Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 5

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
They are investigating participants in 16 different ex-gay programs associated with Exodus, the largest ex-gay ministry group.

The group that admitted their failure rate was 99%, apologized for the hurt and harm they had done to their patients and shut their doors.

Funny how their former leader Alan Chambers has been happily married to a woman for close to two decades. It appears that SOCE therapy does work for those who want it to work.

BTW, Exodus is still going strong throughout the world:

https://exodusglobalalliance.org/

 

[aCultureWarrior]

How the heck can this forum continually run a thread one after the other about criminalizing people who suffer from a mental disorder. What is this the Dark Ages?

Same sex sodomy had been a crime long before mental health organizations were established and called homosexuality a mental illness, the same mental health organizations that now call it normal.

The punishment phase has always been left up to the courts (therapy for those who want to change, etc.). In order to help those who don't want to be helped, laws need to be once again made that make homosexuality illegal, which of course will put a stop to the child molesting/institution destroying homosexual agenda as well.

Regarding the Dark Ages: Did sexual perversion run rampant back then like it is today?

Spoiler

I bet you can't wait to see all of the things Donald Trump has done for "people suffering from a mental disorder" since becoming President, as I'm compiling a very long list which I'll post soon.

Or is someone like Donald Trump who pushes the homosexual agenda not considered to have psychological problems?

 

[Kit the Coyote]

What part of post #1762 did you not understand?



It's been established long ago that the term "peer review" when used by the APA's and their allies means those who engage in homosexuality and/or embrace the homosexual agenda.



Christians are honest, "peer reviewing" homosexuals are not.

Thanks for making my case.

You are making the case that your case is hopeless and lost. Like it or not those organizations are the mental health community, they are the ones who write the DMS. So they are the ones you need to convince to put homosexuality back in there. Questioning the morality of the membership; arguing about the politics of the organizations, there are politics in all such organizations, and ridiculing the scientific methods necessary to prove your case will not accomplish much.

 

[jgarden]

What part of post #1762 did you not understand?

In his infinite wisdom, "aCuthureWarrior" has designated himself as the unquestioned authority as to is/who isn't conducting pro paraphilia studies!

With all due respect, one can't expect to be taken seriously when they cite themselves as the final authority when it comes to these matters!

 

[jgarden]

It's been established long ago that the term "peer review" when used by the APA's and their allies means those who engage in homosexuality and/or embrace the homosexual agenda.

Does "aCultureWarruir" now claim to know the sexual orientation of the 1000's of members of the APA who are all conspiring to perpetrate this "homosexual agenda?

Apparently "aCultureWarrior" strategy of casting doubt in the "message" rests on conducting a "smear" campaign against the characters of its "messengers!"

 

[jgarden]

Christians are honest, "peer reviewing" homosexuals are not.

Thanks for making my case.

In 2004, Wheaton College removed a staff member for committing the unforgivable sin of converting to Catholicism - some Catholics might take offence that converting to their faith would constitute grounds for dismissal at a Christian College!

Regent University was established by Pat Robertson who used the Christian Broadcasting Network as a platform, among other things, to advise the American government to assassinate the President of Venezuela - how Christian of him!

As institutions founded on Christian "fundamentalist" principles, neither Wheaton nor Regent are in a position to claim that their pronouncements on same sèx orientation can be free of bias!

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
It's been established long ago that the term "peer review" when used by the APA's and their allies means those who engage in homosexuality and/or embrace the homosexual agenda.

You are making the case that your case is hopeless and lost.

History is not on your side Kit. No country can embrace moral depravity and expect to be around for long.

Like it or not those organizations are the mental health community, they are the ones who write the DMS.

Like the DMS that the American Psychiatric Association initially wrote saying that pedophilia was no longer a mental disorder unless after raping little boys, the homosexual adults that did it felt guilty the next day, so guilty that they missed work?

So they are the ones you need to convince to put homosexuality back in there.

You don't catch on quickly do you Kit? This 5 part thread isn't for those who proudly embrace immoral and perverse behavior and the evil and extremely powerful homosexual agenda that goes with that behavior, it's for the few that still have an ounce of good in their body and want to do something to restore decency to this once great nation. While I would love it if you and your LGBT allies accepted Christ as your Lord and Savior, I would be an anarchist if I just sat back and hoped and prayed that evil would just vanish.

God established civil government as one of three institutions for the governance of man (the family and Church being the other two) for a reason, and I would not be doing my duty if I ignored one or all of those 3 institutions that are invaluable to society.

