Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists

[Omen]

Terry Schiavo died of bulimia, and was brought back a vegetable.

Wow! Now that’s what I call spin, baby! Terry Schiavo did not die from bulimia. Terry Schiavo died from starvation when her feeding tube was forcibly removed. She died because she was deprived of food and water.

If you are going to engage in claiming that there is spin, you might actually take the effort in demonstrating how it is spin.

Your statement is also inaccurate because it has NEVER been determined that Terry even had bulimia in the first place.

You might want to try not to automatically believe everything you hear the media report dear . . .

From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Schiavo

Obfuscating around determining factually if Terry was bulimic or not doesn't change the facts;

Fact 1 she was on a diet of heavy liquids.

Fact 2 she lacked or had an imbalance of electrolytes and potassium

Both give credence to the idea that she was either bulimic or approaching that stage.  Ignoring this doesn't help or support your case, it also doesn't allow you to make further conclusions about any kind of 'media' spin or the intentions of those talking about the case.  That said, Michael would go on to sue the Dr for malpractice for not diagnosing bulimia. ( successfully )

Jon Thogmartin, medical examiner for Florida's District Six, which includes Pasco and Pinellas counties, said the cause of death was "marked dehydration." Thogmartin said that the autopsy did not determine the cause of her collapse.
From www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=23019

You should probably read the link your referencing and it also helps to at least be intellectually honest in admitting what else is stated.  Such as also having a urinary infection as well as pneumonia, not to mention the fact that her brain ad atrophied to less then half the size of the average human brain.

This is all irrelevant to terry being bulimic, it has no other implications to statements above.

Unlike the information widely disseminated in media reports in the years before Terri’s death that said she had an eating disorder which contributed to her death, the medical examiner found no basis for a conclusion that Terri had bulimia -- the explanation used by Michael Schiavo’s attorneys to further their cause in a malpractice suit he won a few years after her collapse

Determining that bulimia had no effect on her death after she has already become vegetable and she died because life support was removed is irrelevant.

From hebookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6689&

From detective Mark Fuhrman: the true, tragic story of Terri Schiavo's untimely death
(It's proof that her cause is very much alive, even after her death)
Silent Witness: The Untold Story of Terri Schiavo's Death
by Mark Fuhrman

Specious conclusion, see above.

He reveals explosive facts about Terri's marriage, her condition when she collapsed (including the truth about her alleged "bulimia"), the bitter battles that went on for years between her parents and her husband Michael Schiavo, and the sparsely reported circumstances surrounding her death. He sifts through the evidence and frankly examines the oft-discussed possibility that Michael Schiavo strangled Terri, or that her condition was caused by his beating her.

All of this written before the actual autopsy and the criticism of the book seems to be widespread that it doesn't contain much at all except medical diagnosis as filler, just thrown out there while the Schiavo case was still in the minds eye of the public.. and he could make a quick buck.  All directed to an audience of people that want to believe a certain outcome or initial setting, rather then what was happening or did happen.

It reminds me of most of the books directed to christian audiences from popular christian apologetics.  They don't actually write the books with an eye towards objective criticism or an audience of skeptics, but to an audience that believes all the claims in the book in the first place.

[jazzman]

Agent, re. homosexuality.

I was going to do a point-by-point discussion of the various points you made about homosexuality being "against natural law", caused by absent parents, being unhealthy etc. etc. But I got bored. So I'll just put it as simply as I can:

You are talking complete bollocks

Agent40 is unable to understand the misguided nature of her belief about homosexuality.  She's truly talking bollocks, but her permanently fixed blinders prevent her processing the information we've presented her.  She prefers ignorance to knowledge.  Your short response is a good as anyone's, yet even such brevity will not sink in to Agent40's brain.  Religion for her appears to have been a lobotomy of reason.  There's an empty space where her thinking cap ought to be.

Jazzman

[Agga]

Hello you little sex manianc you.  (Congratulations on your new pregnancy by the way, I'm genuinely pleased for you).

