Free Republic

Wow. How clever.

That's addressed in the research and in the series of 102 close-ended questions and 9 open-ended questions...but you wouldn't know that because you don't know what you're talking about. The odds of all of them lying is statistically unreasonable.

Again, you are reading more into this study than the evidence presented supports. You have a pre-determined conclusion you want to make and you are more than happy to extend the evidence in this study beyond what the study actually concludes.

Recidivism means only one thing and you are claiming that 100% of the time they fail.

Not what I'm claiming at all. For someone to be a recidivist homosexual, they need to have been homosexual in the first place, rather than just a bisexual.

You're just here to troll as you stated in your "agenda" to undermine scrpiter and LJ.

I have never hidden the fact that I find scripter and LJ's positions on "reparative therapy" to be non-credible. You're acting like you've gotten me to make some sort of groundbreaking admission.

The word is "empirical," but I digress.

You question the long term effects based on what? You asked for science and I provided research from the most renowned homosexual researcher in the country and yet challenge it with unsubstantiated homosexual agenda talking points.

You presented us with a study that shows that, after some form of "reparative therapy" a certain percentage of self-identified homosexuals claimed that they were now straight. We have no way of determining whether they are lying, whether they ever drifted back to homosexuality, whether they were not homosexual to begin with etc.

Is this really your strongest argument?

So you are claiming there is 100% recidivism without exception and yet you have nothing but your opinion to support that? LOL

"Recidivism" implies a lot of thing. For one, that the people in this study were homosexual to begin with, rather than simply bisexual. That has not been established.

The problem for you seems to be that there does not seem to be any branch of the Israeli government that agrees with your position.

Funny, I was wondering the same about you.

Asking the question of whether someone has an agenda and whether they are part of an organization with a vested interest in a certain issue is considered a personal attack by you?

Let me point out that you are the one who frequently accuses other posters of fronting for the "homosexual agenda" and have accused me of the same on several occasions. Yet I have never gone crying to the moderators.

That is the case in the US. Many Freepers on these threads are surprised to find out that private parties in the US are free to have their disputes settled using any system of law they desire, including Sharia.

Any court in America will enforce a decision by two private parties to have their dispute resolved in accordance with Sharia law (so long as such enforcement does not violate American law).

Private parties have a lot of leeway when deciding how their private disputes will be settled.

Don't blame the politicians. We, the people, are the ones who keep supporting these programs.

I guess, according to the Times, black exiles from New Orleans don't want these things.

And liberals call conservatives racist? Imagine if a conservative paper had proposed that blacks are not interested in "low poverty, low crime, good schools and minimal racial tension."

You miss the point. I don't really care whether homosexuals exist or not. You, however, seem to care. And you seem to be part of some pseudo-scientific movement to "cure" gays. I find that strange and puzzling. I also think such silly quack science makes conservatives look bad. So, I enjoy coming on these threads and poking holes in your agenda.

That's my agenda, if you are looking for one.

You come on here with your talking points about reparative therapy, or whatever it is called and I have to wonder whether you are fronting for some organization that makes money off of such therapy.

In NYC, after 9/11, various animal rescue groups went through downtown Manhattan with NYPD officers. There were residential buildings where the residents were not allowed back for a week or so, so the groups went from apartment to apartment to feed stranded pets.

Sad. The human toll is terrible, but humans could have done a better job of planning ahead for such a disaster. Animals are totally blameless victims.

Seems like this was more NOPD incompetence.

If the schools have a phys ed requirement for graduation, why not allow students to fulfill that requirement this way?

That really depends on the laws of the jurisdiction in question. AFAIK, there is no law anywhere in the US that would prevent two 16 year-old girls (for example) from having sex with one another.

Your questions are based on a misunderstanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The 2nd law only applies to closed systems. The earth is not a closed system. There is a giant nuclear reactor called the sun outside of the system that pumps more or less an endless supply of new energy into the system.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. I'm not trying to prove any larger point with this type of evidence. I have no stake in whether homosexuals do indeed exist. You, however, seem to have some sort of stake in attempting to show that homosexuals can be "cured."

True. Very few people are exclusively gay, maybe a couple of percent of the population. There are other people whose sexuality is more flexible. What's your point?

Another point - since most "peers" have succumbed to the jack booted thugism of the radical homosexuals

Right. Everything is a conspiracy.

good luck on peer review.

That is very convenient for the junk science you espouse.

BTW, have you read the abstract? Can you criticize it on its merits or demerits?

I've read the abstract. There does not seem to be anything wrong with this study. It just doesn't draw the conclusions that you want it to draw. At best, it shows that there are bisexual people out there who will drift from same-sex to opposite-sex relationships (and vice versa). Nobody is denying that such things happen.

(Yawn) All that really tells us is that these bisexual people are now in a period in their life where they are only having sex with people of the opposite gender. Big deal. How long does this last before they find themselves back in bed with a person of the same sex?

Ouch that hurts. Now you've got ask yourself a question, if the research proved all these people were bisexuals why doesn't it say that conclusively in the research?

For the simple reason that the research can't see into the future. How many of these people will end up drifting back into same-sex relationships? Face it- this is a group of people with flexible sexuality. Sometimes, they are attracted to members of their own sex, sometimes to members of the opposite sex.

Now you asked for a bone fide, peer reviewed study that disproves your "opinion" and one of many was supplied, so why don't you run along and let the adults talk for a while, OK?

All this study shows is that bisexual people will have relationships with people of the opposite sex. Duh. That is what bisexual means.

This whole curing of homosexuals hookum is a big scam.

The Cayugas always said that they did not intend to take any land from private landowners. They would have rather have taken money from the government as compensation, as they had no desire to kick anyone out of their homes.

Like I've been saying, these folks are bisexual.