Questioning the morality of the membership;

i.e. questioning the morality of a member who did positive studies on adult-child sex.

arguing about the politics of the organizations,

i.e pointing out that both APA's have a huge homosexual influence. Many distinguished psychologists have pointed that out for years.

Noted U.S. Psychologists Condemn Gay Activist Influence on APA

"...Among the methods used to falsely support the gay agenda, he [Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover, M.D.] identified researchers who used their own work as references, who used active members of pro-paedophilia groups as sources, and who ignored current conflicting research in favor of obsolete, discredited work.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/noted-us-psychologists-condemn-gay-activist-influence-on-apa

there are politics in all such organizations, and ridiculing the scientific methods necessary to prove your case will not accomplish much.

What "scientific method" did American Psychological Association member and Associate Professor at Columbia University's pro homosexual Mailman School of Public Health Theo "Want some candy little boy?" Sandfort use when he asked 25 boys ages 10-16 if they enjoyed having sex with adult homosexual males and wrote extensively on why they did?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
What part of post #1762 did you not understand?

In his infinite wisdom, "aCuthureWarrior" has designated himself as the unquestioned authority as to is/who isn't conducting pro paraphilia studies!

With all due respect, one can't expect to be taken seriously when they cite themselves as the final authority when it comes to these matters!

If you want expert authorities on adult-child sex (which Theo Sandfort's 'studies' were all about) you'll need to talk to the unquestionable authorities on "man-boy love" :

The LGBT movement.

After all, they were the ones that founded the North American Man Boy Love Association/NAMBLA and embraced them for years before their homosexual/pedophile/
pederast allies became a PR nightmare.
They are the ones that founded the Pedophile Information Exchange/P.I.E. in the UK, were behind the legalization of child pornography in Sweden and write letters to the editor and do 'scientific studies" on how children as young as 9 and 10 years old "enjoy" having sex with adults.

I've studied these perverts for years, and I do take them "seriously".

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
It's been established long ago that the term "peer review" when used by the APA's and their allies means those who engage in homosexuality and/or embrace the homosexual agenda.

Does "aCultureWarruir" now claim to know the sexual orientation of the 1000's of members of the APA who are all conspiring to perpetrate this "homosexual agenda?

Apparently "aCultureWarrior" strategy of casting doubt in the "message" rests on conducting a "smear" campaign against the characters of its "messengers!"

I'm sure there are a few members left in both rainbow flag waving APA's that consider homosexuality an unnatural desire and behavior, but they're undoubtedly few and far between. If you can find out who they are, I would like to know their names.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

Christians are honest, "peer reviewing" homosexuals are not.

Thanks for making my case.

In 2004, Wheaton College removed a staff member for committing the unforgivable sin of converting to Catholicism - some Catholics might take offence that converting to their faith would constitute grounds for dismissal at a Christian College!

Regent University was established by Pat Robertson who used the Christian Broadcasting Network as a platform, among other things, to advise the American government to assassinate the President of Venezuela - how Christian of him!

As institutions founded on Christian "fundamentalist" principles, neither Wheaton nor Regent are in a position to claim that their pronouncements on same sax orientation can be free of bias!

Which has absolutely nothing to do with Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse's study on Sexually Orientation Change Efforts.
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ized!-Part-5&p=5317252&viewfull=1#post5317252

If you would like to discuss that particular study, I'm all for it. Or perhaps you'd like to discuss the numerous so-called 'studies' on how many boys (according to researcher Theo Sandfort) ages 10-16 year old reportedly really do enjoy their homosexual experiences with adult homosexual men.

 

[jgarden]

..... Which has absolutely nothing to do with Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse's study on Sexually Orientation Change Efforts.
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ized!-Part-5&p=5317252&viewfull=1#post5317252

If you would like to discuss that particular study, I'm all for it. Or perhaps you'd like to discuss the numerous so-called 'studies' on how many boys (according to researcher Theo Sandfort) ages 10-16 year old reportedly really do enjoy their homosexual experiences with adult homosexual men.

Given that Stanton Jones is on staff at Wheaton College, a Protestant institution that in 2004 terminated another instructor for converting to Catholicism, the results of his "research" would require him to be totally at odds with that of The Sandfort at Columbia - a university that doesn't dismiss staff based on their religious affiliation!

Mark Yarhouse's "research" from Regent University would be also scrutinized from an even a stricter fundamentalist perspective than at Wheaton - neither individuals would be granted the freedom to publish "research" that contradicted their employers' stated position on the subject without being terminated!

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
If you would like to discuss that particular study [Yarhouse and Jones], I'm all for it. Or perhaps you'd like to discuss the numerous so-called 'studies' on how many boys (according to researcher Theo Sandfort) ages 10-16 year old reportedly really do enjoy their homosexual experiences with adult homosexual men.