Thanks Ag! I gotta say, I was thinking I was too old for this stuff. And even though I’m just pregnant and have quite a ways to go, it will be really nice to have a newborn in the house again. I’m excited.

Yeah I bet.  I don't know where parents find the energy to keep doing it!  My wife and I are thinking about adopting at some point in the future rather than having our own as we feel that there are plenty of kids without families who love them, so we'd like to give them one when we're able to.


Now that's the chit-chat over with, if you wouldn't mind answering the rest of my post instead of blatantly avoiding it, that'd be grand:

If sex is only intended to be between a man and a woman are you claiming that sex between hermaphrodites is forbidden and they are not therefore allowed to have sexual relationships with anybody?

What do they do if they get married to a man, or a woman, are they not allowed to have sex with their own spouse and reproduce?

Are they even allowed to get married?

What happens if they have sex, are they committing a homosexual act?

[Agga]

Agent, re. homosexuality.

I was going to do a point-by-point discussion of the various points you made about homosexuality being "against natural law", caused by absent parents, being unhealthy etc. etc. But I got bored. So I'll just put it as simply as I can:

You are talking complete bollocks

Amen.

[snkiesch]

It (homosexual acts that is)  is unnatural – show me the scientific evidence that homosexuals are born that way.

There is considerable scientific evidence pointing to a biological component to homosexuality:  

My nephew is gay. He has two older brothers that are heterosexual. We knew he was gay by the time he was 4-5.  His brothers wanted to play ball, ride 4 wheelers, hunt, fish, go out for sports, etc. Tyler wanted to play dress-up with his mother's clothes, play with dolls and was most comfortable playing girls games with my daughters.

I do not know about every case but I do know my nephew never chose to be gay. He grew up in a small town less than 800 people. My brother, his step-dad told him he would not have any of that faggot shit going on in his house when Tyler came out. It has been about 5 years and from what I can tell my homo-hating brother has had a change of heart when it comes to homosexuality. he not only allows Tyler's boyfriend to visit, he encourages it.

[Gnu Ordure]

Jed:

And you ignore the very real psychological, physical and emotional problems inflicted on gay people by widespread homophobia in society. You make no effort to separate these problems, you simply attribute them all to homosexuality.

Agent40, how much clearer can it be put? Yes, you present evidence that gay people suffer more from depression. You immediately leap to the conclusion that homosexuality causes depression. That leap is not justified, given the obvious existence of other factors.

Your claims are equivalent to those of a racist who finds "psychological, physical and emotional problems"  among black people in the 19th century American South and attributes them entirely to race.

Good example, Jed.

Slave to Doctor : I've been feeling a bit low recently.

Dr Agent40: Oh really, why is that?

Slave: Well, I live in constant fear, I'm exploited, I have no money, no fun, no...

Dr Agent40: Stop right there. No need to say more. It's nothing to do with any of that. I know what your problem is.

Slave: What is it?

Dr Agent40: Bad news, I'm afraid. You're black. We know from empirical research that black people get more depressed than whites; being black causes depression.

Slave: Oh no! I never knew that. Is it serious? Is there anything I can do?

Dr Agent40: Luckily, yes. There is a new kind of treatment, called Black-to-White Therapy. It may not stop you being black, but you may be able to give up doing black things, and you'll be so much happier. Learn to dance badly, for a start. That kind of thing. If it doesn't work, you could consider getting your cock shortened.

Slave: I'm feeling better already! Thanks, Doc.

[Ada-B]

My nephew is gay. He has two older brothers that are heterosexual. We knew he was gay by the time he was 4-5.  His brothers wanted to play ball, ride 4 wheelers, hunt, fish, go out for sports, etc. Tyler wanted to play dress-up with his mother's clothes, play with dolls and was most comfortable playing girls games with my daughters.

