So gay!!!

[One Brow]

People can read, hear, and understand for themselves, Eric, so I'm not gunna get into any prolonged discussion about what Spitzer really said.

Good move.

I will simple briefly note that he also threw out percentages of 10% and 15%, all while admitting he did not know the percentage. What he did say, very emphatically, is that he was sure the percentage was NOT ZERO, which, he says, was the only thing his study attempted to determine. That clearly contradicts the judge's "factual finding" that "No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation."

I think you have your universals and existensials confused. Your acting like the jugde stated "any individual" or "Credible evidence supports a finding that no individual". However, the credible evidence is that, for most individuals, such a change is impossible. Moreover, even in the ones that did change, they did not change to the the degree that they altered from being heterosexual to homosexual.

The approval was not presented as the "rationale," it was merely the conclusion which followed from it. The "rationale" was the Kinsey/Isay position that since nature is "indifferent" to sexuality, all sex, even child molestion and bestiality is "normal" and *therefore* acceptable. A very weak, and easily refutable, "rationale" to be sure, but don't confuse the conclusion with the premise.

I'm not so confused that I would throw child molsetation into a discussion of bestiality and pretend the same statement covered both. Nor do I accept Dr. Socarides' implication that "natural" was a justificaiton for child molestation to Dr. Kinsey. Explaining a phenomenon is not the same as approving it.

... was designed to measure "homophobia," and in fact developed a scale to do so which is still being used. ... It seems you WANT to cling to the inapproprite use (via distortion) of a medical term because to do so helps, from an disingenous POLITICAL perspective, to advance the cause that you seem to be zealously commited to achieving.

I've noticed you have focused on "homophbia" as opposed to "homophobe". It's a nice attempt to change the topic, but futile. Anglophobe do not necessarily suffer from Anglophobia, many of them just hate the English, for whatever reason (killed their parents in a war, etc.). Similarly, I don't ever recall saying that all homophobes have homophobia, and the English suffixes don't make that implication. Still, I understand you PC types can't just take words as they are, you have to try to force everyone else to use some unusual, unnecessary derivation. You PC guys are all alike.

 

[Hopper]

I think you have your universals and existensials confused. Your acting like the jugde stated "any individual" or "Credible evidence supports a finding that no individual".

Of course that's what he means.

However, the credible evidence is that, for most individuals, such a change is impossible.

What does "most" have to do with the judge's factual finding? "Most" don't have the motivation to change that Spitzer said was there in the cases he studied. IMPOSSIBLE, you say? Very glib of you. I'm sure you can prove that, eh?

"The American Psychological Association created a Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation which reviewed the relevant research literature...Based on its review of the studies that met these standards, the Task Force concluded that "[E]nduring change to an individual's sexual orientation is uncommon."

https://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_changing.html

Since when has "uncommon" meant IMPOSSIBLE, I wonder? Other than for you and the gay San Francisco judge, I mean?

"Few studies provided strong evidence that any changes produced in laboratory conditions translated to daily life. Thus, the results of scientifically valid research indicate that it is unlikely that individuals will be able to reduce same-sex attractions or increase other-sex sexual attractions through SOCE" (pp. 2-3). "

Likewise, since when does "few" mean "none," or "unlikely" mean "IMPOSSIBLE?" Here again, the "likelihood" of orientation change would definitely depend on motivation, which your average bathhouse queen don't have to begin with.

If the judge's point is that no amount of therapy is likely to deter a homo like Foucault, who is determined to "break out of the construct" by engaging in all manner of polymoprhous perversity, then no one would argue. But that aint what he said, eh?

As Spitzer already pointed out, he found it inconceivable that the "gay lobby" in the APA would allow an official position to endorse or support "converson therapy." Spitzer said the only question was whether they would ABSOLUTELY PROHIBIT it on grounds that it was "unethical."

Apparently they have been unable to accomplish that goal (see below) and it is not the least bit surprising that even the less stringent, more "liberal" psychological associaion could only say: "the American Psychological Association concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation."

But of course any claim of "insufficient evidence to SUPPORT," is quite different than a claim that a positive result from conversion therapy is demonstrably IMPOSSIBLE, as you claim.

The American Psychiatric Association, to which Spitzer belongs, and which is composed of MD's, not merely those with non-medical academic degrees, is often confused the the American Psychological Association (cited above). As I read this website (which comes from a "rainbow" coalition at UC Davis) Psychiatrists have NOT changed their official position from the one adopted in 1998, which concludes:

"The American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as 'reparative' or 'conversion' therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon a prior assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation. The American Psychiatric Association recognizes that in the course of ongoing psychiatric treatment, there may be appropriate clinical indications for attempting to change sexual behaviors."

Notice that, as much as the gays would LIKE to, they have, for reasons of insufficient evidence, been unable to successfully oppose the use of "reparative therapy." The most they can say is that such therapy should not be based on the assumption that homosexuality is either (1) a per se mental disorder or (2) a condition which, as an apriori matter, SHOULD be changed. Beyond that, "The American Psychiatric Association recognizes that in the course of ongoing psychiatric treatment, there may be appropriate clinical indications for attempting to change sexual behaviors."

