Psychologists repudiate gay-to-straight therapy

Socrtease said:
Every single article but one is either published by NARTH itself, or was published by a psych journal with a Christian bias. One of them actually goes so far as to blame the bullying that children of Homosexuals receive on the parents and not the bullies. Good shit there. But FAIL!
Click to expand...
NARTH is an organization of peers, just like APA is an organization of peers. You asked for peer review and you got it. Your conclusion of "fail" is based solely on your uneducated opinion being different than these professional ones. *shrug*
 
Quite a stunning shocker. This is like reading a study that says people are fat because they eat too much and don't exercise enough. There is no epiphany here...
 
Damocles said:
Quite a stunning shocker. This is like reading a study that says people are fat because they eat too much and don't exercise enough. There is no epiphany here...
Click to expand...
Some people are fat because of a thyroid or other medical condition, not simply the inability to keep the fork out of their face. Same with gays I suppose. *shrug*
 
Southern Man said:
NARTH is an organization of peers, just like APA is an organization of peers. You asked for peer review and you got it. Your conclusion of "fail" is based solely on your uneducated opinion being different than these professional ones. *shrug*
Click to expand...

There is no regulation for what a "scientific journal" is or a "peer-reviewed" study is. He should have said a reputable journal. Sorry for the confusion.
 
Darla said:
Yeah, it's total bs. But what I just don't get is, let's say you could change someone from gay to straight; why would you want to?

Let's say someone has a hard time reaching orgasm without nipple stimulation. And then a team of doctor's comes along and says, we can retrain you to orgasm with no nipple stimulation at all.

Okay... but why?

It's fun. Things are cool as is. Mind your own business. Worry about your own orgasm.

That's my philosophy anyway.
Click to expand...

I think it would be OK in some cases to be able psychologically change sexual desires if you were a guy who, for instance, fell in love with a man but were sexually unable to be attracted to him, or if your sexual desires were trained towards something illegal or disgusting that clearly has a negative impact on your life (like necrophilia *gags*). Being able to have the sexual desires you want to have instead of the sexual desires that are there for god knows why would be psychologically useful.

But there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, since it's not harmful at all to a persons well-being (besides in situations of artificial social bigotry).
 
Watermark said:
There is no regulation for what a "scientific journal" is or a "peer-reviewed" study is. He should have said a reputable journal. Sorry for the confusion.
Click to expand...
Your conclusion of is based solely on your uneducated opinion being different than these professional ones.
 
Watermark said:
Nope, you and me could go do it right now.

I'm a self-trained psychologist. Stop being so elitist.

I think we need to declare conservatism a mental disorder.
Click to expand...
With you're self-training, you are a peer to other self-trained wannabees. You are not a peer to the author of the article that I posted, not by a long shot. *shrug*
 
Southern Man said:
With you're self-training, you are a peer to other self-trained wannabees. You are not a peer to the author of the article that I posted, not by a long shot. *shrug*
Click to expand...

Yeah, a disreputable psychologist being paid off by Christian interests is pretty low in anyone's book. We're both way above him in the psychologically communities eyes.
 
Watermark said:
Yeah, a disreputable psychologist being paid off by Christian interests is pretty low in anyone's book. We're both way above him in the psychologically communities eyes.
Click to expand...
Now you're resorting to baseless allegations, and simply because you disagree with his scientific conclusions and can't dispute the science. *shrug*
 
Another baseless allegation simply because you disagree with his scientific findings.

You should stick to trolling because this debate thing ain't working for you.

*shrug*
 
Southern Man said:
NARTH is an organization of peers, just like APA is an organization of peers. You asked for peer review and you got it. Your conclusion of "fail" is based solely on your uneducated opinion being different than these professional ones. *shrug*
Click to expand...

This research is carrying on the work of Dr. Charles W. Socarides, and uses his research extensively.

That is one reason it is not accepted by the mainstream medical community.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top