Posted on 07/21/2004 2:15:51 PM PDT by EdReform
July 16, 2004 - Dr. Warren Throckmorton, in association with Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays, distributed a paper on sexual orientation at the recent National Education Association (NEA) conference.
Dr. Throckmorton and associates Zoe Gutierrez, Jeralee Smith, and Chad Thompson, produced "A White Paper in Reaction to 'Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth,'" a document jointly published by the NEA and several mental health organizations, including the American Psychological Association.
In the introduction to this paper, Dr. Throckmorton states: "This white paper reviews the essential claims found in 'Just the Facts,' suggesting a need for caution in the presenting of dogmatic claims about sexual orientation to school children."
He notes four problematic areas in "Just the Facts":
- There's no consensus in current research to show that sexual orientation is fixed or inborn;
- there is credible research showing that sexual orientation can be changed;
- no credible research is available that shows that attempts to change sexual orientation are harmful;
- and the research on sexual orientation has become entangled with the issue of safety in schools for children who experience same-sex attractions.
"We favor both a zero tolerance policy toward harassment and the presentation of accurate information," said Throckmorton.
In the conclusion of this paper, the author says: "Without consensus [on the nature of sexual orientation], it becomes necessary to inform students of the varied opinions on the subject with ample opportunity for equal presentation. For instance, if a proponent of the essentialist position speaks to school students, we believe that someone who has found change in sexuality should be invited to present the constructionist/developmental viewpoint."
NARTH has also published a rebuttal to the "Just the Facts" paper. "NARTH's Response to 'Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth'" is available for downloading from the NARTH web site.
Copyright © NARTH. All Rights Reserved.
Updated: 19 July 2004
What they don't tell you is that Spitzer's "study" was done via phone conversations, lasting an average of only 45 minutes, with a sample size that's very small for statistical purposes, and that the survey participants were supplied by advocates of 'ex-gay' therapy and were therefore predisposed to present it as successful.
Not only that, this article misrepresents Spitzer's ultimate conclusion, which is that the likely number of homosexuals who can change their actual orientation (not just their behavior) on a permanent basis, is, to quote the doctor "very low".
Furthermore, Spitzer's conclusion that none of the 200 patients seemed to be harmed by 'reparative therapy' is a negligently flippant conclusion for a medical professional. There are, no doubt, many examples of people who have been harmed, including documented cases of people who have failed at reparative therapy and proceeded to commit suicide.
What they don't tell you is that Spitzer's "study" was done via phone conversations, lasting an average of only 45 minutes, with a sample size that's very small for statistical purposes, and that the survey participants were supplied by advocates of 'ex-gay' therapy and were therefore predisposed to present it as successful.
You criticize Dr. Spitzer's research methodology, yet you hold Dr. Hooker's research as beyond reproach. Hooker and several homosexual researchers' studies were documented to be fraught with flaws in using a sub-standard methodology sure to give an unreliable and inaccurate result, and they used survey participants, supplied by homosexual activist groups, with an inherent bias and motivation to skew the results.
( More documentation posted here )
Spitzer's conclusion that none of the 200 patients seemed to be harmed by 'reparative therapy' is a negligently flippant conclusion for a medical professional.
Negligently flippant conclusion for a medical professional?! I seriously doubt that you have the professional credentials to render criticism of any medical professional. You are certainly entitled to your unqualified opinion, though.
That's just more spin. What's amazing is Dr. Spitzer's change of mind that homosexuals can leave the lifestyle. You denigrate the study but fail to realize, or admit, that the study was enough to change Spitzer's mind.
Oh, and we've seen your credible sources - an unverified Penthouse Forum interview and Dr. Hooker.
I've said almost that exact phrase to tdadams numerous times. As we've demonstrated many, many times, the problem with engaging tdadams is he's not interested in facts and will spin, spin and spin. It doesn't matter that we can provide direct statements from sources that rip apart his position - he's just not interested in facts.
None of the opposition are interested in facts, to put it mildly. They know that repetition to the media and to Congress in testimony works, regardless. The only way we can have policy changed is to repeat the truth to Congress as long as they repeat lies and to build our own media.
I only heard that term this past Spring, spoken about some of the girls at Smith College in MA!
I would never say any study is beyond all possible reproach, and I haven't. However, I would say that Hooker's research was far more fair and scientifically sound than any other work of its kind, and its soundness is demonstrated by how it has held up to scrutiny of peer, it's replicability, and the broadness of its acceptance in the scientific community.
