Posted on 08/25/2006 2:56:54 AM PDT by FairOpinion
NEW ORLEANS (BP)—Approximately 50 people from various pro-family groups protested the American Psychological Association’s convention Aug. 11, opposing the organization’s position that says homosexuality cannot be changed.
“The fact of the matter is that there are tens of thousands of men and women just like me who have overcome homosexuality. ... We’re living proof,” Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International, a ministry to homosexuals and ex-homosexuals, told Baptist Press. He took part in the protest in New Orleans.
APA has been one of the leading organizations to back the claims of homosexual activists. A statement on its website says that homosexuality “does not require treatment and is not changeable.” In addition, the statement says that “close scrutiny” of conversion therapies “cast doubt on their claims” that people have been freed from homosexuality. APA even has a Lesbian, Gay, & Bisexual Concerns office.
“The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to patients,” the statement says.
But that statement also says clients have a “right to unbiased treatment and self-determination” — something that Chambers and others say is not the case when it comes to APA’s stance on homosexuality.
Caleb Price, research analyst at Focus on the Family, called APA’s position “hypocritical.” Price says he identified himself as a homosexual for about 14 years but now is a Christian and heterosexual.
“If they are about science and not about politics, then they should be willing to look at issues involving homosexuality … in an intellectually honest way,” Price, who also took part in the protest, told BP.
APA’s position on homosexuality has given homosexual activists a significant boost in the national debate over such issues as homosexuality and “gay marriage.” The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest homosexual activist organization, lists APA’s position statements on its website, along with similar statements from the American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association.
“I think the most harm that the APA is doing is they’re using their position to steer the debate in the media and in the public to cast doubt on the tens of thousands of men and women who have changed,” Chambers said. “That’s unfortunate and it’s unfair. But what the governing board of the APA is doing doesn’t resonate with the members of the APA.”
Chambers said the majority of the psychologists they came in contact with were “very supportive and very interested in what we were saying.”
“But as far at the governing board of the APA, they are the ones who don’t talk about a client’s right to self-determination,” Chambers said. “They basically say homosexuals can’t change and that’s the end of the story. That’s very different from what the psychologists within the movement say.”
Clinton Anderson, director of the APA’s Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual office, told the Associated Press that there “is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.”
Price, though, strongly disagreed.
“The reality is that people’s lives are changed,” Price said. “We are living testimonies of the fact that people can and do change.”
Exodus International, Focus on the Family and other likeminded groups will protest APA’s meetings in the future, Chambers said.
“We hope to do these every single year until we reach our goal, which is to help the APA understand that they need to respect every client’s rights,” he said.
For information about the national debate over “gay marriage,” visit www.bpnews.net/samesexmarriage.
You've yet to quote ANY studies.
Oh really? I know someone who went through it in 1994. It "cured" him of being queer - for about a year, then he went right back to his old ways.
"In 1992, the Arizona Civil Liberties Union challenged the Phoenix Memorial Hospital for its use of these methods on children as young as 10. They were defended by the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. Since then, policies have usually discouraged the use of forced aversion therapy on children under 14."
Do the math - 1992 was not "30 years ago". It is STILL being used today (just not on kids younger than 14).
Good ole days indeed!
I just wish I had the time to add my chihuahua-like backup. Unfortunately the only time I have for FR is when better half is asleep or in town, or when I'm eating.
"LJ, are you still on FR?"
"Dear, I'm not finished with lunch yet!"
"But you've had thirds already!"
Keep speaking out Exodus, et. al.!!!
Um...no. Over or under androgen production causes intersex disorder. And there's no conclusive evidence what effect it has on the brain.
There is also a definite link between the relationship of the length of the 2nd and 4th fingers and homosexuality.
That's been debunked so many times it's funny. There's research that shows it's exclusive for lesbians, there's research it's exclusive for homosexuals. And, there's research that shows it's exclusive for heterosexuals. And as you should know if science is valid it is replicable which this isn't.
The pro-sodomy crowd likes to trot that old propaganda out and ignore the current research. The history of that little ditty is the first "research" study was sampled from a gay pride parade in San Fran. Not only was that a non-random sample it was sampled using ONLY those who attended the parade. If you think that represents the general population you're nuts.
Aversion therapy was abandoned over thirty years ago by both APA's and the AMA.
Obscure info posted on answers.com hardly gives you any credibility.
Actually, I think it's the hypothesis (advanced by "essentialist" advocates of homosexual political causes) that has to be proven.
(Some) gays insist that essentialism is a law of nature and go off looking for "essentially" gay chromosomes, which they haven't found yet. But not to worry, it's only a building-block of a juridicopolitical strategy of obtaining Supreme Court decrees in their favor, so it needn't be "true" or "untrue" in ontological terms, but only bought into by five sitting Justices.
Essentialism, IOW, is a game -- linking homosexuality to the precedential condition of skin color, and the mass of civil-rights decisions compiled by the Warren and Burger courts.
Essentialist gays, of course, are undercut by gay advocates of "queer theory" who insist that sexuality is fluid and mutable in one person. But of course Evan Wolfson won't be inviting the queer theorists to submit a brief, when it's time to argue The Big One before the Supreme Court.
Now, if you'd like to talk about aversion therapy, I have a dead-tree copy of Irving Bieber's longitudinal study published in the 60's, in which he estimated, to sum up, that about a quarter to a third of the homosexual men he interviewed were highly resistant to aversion therapy and "essentially" homosexual, or at least homosexual at a level he couldn't reach with the analytical and therapeutic tools he possessed.
Is that what you had in mind?