I do not know about every case but I do know my nephew never chose to be gay. He grew up in a small town less than 800 people. My brother, his step-dad told him he would not have any of that faggot s**t going on in his house when Tyler came out. It has been about 5 years and from what I can tell my homo-hating brother has had a change of heart when it comes to homosexuality. he not only allows Tyler's boyfriend to visit, he encourages it.

Thank you for sharing.

When I came out, someone from my church came and told me I was living a sinful lifestyle and tried to persuade me against my "choice".

When I explained to her it wasn't my choice, she helpfully enquired as to whether I'd considered celibacy (I actually found that funny!).

Sometimes later, she ended up confiding in me about her husband's scumbag behaviour, because I was "the only person who'd understand".

After leaving my church, I attended another church for a while. This was fine until the minister, a woman, gave me a big lecture about how gays were "disease carriers" and that AIDS was a plague from God. Some months later I heard she ran away with another woman!

I find it is useful to have a very short memory when encountering religious homophobia - people can change.

[Operator_A15]

I think it's high-time for this thread to take a trip to the Bottomless Pit.

[tperl]

Agent40 is still going on about how homosexual acts are "wrong"?  I stand by my original assessment of this debate from over a month ago:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=8474.msg194354#msg194354

However, in skimming this thread, I have some additional observations:

1) To me, Agent40 is starting with the stance of "I don't approve of homosexual acts" and simply finding "facts" to try to support her stance.  However, I don't really think any of her replies reflect the true reason for her belief - I think she just simply dislikes gays, but wants it to come across as a logical conclusion to a sequence of critcal thinking rather than her starting point.

2) In addressing her analogies with pedophiles and rapists, has anyone brought up the notion of "victims"?  Two consenting homosexual adults engaging in gay acts in private has no victim that I can see.  However, there is a clear victim when a pedophile sexually assaults a minor.

3) I saw one post where she states something like "you cannot claim that sex is for pleasure only" (my emphasis).  I see a huge problem here in her thinking - she keeps linking the sexual acts (and the pleasure derived from them) to the act of reproduction.  Why do we have to link ANY pleasure with ANYTHING? (e.g., pleasure from: sex, delicious food, a sunshine-y day, etc.)  What about pleasure for pleasure's sake?   She keeps harping on the act when really she has a problem with the pleasure derived from it, but she can't find any "studies" that show that pleasure is against natural order, leads to depression, etc.  It's easier to attempt to fit an act into her whole "moral absolute truth" dichotomy, but much more difficult (if not impossible) to place "pleasure" on the "wrong" side of that dichotomy.

In any event, I still think the whole debate just amounted to apples and oranges - Why would any of us concede to Agent40 that homosexual acts are "wrong" when we don't even believe it makes sense to classify the act in the first place?

[tperl]

I think it's high-time for this thread to take a trip to the Bottomless Pit.

Wow!  I'm really on my game with this one - from that other thread (but similar debate) with Agent40:

This whole debate is simply devolving into the bottomless pit (which is actually the only thing agent40 said that I actually agree with).

[jedweber]

I think it's a mistake to suggest that Agent40 is motivated by any kind of personal animus towards gay people. Even if she had such an animus, it would be an end-result or by-product of her thinking, not the root cause of it. The problem is her interpretation of "natural law." (By "hers" I mean the concept created by Catholic theologians which she holds to be true.) She labors under the assumption that this mental construct is something which exists in objective reality.

So when she asks us to "prove" that homosexual acts are not inherently wrong, it probably cannot be done given the assumptions (delusions?) under which she is operating. It's circular reasoning leading to an inevitable conclusion.

[tperl]

I think it's a mistake to suggest that Agent40 is motivated by any kind of personal animus towards gay people. Even if she had such an animus, it would be an end-result or by-product of her thinking, not the root cause of it. The problem is her interpretation of "natural law." (By "hers" I mean the concept created by Catholic theologians which she holds to be true.) She labors under the assumption that this mental construct is something which exists in objective reality.

