Posted on 06/08/2002 12:42:36 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
In the June issue of the American Psychological Association Journal of Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Dr. Warren Throckmorton has written an article titled, "Initial Empirical and Clinical Findings Concerning the Change Process for Ex-Gays."
The research presented has caused a stir amongst the psychology world. The article finds that sexual orientation can be changed. "[The research] suggests that sexual orientation, once thought to be an unchanging sexual trait, is actually quite flexible for many people, changing as a result of therapy for some, ministry for others and spontaneously for still others," Dr. Throckmorton said.
Furthermore, the report went on to say that the change from homosexuality to heterosexuality is very helpful and positive to the majority of those who experience the change.
Homosexuality and the homosexual community have a great stranglehold on America's culture. Through the entertainment industry and political special-interest groups, homosexuality has been acceptable to many in leadership roles across the country.
However, the view on homosexuality is beginning to change. Although the revolution of the '60s and '70s spawned a new society that tolerates and encourages tolerance for almost everything, society and culture seem to be taking a more realistic approach to life.
Groups such as the National Education Association, National Organization for Women and Planned Parenthood know this. Moreover, they are acting on it by promoting their views in the public schools of America.
In the 2000-2001 NEA Adopted Resolutions, the group promoted "multi-culture" education in an effort to reduce "racism," "homophobia" and all other forms of discrimination.
The homosexual community, having anecdotal evidence to support their claim to widespread homophobia, immediately adopts resolutions and works to pass legislation that teaches homosexuality in public schools.
Yet, it goes much further than that. Homosexuality is not only taught in public schools, it is portrayed as an acceptable lifestyle and act – and those who believe it is a sin are homophobic hate-mongers.
Although there is no hard evidence suggesting that homosexuals are constantly being attacked verbally and physically, the NEA has attempted to present evidence saying so. But its research is full of holes.
Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, let us concede the point that there is widespread discrimination against homosexuals in public schools.
Taking it a step further, let us also imagine there is a widespread prejudice toward Christianity and Christians. In order to combat that, public school-system officials wouldn't even think of teaching the history of Christianity and explaining that Christianity is a great and acceptable lifestyle and religion. Yet, they do this with homosexuality.
However, without political pressure, school administrators and teachers would probably treat each discrimination case independently and use disciplinary action, if necessary. That's exactly what happened when anti-Semitism and discrimination against blacks were widespread.
Knowing that, we can see that in order to put a stop to "homophobia," we don't have to teach it, but schools just have to deal with each case independently.
If the word "religion" was behind the homosexual lifestyle, there would be a huge public outcry, forcing the prohibition of homosexuality in public schools. However, there is no public outcry because homosexuality is not a religion, although it is objectionable to many parents of faith around the country.
America is filled with a war of words. Doublespeak, disinformation and propaganda are an epidemic in the political and cultural world of America. The unfortunate aspect of this particular case is that unaware and innocent children are losing from it.
The so-called "hate-crime prevention" programs in schools are an excuse for promoting homosexuality and just another way to force the homosexual agenda into the open. Under the name of "tolerance, school safety and multiculturalism," children are being indoctrinated to believe that the homosexual lifestyle is legitimate and acceptable!
So... the subjects of Throckmorton's "study" weren't volunteers? Did he hop over to Exodus and NARTH and kidnap people to study, "You WILL answer these questions!"? What, exactly, distinguishes one study on the successes and failures of ex-gay therapy from another? The fact that one says something you wish to believe?
So we're talking about a "meta-analysis" -- Rind Report, anyone? Oh, and hmmm, people who answered surveys, obviously at gunpoint -- "volunteers" not allowed, dontchaknow.
As far as "brainwashing" being a myth, feel free to look up the phrase "cult deprogramming" on Google.
Throckmorton solicited 200 reparative psychologists and surveyed their 800+ patients. Shidlo and Schroeder advertised an 800 number over the internet. One study has an identified subject group and the other is statistically anecdotal. Statistical models are only valid if the outcome is subject to chance, advertising for subjects is not random sampling and open to any number of possibilities for corruption.
The fact that one says something you wish to believe?
Since you know nothing about your proffered studies, I’d say you more closely resemble that remark.
So we're talking about a "meta-analysis" -- Rind Report, anyone?
Nope! Wrong again. You should really do your homework.
Oh, and hmmm, people who answered surveys, obviously at gunpoint -- "volunteers" not allowed, dontchaknow.
So by your logic, everyone who ever tacitly participated in a survey constitutes a volunteer study? Hehehe…. You should be so embarrassed, your stupidity is breathtaking.
Oooooohhh... that's sooooo much more accurate.
I don't know what sort of work you do, but when someone asks for examples of it, do you show them your failures? Do you really think these therapists opened their filedrawers to Throckmorton, "Here... survey anyone you wish..."
Of course they didn't. They carefully selected patients that would make them look good, especially when the mainstream consensus and official position on "reparative therapy" places it somewhere akin to "bloodletting".
A quick search on Throckmorton's name alone leads me to beleive that even on the off chance said therapists did violate patient-confidentiality in such a way, HE'D choose the success stories anyway -- he doesn't strike me as an impartial observer.
Now, as far as it being a "meta-analysis" goes, you're the one who's "wrong" -- a meta-analysis is, by definition, an "... analysis of analyses...the statistical analysis of a large collection of analysis results from individual studies for the purpose of integrating the findings."
I find it rather telling that in the aftermath of the Rind Report, NARTH and Throckmorton both avoid calling the spade a spade. When dealing with a researcher with an agenda, any meta-analyses is suspect, wouldn't you agree?
No, not every study and every survey in which someone agrees to participate a "volunteer study", but neither, as you attempt to dismissively assert, is a "volunteer study", by definition, invalid.
For example, if Shidlo and Schroeder advertised their 800 number exclusively on gay-positive venues, then yes, their claims become as suspect as the claims of those who solicit volunteers from ex-gay groups and "reparative therapists". If, however, they attempted to solicit a statistically valid sample from neutral venues, or even a decent mixture of pro- and ex-gay sites, then that is another level of validity altogether. (I disbelieve that a statistically valid sample is possible, as it's impossible to conclusively quantify the ex-gay movement's "many" and "large" as numbers or "thousands" as anything more than 2.)
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.