By contrast, the so called science offered by those on the anti-gay side has been universally rejected and denounced by legitimate science.
Hooker and several homosexual researchers' studies were documented to be fraught with flaws in using a sub-standard methodology sure to give an unreliable and inaccurate result, and they used survey participants, supplied by homosexual activist groups, with an inherent bias and motivation to skew the results.
Everything you've said here - flawed methodology, unreliable and inaccurate results, activist subjects, and a motivation to skew results - does not describe Hooker's work. It perfectly describes the work of Paul Cameron, whose work you embrace, who is the one man, anti-gay propagandist who was expelled from the APA for ethics violations and questionable methodology.
But you already knew that.
So, it's your opinion that one has to be a licensed medical professional to give such an opinion? Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't want to misunderstand you.
Are you saying I would be out of line, because I don't have a medical degree, to say it's unethical for a doctor to give opiates to children without a prescription? I shouldn't state my opinion that a doctor shouldn't sexually molest a patient under anesthesia?
Tell me where you draw the line at giving a layman's opinion about medical ethics because I find this desire of yours to silence dissent very curious.
bttt
40 Aug 26-Sep 1, 1999
Confessions of a LUG
Throughts on the queer practice of being 'lesbian until graduation'
There is a truth to the conceit we develop in college that the "real world" somehow exists outside our current circumstances. The confined, secluded space of higher learning enables us, ever so briefly, to embark on flights of fancy without the very real repurcussions that await out there, in the real world.
In the faux universe of the ivory tower, idealism grows unchallenged by reality, and experimentation is encouraged and protected.
One manifestation of this temporary cessation of consequences is what's commonly referred to as "Lesbian Until Graduation." The brash, bright hetero girl plunges into the netherworld of girl-girl romance only to emerge years later, diploma in hand, straight as a ruler for the remainder of her days.
I wasn't a LUG in the strictest sense of the word; I never gave up men entirely. Call me a BUG (Bisexual Until Graduation). I had small crushes on women before, but nothing beyond the realm of my imagination had happened -- until I met Amy.
Tall, pale, with long locks of dark blond hair that stretched down her back, I was certain she'd been plucked from Sandro Botticelli's "Birth of Venus" and placed on earth for my enjoyment. She was the editor of the university newspaper, and I was her star columnist. Our attraction was, at first, that of two best friends destined to keep in touch for life. But by the end of one listless summer, when we were both unemployed and mostly single, an undeniable sexual heat had developed between us.
One night, we got drunk on cheap swill and did the deed. Embarassed, we giggled over our small feat for weeks. It was the first and last time we'd make love. But, hot damn, it was amazing!
I had other encounters with women, but none quite matched the heady rush that followed the first. I quickly became disenchanted with the notion of, well, going down. How could men manage this for minutes on end? I wondered, "Breasts?" They couldn't compare with firm shoulders. And the soft, sweet feminine touch was no match for the firm, male thrust.
Emotionally and intellectually, I found more to like in the complicated process of two people attempting to merge from opposite ends of the gender pool than I did in the simpler equation of lady meets lady, hence the toilet seat stays down.
Worse still, after mentioning my lesbian exploits to friends, I found myself pressured to turn these seemingly innocent trifles into something far more serious.
"You must tell everyone you're bisexual," a friend demanded. "It's a political statement."
I wanted to support my gay and bisexual sisters. I really, really did. The problem was, every time I affixed the the word "bisexual" to my long list of identity markers -- white, female, liberal Democrat, carnivore, etc. -- it didn't seem to fit.
"Couldn't I just be sexual?," I asked my politically active friend.
No. Apparently, I could not.
There was no getting around it. I was straight. At the time, it felt very unfashionable, uncool, politically incorrect.
Lesbian friends of mine say there's nothing they hate more than LUGs. Unlike these Lesbians For Life (LFL), we collegiate experimenters never had to endure coming out to our families, confronting a lifetime of discrimination, being refused the right to get married, adopt children, walk down the street holding hands with our significant others. We have our fun, often at the expense of a true lesbian's feelings -- Oops! Thought I was gay. Sorry! -- and move along.
LUGs have the luxury of trying out something different and walking away without any serious repurcussions. Try explaining that to someone whose parents have disowned them or who's been turned down for a job because of sexual preference.
While I understand the LFL's frustration, I wish they felt differently. We former lesbians might have only been messing around with societal constructs, but it's unquestionable that the experience makes us more attuned to gay issues, more likely to speak out against discrimination -- after graduation.