So when she asks us to "prove" that homosexual acts are not inherently wrong, it probably cannot be done given the assumptions (delusions?) under which she is operating. It's circular reasoning leading to an inevitable conclusion.

You're probably right.  And she clearly doesn't fully realize that she is a victim of this path you've suggested - she really believes she was "free" to find this conclusion on her own.

[pianodwarf]

In addressing her analogies with pedophiles and rapists, has anyone brought up the notion of "victims"?

Constantly, along with the notion of "consenting adults in private".  No dice.

What about pleasure for pleasure's sake?

I have a friend who's Catholic and who says that the pleasurable aspect is there merely to ensure that reproduction will be more likely to occur.  I don't agree with her, of course, but OTOH, I have to admit that if sex didn't feel good, people probably wouldn't do it nearly as much.

[Hermes]

So when she asks us to "prove" that homosexual acts are not inherently wrong, it probably cannot be done given the assumptions (delusions?) under which she is operating. It's circular reasoning leading to an inevitable conclusion.

Possibly, but the obvious problem is that it's flipping the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' idea on it's head.  It's her responsibility to show that they are wrong, and to do so unambiguously not abstractly.  This can't be done by assertion or by an undefined abstract idea.  Meanwhile, a concrete counter example is already provided in the message that started this thread almost 2 months ago.

[PinkMilk]

Of course you aren’t, because you know I could argue the same about yours.

Actually, not the reason I do not wish to get into this, is because it would allow to you to further ignore the major question that I have posed to you. 

You, then, Pinkmilk are completely unaware of your own prejudice. If I had the time I would go through our correspondence and in fact show you all the times you have told me that the only reason I claim a certain thing is because as you like to say I have been indoctrinated.

I have never once stated that your opinions are due to your indoctrination.  Never once.  I am also not prejudiced.  How does supporting someone's lifestyle mean that I am prejudice?

This Pinkmilk, is dismissing what I have to say because I am a believer. It is funny how you don’t even realize you too have been indoctrinated. You have been indoctrinated in secularism. 

I don't dismiss what you have to say based on the fact that you are a believer, I dismiss what you say because you do not have the evidence to back it up. 

You have to prove there is nothing wrong with homosexual acts. You have not done so, and in fact I have shown evidence showing otherwise.

You haven't.  You have provided biased sources that state it is wrong, but that do not ultimately stand up as evidence.  Homosexuality isn't wrong, because there is nothing wrong with it.  Plain and simple.  You don't have to agree, but if there is nothing wrong with it, then there isn't.  You are the one who is making a claim here and you can not back it up with real evidence.

I have already shown that often “natural” means bupkis. A pedophile is naturally attracted to children. I might have a natural predisposition to alcoholism. We can’t base what is right and wrong on what we think is “natural.”

Yeah, yeah, same old song and dance.  But you are ignoring why some things are wrong and why others aren't.  Some things effect other people, others don't.

Homosexualtiy doesn’t affect anyone? That doesn’t make sense? If a person engages in a homosexual act it affects themselves, and the person they are having sex with. It might even affect those close to them who witness their behavior. Sorry, but you simply can’t say homosexuality has no effect.

Heterosexual sex affects both parties involved and might affect those who witness their behaviour.  This argument doesn't hold up, because it doesn't differ from one relationship to the next.  The only way it would affect those around them negatively is if they are against the concept of homosexuality, which is those people's problem, not the couples.   

First, you can’t get out of having to prove your position by simply declaring that you have no origin to base your thoughts on. If anything, the fact that you admit you have nothing to base your thoughts on, shows the weakness in your argument all the more. But even so, you should still be required to show evidence for why you hold the position you do. But what’s that? Can’t do it? I know you can’t. Because your position is based on emotion and no facts. This is what I have been saying all along.