Keep in mind that a lot of homosexuals are "recruited" -- sexualized while virgin and convinced they're homosexual. Gays actually try to do that, to reach virginal young men, because they know the power of "getting there first". Do you endorse that sort of homosexuality, the sexuality of victimization?
Do you endorse, approve, smile upon, or otherwise recommend to others any sort of homosexuality, on libertarian grounds? How about other paraphilias?
Just for fun:
http://scifipedia.scifi.com/index.php/Tok%27ra
Tok'ra:
The Tok'ra are a fictional race on the TV series Stargate SG-1. Tok'ra, literally translated, means "against Ra". They are of the same race as the Goa'uld but are diametrically opposed to them philosophically. The Tok'ra have fought the Goa'uld for several thousand years through infiltration and sabotage. They became allies of the Tau'ri, who provided them with hosts, including Samantha Carter's father Jacob Carter, who became host to the Tok'ra Selmak.
===snip===
Tok'ra Customs
** *
The implantation of Tok'ra symbiotes differs from the goa'uld. The Tok'ra, prefer to enter the body through the mouth, avoiding scars and pain caused by burrowing through the back of the neck as the goa'uld do. The lack of a scar may allow a Tok'ra to be overlooked as human when examined by a human. The Tok'ra like the goa'uld have naquadah in their blood however, an can be identified by goa'uld, Jaffa or former hosts.
The Tok'ra's relationship with their host is a balanced one. When one of the two desires to speak, they typically bow their heads, and close their eyes to indicate the change. Tok'ra also have romantic relationships with each other as Jolinar did with Martouf/Lantash. It is a complex relationship of four. When one Tok'ra is mated to another, typically the host and symbiote are both in love with both the partner's host and the partner's symbiote.
===end snip===
If this person has a Y chromosome, he is a male on a cellular level. He may or may not have functioning testes. He would probably benefit from reconstructive surgery to make him a more anatomically complete male, and if he doesn't have functioning testes he'll need hormone replacement.
If this person lacks a Y chromosome, she is a female on a cellular level. Again, surgical/hormone therapy can be helpful.
As to who this person should fall in love with, that's of interest subjectively, but not entirely relevant to behavior. It's certainly not morally licit to have sexual relations with anybody you fall in love with; otherwise almost all married people would commit adultery, and almost all males, at least, would be lifelong serial fornicators. Behavior doesn't follow directly and inevitably from feelings; and feelings are notoriously changeable.
Ref: "Jenny," by Sigrid Undset. Or "Madame Bovary" by Gustave Flaubert. Or thousands of falling-in-love-and-falling-out-again novels; or most of us can consult our own experiences. Sexual behavior based on temporary appetites leads to a miserable, screwed-up life (and, apparently, abundant literature!) 8^)
You wrote, "Or did God make "a mistake" when he allowed hermaphrodites?? Oh, God doesn't MAKE mistakes."
I have a couple of genetically-related disorders, namely diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis. Did God make a mistake when He allowed this? No. He didn't directly will or create any disease or disorder, including diabetes or arthiritis or hermaphroditism. God created order; all disorders are result of our fallen nature, which is not God's Plan A, not the way God intended from the beginning. (See one of my previous posts on "The Fall of Man.")
All these disorders cause a great deal of suffering, and the best we can do is to show compassion to sufferers, and provide healing as well as we are able. It does NOT help to falsely claim that abnormality is normal, that disorder is order, or that sin is acceptable behavior.
I sin, for instance, by eating high-carb desserts despite thr fact that they aggravate my sickness. Those who love me don't say "That's OK, have another fudge brownie." Those who love me help me change my behavior.
You wrote: "Pride, anger, envy,etc.,etc., etc., have NOTHING to do with love. Or, is LOVE one of your sins now too??? "
No, love isn't a sin. Of course not. But you wouldn't be equating sexual impulse with love, would you?
You wrote: "And, using your logic...since "noone is born to be gay"...then "no one is born to be heterosexual either"
Actually, our whole species (as well as our Genus, Order, Class, and Phylum) are all sexed, male-and-female, with the anatomy, physiology, and behavioral instincts which correspond to sexual reproduction. Individuals who lack the requisite anatomy, physiology, or instincts are abnormal. No moral judgment here. It's just a deficiency which can often be helped by therapeutic intervention.
BTW, when I say "therapeutic intervention," I don't mean aversion therapy. I mean shaping the anatomy, physiology, and instincts so they are harmonious.
God loves each one of His children and desires their health and wholeness. When He walked this earth with us, He gave us an example as a compassionate healer. Surely we should do the same.
Helpful??? Helpful to what? To make them the way YOU think they should be made?? Helpful so you can squeeze them into your male and female boxes. That's disgusting.
What if they are perfectly happy the way they are?? What if, unlike yourself they can ACCEPT that God made them this way...and it's OK.
If THIS is what you want you actually think about an innocent baby born in God's image....then you and I don't worship the same God.
My God would NEVER want one of his children to have surgery so that they can fit into YOUR definition of right & wrong.
That is just plain sick.
You appear to be new at this. In post 94, Tokra said: "Actually there are some studies that show..."
You provide the studies you referenced above. Go ahead, do it.
It's still an abandoned therapy. Quacks may still use it, though.
Aversion therapy came out in the 1930s, I believe, and was popular in the 50s and 60s. But it was abandoned by reputable doctors over 30 years ago. Quacks may still use it but it's been abandoned by reputable doctors.
It sounds like you have your hands full. ;-)
That's the problem with the studies he keeps talking about, but what can he do? That's all he has to support his position. It's called bluffing as he knows the studies have been debunked here over and over.
If I didn't know any better, I'd say he was new at this... He's not, in case anybody is wondering. He's just not interested in the latest science...
Thanks! I'm still smiling at the last comment.
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.