Nor is it the least bit surprising that the "rainbow" coalition COMPLETELY MISREPRESENTS this position as "a position statement opposing reparative therapy."

 

[billyshelby]

Would it have helped if the Judge had said, "It hasn't been been proven that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation any more than heterosexuals can?" Because that's the gist of his statement. It seems like you're semantically trying to create a loophole which is only theoretical to begin with. It's not like Spitzer is the only guy who ever tried to find out if homosexuals can be be 'cured.' The defense had NARTH and countless other religious organizations that claim to make it rain who could have presented all kinds of studies (or least anecdotal evidence) with even better results. Doesn't mean they would have been believable.

Did you even bother to read the conditions and criticisms of Spitzer's study?

1. 200 "ex-homosexuals" and "ex-lesbians" defined in terms that aren't accepted by the medical community
2. Nearly all were hand selected amongst tens of thousands from NARFA and Religious Groups.
3. Nearly all were highly religious themselves.
4. All desperately wanted to change to begin with.
5. The 'results' were based on 45 minute telephone conversations.
6. There were no tests or controls, merely the word of the subjects on what changes occurred.
7. It was rejected as unfit to publish by then president of the APA, and has been roundly criticized for its methods.

If that's the best study going, I can fully understand why it was not submitted as evidence.

 

[Hopper]

7. It was rejected as unfit to publish by then president of the APA

I done said as much in my first post. Too bad that homo don't control all peer-reviewed publications, I spoze, cuz that's where it was published.

 

[Hopper]

Would it have helped if the Judge had said, "It hasn't been been proven that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation any more than heterosexuals can?"

Naw, that would make sense, at least in the sense that direction of change makes no difference. If he claimed it was impossible for either to happen, that would be just as plumb stoopid, though.

Spitzer repeatedly acknowledged, even emphasized, that his study had been heavily criticized by virtually every homo alive. If you and Eric wanna start postin millions of such "criticisms," help yourselves, eh?

 

[billyshelby]

Without knowing the legal side to this, he stated as a factual finding based on evidence presented it was 'impossible,' right? He might have had to make the statement I suggested if he had the ridiculous Spitzer study in front of him, but I wouldn't have been surprised if he dismissed it for lack of credibility and made the same statement. This is semantics, not mischaracterization.

 

[Hopper]

...if he had the ridiculous Spitzer study in front of him, but I wouldn't have been surprised if he dismissed it for lack of credibility and made the same statement. This is semantics, not mischaracterization.

Leave it to some untrained, yet highly motivated, zealot to call a study which has been conducted, explained, and endorsed by a highly distinguished Columbia Professor with a half century of experience, and many others of similar professional standing, to call the study "ridiculous," eh? These homos know EVERYTHING more better than EVERYBUDDY else, I tellya!


Your typical M.O. quickly exhibits itself, eh, Biley? Go on ahead witcho BAD self, I aint gunna play no more.

 

[billyshelby]

Leave it to some untrained, yet highly motivated, zealot to call a study which has been conducted, explained, and endorsed by a highly distinguished Columbia Professor with a half century of experience, and many others of similar professional standing, to call the study "ridiculous," eh? These homos know EVERYTHING more better than EVERYBUDDY else, I tellya!


Your typical M.O. quickly exhibits itself, eh, Biley? Go on ahead witcho BAD self, I aint gunna play no more.

It's no more absurd for me to call it 'ridiculous' than it is for you to assert it's rock solid science. In this instance, there are aspects of it which anyone can understand, but lets skip that. This study has not been well received by the academic community. I could post all the links, but what's the point? You already know this. You don't care. It's A study by a doctor who claims it IS possible under the most advantageous of circumstances, produced poor results even under those circumstances, but concedes it is 'highly unlikely in the overwhelming majority of the gay community' (his words). It's also the same doctor who said it was "totally absurd" that everyone is born straight and that homosexuality is a choice.

I barely even get what you think this study means, or it's relevance in the bigger picture. Your best argument, as I see it, is that it hasn't been definitively proved that gays aren't confused or diseased. And the doctor whose study you're lauding doesn't believe that either. It seems like you want to build a concrete wall around a blade of grass with the idea a field might grow. But you don't want to fully embrace the religious right because that weakens your argument from a rational standpoint. So you're left with the blade of grass. Protect it well.

 

[Hopper]

I really don't need some San Francisco judge, or even some hotshot psychiatrist, to tell me what I've seen, firsthand, in my own life, eh? More than once (just for an example) I have seen adult women, who had never before expressed the least bit of interest in homosexual relationships, declare, after a series of disappointing relationships with males, that they were "through with men." They explain that they have decided to experiment with lesbian activity and thereafter confine themselves to such relationships. And that's just exactly what they go on ahead and do, at least for a spell, ya know?

Similarly, I have known adult men who had, all their prior life, spoken, acted, and walked normally, suddenly decide that they were gunna be "gay" and almost immediately start swishin around, wrists done gone completely limp, lispin at every opportunity, wearin flamboyant costumes, etc. Ya tryin to tell me there aint no "choice" about this? Heh.