My argument isn't based on emotions at all, but rather that I believe in the philosophy live and let live.  You clearly don't.  You have yet to prove that the basis for your arguments holds water, and have not made an attempt, other than to try to attack my position.  Why?  Perhaps you can't prove natural moral order. 

Second, I have already stated in a different thread that I would never be able to prove to you beyond a doubt that my views regarding homosexual acts are true. Therefore, it looks like neither of us can completely prove our position. I have certainly asserted more science, facts, observation, and logic then yours. Your position ignores the current research on homosexuality. 

It doesn't at all.  None of the "research" you've provided is without bias. 

Therefore, I suppose we both at this point should simply agree to disagree. The problem is you and many others on this site continue to accuse me of being an intolerant bigot. I find that completely unacceptable. What makes my views bigoted and not yours?

Because you are deeming people's life styles  wrong.  I'm not.  Plain and simple.

It reminds my of an Ally McBeal episode I saw years ago (I know I’m dating myself). Ally and some rival lawyer were going at it and the rival, commenting on the very short skirt Ally was wearing said, “How can you be so sure mini skirts are coming back in style”, and Ally replied, “Because I’m wearing one.”

And this has to do with what?

Well, her comment was certainly clever, of course just because she wants it to be so, doesn’t make it so. Get it Pinkmilk? You can’t say your position that homosexual acts are ok is right because you’re proclaiming it. I’m gonna need a little more proof and logic than that.

Without showing what is wrong with it, than that means it is not wrong.  You can't show that there is anything wrong with it.


Now that you've avoided my question yet again, please provide evidence to show that natural moral order is true.  Ignore homosexuality, and all the other things you find wrong as a result of natural moral order, and just focus on proving that natural moral order is indeed true.  That's all I'm asking of you at this point.  It's not a difficult question.  At this point it seems you are intentionally ignoring my question to you and that is against forum rules.  So please answer me. 

[Onesimus]

It's really weird for me when straight people get more worked up about homosexuality than gay people do. 

I'd rather live it than talk about it. 

::sigh::   

[PinkMilk]

It's really weird for me when straight people get more worked up about homosexuality than gay people do. 

I'd rather live it than talk about it. 

::sigh::   

For me it's about more than just homosexuality.  Agent40 has said that premarital sex is wrong, living together before marriage is wrong, among a myriad of other things.  It's the baseless claims of morality that get me worked up. 

[Agga]

It's really weird for me when straight people get more worked up about homosexuality than gay people do. 

I'd rather live it than talk about it. 

::sigh::   

You terrify them, dude.  God forbid you don't conform to how they live, the world might implode!    

[Gnu Ordure]

I believe we have probably once again exhausted this topic

Running away again, Agent40? Come and finish your other thread then. It's still waiting.

But I won't bother to reply to your last response to me here in detail then.

Just this:

I can’t believe I didn’t find this excellent article earlier. I hope you will all take a look . . .

Homosexuality and the Truth: Is it Just Another Lifestyle?
by Alan P. Medinger

www.exodusglobalalliance.org/isitjustanotherlifestylep35.php

I looked. It was rubbish. The usual confusion between correlation and cause.

This bit was particularly ridiculous:

National gay rights organizations have been making a major issue lately of the high level of crime perpetrated against gays.

This has been put forth as a justification for inclusion of homosexuality in civil rights laws. What is not mentioned is that much of this crime occurs when a lonely, desperate homosexual takes a young male prostitute or other stranger to his home or apartment for an evening of sex. Although most gays know they risk meeting up with psychopaths in this way, many are still driven to do it.

Brilliant. Gay people don't deserve to be protected by civil rights laws because they often voluntarily invite psychopaths into their homes for sex.

Pathetic.

The rest of the article is no better.


And you think this an excellent analysis, Agent40?

You mean it's a Catholic analysis.

Gnu.

[Ashe]

It's really weird for me when straight people get more worked up about homosexuality than gay people do. 

I'd rather live it than talk about it. 

::sigh::   

Amen to that.