Imagine, if you will, that being Gay Until Graduation was as acceptable in our society as being a LUG. (The unlikelyhood of such a hypothesis makes it clear that the real world, however watered down, still exists even within the ivory tower.) Imagine if fraternity boys could do more than fraternize in the showers. If male college athletes, geeks and hipsters could enjoy each other sexually, if only once or twice. If straight boys trying each other on for size was dismissed as playful experimentation.
Would this not go a long way toward stamping out homophobia and sexism? Wouldn't a congressman, preacher or manager who's had a penis up his ass and liked it be more likely to accept someone for whom it's a regular practice?
There are no real answers to these questions, but in the confined, secluded space of my imagination I like to picture the possibilities. ©
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:t0gGZWFWPeMJ:www.citybeat.com/1999-08-26/cover3.shtml+Lesbian+Until+Graduation&hl=en
If I understand correctly, the same applies to schizophrenia.
Shalom.
From what I understand, the notion that they are homosexual flies in the face of their very heterosexual bodies. The compulsive inability to accept reality is a mental disorder, although not necessarily a debilitating one. If I believed I was Napolean, everyone would know I was disturbed. However, unless I tried to claim the throne of France, or took other destructive action, most would allow me my fanciful belief.
We can question whether homosexuality should always be treated or can be left alone, but we should not be questioning whether it is mentally healthy. It is a compulsive denial of reality.
Shalom.
Putting aside whatever implication you were trying to make, you are not, in fact, correct. A majority of cases of schizophrenia are easily and successfully treated with medication.
This is probably the most important statement in the entire homosexual debate because it explains the overwhelming desire of most heterosexuals to ignore reality and support homosexual behavior.
To the "reality" point: I have pointed out repeatedly that human bodies are heterosexual. There is no question that humanity is heterosexual. Without the two sexes joining together to reproduce there would be no humanity. This biological fact (as separated from the spiritual and emotional ties that go with sexual behavior) is obvious to any casual observer and should not need debate. So why does it continue to be debated?
The real problem is with having a concept called "sexual deviancy." People don't like the concept. They don't like the idea that they may be deviants. I wouldn't like it. And the problem comes with drawing the line. Is sexual deviancy anything outside of the missionary position with the lights off? Is it OK to do it with the lights on? How about other positions? How about oral sex?
Some people have a hard time with the normal balance that life requires and always want to go to extremes. Either all sexual behaviors are OK (Hey, we like our sex a little rough. Sometimes she gets bruised. You got a problem with that?) or nothing that is not geared toward having children is acceptable (You mean you use birth control?). (Note to Catholics - I'm talking social belief here, not religious belief. I am not intending to comment on the religious belief that birth control is outside the will of G-d. I'm not qualified to make such a comment nor to challenge the Magesterium.) Real life exists in the balance. Honest debate would seek the balance, not the poles. But we are pulled toward the poles anyway because that's the best we can do.
What do I think is an honest balance? I think it's establishing as the norm that sex is intended to be a free and loving expression of the committment of a man and a woman who have committed themselves to each other for life. I believe we can be tolerant of expressions outside of the normative as long as those expressions don't become destructive of our way of life. I believe we have gone too far toward tolerance, such as the "free love" expressions that have lead to the breakdown in the black family and the near destruction of their culture.
I think it's sufficient for schools to not teach this, but to allow the normative expression to be the one that is modelled until well into High School. I believe that parents are the ones with the responsibility to deal with their children's questions about sexuality - both identity and practice.
I also believe that if we could stop polarization of another kind - that only macho men are true men and only bubbilicious babes are true women - that we would solve a lot of the sexual identity problems we have. I know lots of effeminate boys who are affirmed in their basic masculinity by their fathers who grow up to be effeminate, heterosexual men. There's a range of masculine and feminine in all of us, with men balancing toward masculine and women balancing toward feminine. But being a macho woman does not make one a dyke, and being a "girlie-man" does not make one gay. If we could just understand that, and help our teens understand that, much of the rest of this debate would quietly go away.
</soap box>
Shalom.
I will admit to not being an expert on schizophrenia. I do understand that nearly all psychotherapy requires years and a serious effort on the part of the patient toward healing. To say that homosexuality is hard to treat successfully is not the same as to say that it is not a mental illness. It would take more than that.
Q: How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Only one, but only if the light bulb truly wants to change.
Shalom.
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.