 

[One Brow]

I think you have your universals and existensials confused. Your acting like the jugde stated "any individual" or "Credible evidence supports a finding that no individual". However, the credible evidence is that, for most individuals, such a change is impossible.

Of course that's what he means.

As I noted, you are confusing a universal with an existential. As long as it is impossible for any reasonably sized sub-group of gay men to change, the civil rights argument still holds. It is not necessary that it be impossible for every gay man to change. My guess is that's why the judge used an existential instead of a universal.

What does "most" have to do with the judge's factual finding? "Most" don't have the motivation to change that Spitzer said was there in the cases he studied. IMPOSSIBLE, you say? Very glib of you. I'm sure you can prove that, eh?

Most of the men they contacted experienced no change even after years of conversion therapy. For those men Spitzer contacted, some 700 or so IIRC, change proved impossible. I don't need to re-prove what Spitzer al;ready says happened.

Since when has "uncommon" meant IMPOSSIBLE, I wonder? Other than for you and the gay San Francisco judge, I mean?

Since it means it was not possible for the men that didn't achieve the change.

Nor is it the least bit surprising that the "rainbow" coalition COMPLETELY MISREPRESENTS this position as "a position statement opposing reparative therapy."

Since reparative therapy is often presented as 1) treating homosexuality as a mental disease which 2) should always be cured, the position you quoted does indeed oppose it.

Spitzer repeatedly acknowledged, even emphasized, that his study had been heavily criticized by virtually every homo alive. If you and Eric wanna start postin millions of such "criticisms," help yourselves, eh?

I don't recall posting a single third-party criticism of the study in this thread. Still, I guess it keeps things simpler if you assume everyone you disagree with is making the same arguments.

I really don't need some San Francisco judge, or even some hotshot psychiatrist, to tell me what I've seen, firsthand, in my own life, eh? More than once (just for an example) I have seen adult women, who had never before expressed the least bit of interest in homosexual relationships, declare, after a series of disappointing relationships with males, that they were "through with men." They explain that they have decided to experiment with lesbian activity and thereafter confine themselves to such relationships. And that's just exactly what they go on ahead and do, at least for a spell, ya know?

You sound like you never heard of a bisexual.

Similarly, I have known adult men who had, all their prior life, spoken, acted, and walked normally, suddenly decide that they were gunna be "gay" and almost immediately start swishin around, wrists done gone completely limp, lispin at every opportunity, wearin flamboyant costumes, etc. Ya tryin to tell me there aint no "choice" about this? Heh.

I've known plenty of gay men who I never saw behaving as you describe. For that matter, I am perfectly capable of walking around limp-wristed and swishy. It won't make me gay, though.

How about you, Hopper? You attracted to men? Could you be attracted to men, if you wanted? You got some gay in you? I don't. But that means I understand why a gay man could say he's not attracted to women at all, the same way I'm not attracted to men. You don't seem to understand that.

 

[Hopper]

People can choose their behavior, sure. I don't HAVE to try and hustle every Babe I see, I just choose to, that's all.

The whole point is ultimately irrelevant anyway. For that judge in San Francisco, or anyone else. Can a child molestor "choose" not to molest chillinz? Can a Jeff Dalhmer "choose" not to homosexually rape, kill, and cannibalize young boys? Can some Kintucky redneck "choose" to leave his sheeps be?

For those who believe there are no choices, no. For those, like the queer theorists, who believe that you can choose whatever you want, yes.

Whether or not one "chooses" to be a murderer really says nuthin about whether murder should be endorsed, affirmed, legalized, and approved of, does it?

 

[billyshelby]

I really don't need some San Francisco judge, or even some hotshot psychiatrist, to tell me what I've seen, firsthand, in my own life, eh? More than once (just for an example) I have seen adult women, who had never before expressed the least bit of interest in homosexual relationships, declare, after a series of disappointing relationships with males, that they were "through with men." They explain that they have decided to experiment with lesbian activity and thereafter confine themselves to such relationships. And that's just exactly what they go on ahead and do, at least for a spell, ya know?

Similarly, I have known adult men who had, all their prior life, spoken, acted, and walked normally, suddenly decide that they were gunna be "gay" and almost immediately start swishin around, wrists done gone completely limp, lispin at every opportunity, wearin flamboyant costumes, etc. Ya tryin to tell me there aint no "choice" about this? Heh.

All due respect, aint, it doesn't sound like you've had a lot of positive experiences with gays. It also sounds like you haven't had any as friends. As a consequence, I'm sure everything gay people do confirms your natural suspicion that there is something wrong with them. I don't have any advice for you except to say that you should keep an open mind that there are possibilities you won't admit as to the complexity of human beings. From the anecdotal files, I have gay friends, work in an industry that has a huge gay footprint, and they're all fine with their lives. Which is to say, confusion about sexual identity is the least of their concerns. Doesn't mean some aren't having problems with their sexual identity, only that the overwhelming majority are way past that--they're just regular people having the same problems only their problems are same sex, not with opposite sex.