[Chronos]

It's really weird for me when straight people get more worked up about homosexuality than gay people do. 

I don't think gay people get worked up about heterosexual sex. Do they?

Well, I guess that's because you don't have a book written for a martyr that implies that heterosexual sex is wrong.

[Chronos]

just wait, we'll have those "good Christians" attacking psychology like the Scientologists do. 

Isn't that part of the Republican Health Care Plan^TM?  If you tell people that psychology and psychiatry are bunk, you can eliminate some health care costs.

But, of course, their version of health care for America will require payments to religious counselors who convert homosexuals to heterosexuals.

[Hermes]

It's really weird for me when straight people get more worked up about homosexuality than gay people do.

Well, to me it's like a proxy battle.  The religious bigots have a short list of people and ideas they can not abide.  On two levels, I think that's despicable;

1. I don't have a reason to curtail anyone else's rights; if what they do does not impact me personally, what business is it of mine?

2. I know that if the religious bigots were left without any cost for oppressing those other groups, they would do so and then switch to other people and ideas on their list.  As for ideas, the same thing is happening in the teaching of biology -- and has started to spread to other teaching fields.  Intentional promotion of overt ignorance makes me angry.

I'd rather live it than talk about it.

That you don't need anyone's permission is currently a good thing.  I'm no longer complacent.  Stopping them at the first step is what is most important...

[Onesimus]

As for ideas, the same thing is happening in the teaching of biology -- and has started to spread to other teaching fields.  Intentional promotion of overt ignorance makes me angry.

I can totally see how someone would get worked up, for example, over the whole ID debacle, and why it's such a hot-button issue.  Maybe that's what I need to do to recharge my batteries - simply attend to some other issue for a while.

[Agent40]

Qoute from Gnu Ordure:

Running away again, Agent40?

This weekend we had 9 soccer games (two of my kids had a tournament). The U12 and U10 both made it to the championship game. The U10 won. It went into double overtime and down to PK’s. Very exciting!

We also had one Cross Country meet followed by an end of season Cross Country pizza party and one volleyball game. 

Also, tomorrow (Monday) is picture day at school. I had baths to give and clothes to iron.

Trust me when I say this website is not something I often choose to run away from, but rather run to.

I’ll catch you when I can . . .  Try not to have too much fun without me.

[Agga]

Hello you little sex manianc you.  (Congratulations on your new pregnancy by the way, I'm genuinely pleased for you).

Thanks Ag! I gotta say, I was thinking I was too old for this stuff. And even though I’m just pregnant and have quite a ways to go, it will be really nice to have a newborn in the house again. I’m excited.

Yeah I bet.  I don't know where parents find the energy to keep doing it!  My wife and I are thinking about adopting at some point in the future rather than having our own as we feel that there are plenty of kids without families who love them, so we'd like to give them one when we're able to.


Now that's the chit-chat over with, if you wouldn't mind answering the rest of my post instead of blatantly avoiding it, that'd be grand:

If sex is only intended to be between a man and a woman are you claiming that sex between hermaphrodites is forbidden and they are not therefore allowed to have sexual relationships with anybody?

What do they do if they get married to a man, or a woman, are they not allowed to have sex with their own spouse and reproduce?

Are they even allowed to get married?

What happens if they have sex, are they committing a homosexual act?

Agent40.  Please stop dodging the questions. ^^

Thanks.

[Agga]

^^ Still waiting for an answer, Agent40.

[Astreja]

Agent40, if you have time to come on here to tell us about your busy life, you have time to answer the questions.

[radames]

Are any of you familiar with the late Roman Catholic priest, Father John Hardon?

I assure you I have not invented that name.

He's the author of a seminal (ha-ha) work, the Modern Catholic Dictionary, which is the go-to dictionary for contemporary Catholics.

This definitely tickled my funnybone! lol  I hope that he didn't make the young boys say it over and over again while performing a suggestive act.