was not widely accepted in ancient Greece. I'm no expert so I stopped counting ancient Greece. You may feel free to provide evidence that homosexuality was widely accepted.
BTW: Citing ancient Greece was doubly stupid because it tanked your original stupid statement about homosexual being a recent word.
Secondly, even if it was classified as a mental illness for thousands of years (which it was not), it would have been so based on a faulty presumption, not any "proof".
Stupid statement number 3. I'm sure you're going to tell me that "mental illness" is a recent word. It won't matter anyway because you have said it was based on a faulty presumption, not "proof" and, thus, have once again shown how your position doesn't need proof while asserting that my position (and those of lentulus, John O, EdReform, scripter, little jerimiah, et al) needs proof.
If both assertions need proof, the reasonable position is to hold to the status quo until proof is offered that change is necessary.
Game, set, and match. It's been fun.
Shalom.
Either you misunderstood or that's a wholly disinegenuous statement. There was no word "homosexual", or any near equivalent in other languages, until sometime in the last couple of hundred years. Does that satisfy your semantic captiousness?
You name one and then claim "many, if not most."
I named one as an example, which was in no way intended to be all inclusive. I guess you would expect nothing less than a full dissertation on the sexual mores and practices of the thousands of ancient cultures over the millenia.
If both assertions need proof, the reasonable position is to hold to the status quo until proof is offered that change is necessary.
I disagree. Just like in a court of law, there are varying levels of proof required to make public policy ("proof beyond a reasonable doubt", "preponderance of the evidence", etc.). In a case like this, it's safe to say there is reasonable doubt about what is scientifically correct, and so it would be better to err on the side of not labelling anyone mentally ill when they very likely are not, especially when those insisting on such label seem to be doing so solely for political reasons.
Game, set, and match.
Proclaiming an invalid victory. This always seems to be the tactic of those who haven't, and can't, effectively make their case. Nice try though.
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.