Given that Stanton Jones is on staff at Wheaton College, a Protestant institution that in 2004 terminated another instructor for converting to Catholicism, the results of his "research" would require him to be totally at odds with that of The Sandfort ay Princeton - a university that doesn't dismiss staff based on their religious affiliation!

Mark Yarhouse's "research" from Regent University would be also scrutinized from an even a stricter fundamentalist perspective than at Wheaton - neither individuals would be granted the freedom to publish "research" that contradicted their employers' stated position on the subject without being terminated!

(Pssst, pedophile enabler Theo Sandfort is employed at Columbia, not Princeton).

It appears to me that Aar...ahem...jgarden doesn't want to discuss either study. Gotta hand it to those Libertarians, as they do know their limitations when it comes to debate.

 

[jgarden]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
It's been established long ago that the term "peer review" when used by the APA's and their allies means those who engage in homosexuality and/or embrace the homosexual agenda.

I'm sure there are a few members left in both rainbow flag waving APA's that consider homosexuality an unnatural desire and behavior, but they're undoubtedly few and far between. If you can find out who they are, I would like to know their names.

Once one gets to the heart of "aCultureWarrior's" convoluted ramblings, they are confronted by the fact that he can't produce any credible sources that can confirm his assertions - the more he attempts to redirect the conversation to camouflage
this deficiency , the more obvious it becomes!

One of the characteristics of any good research is the ability of future endeavors to reach the same findings - so where are the other credible studies that confirm Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse's study on "Sexually Orientation Change Efforts?"

http://theologyonline.com/showthread...=1#post5317252

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
I'm sure there are a few members left in both rainbow flag waving APA's that consider homosexuality an unnatural desire and behavior, but they're undoubtedly few and far between. If you can find out who they are, I would like to know their names.

Once one gets to the heart of "aCultureWarrio's" convoluted argument, he can't produce any credible sources that can confirm his assertions - the more he attempts to redirect the conversation, the more obvious it becomes!

One of the characteristics of any good research is the ability of future endeavors to reach the same findings - so where are the other credible studies that confirm Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse's study on "Sexually Orientation Change Efforts?"

Funny you should ask:

New Study on Sexual Orientation Change Efforts

August 23, 2018

"... a new study on SOCE titled “Effects of Therapy on Religious Men Who Have Unwanted Same-Sex Attraction”
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0024363918788559

was published on July 23. In a brief introduction to SOCE history, the authors note the irony in the 2009 American Psychological Association report advising against change therapy due to an alleged lack of methodologically rigorous research proving it safe or effective, that then recommended gay-affirmative therapy, which lacks the same validation of safety and efficacy. They added that the “research community ignores all the positive study results from the dozens of SOCE studies done over the past several decades,” while giving a pass to gay-affirmative therapy with the same deficiencies.
In citing other studies supportive of SOCE—including a 2009 NARTH literature review—they bring up adversarial studies such as the 2002 Shidlo and Schroeder survey (initially recruited for SOCE dissatisfaction with predictable results) and the 2015 study by Dehlin et al. As for the latter, Christopher Rosik notes that the authors were known anti-SOCE gay advocates, so pro-change groups refused to participate (e.g. the former Evergreen Int’l) or were not invited (e.g. NARTH), thus further skewing results. Also, their five-point rating scale had a non-neutral midpoint (“not effective”) and combined two qualities—effectiveness and harmfulness—rather than rating them separately. Both studies have been referred to as anti-SOCE advocacy research. The current study authors state “many informal groups supporting SOCE now decline research participation because of past experiences with unethical practices by researchers.”
Read more: https://cmda.org/new-study-on-sexual-orientation-change-efforts/

 

[aCultureWarrior]

And last but not least:

A Response to Spitzer’s (2012) Reassessment of His 2003 Study of Reparative Therapy of Homosexuality

Spitzer was very clear about the methodological adequacy of his study and how he believed that he had found some significant changes among the participants he interviewed. Spitzer pointed out that he ‘‘…used [9 different measures] and…it was…methodologically quite superior’’(Throckmorton,2004, p. 3). Spitzer recorded changes not just in participants’ behavior, but also in their feelings, fantasies, attractions, and how they performed sexually. Considering that measures used in previous studies were limited, this was considered a significant advancement in research methodology.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/churchplantmedia-cms/restored_hope_network/spitzer.pdf

 

[Kit the Coyote]

So I have a few questions I would like to get the feel of your position on. These aren't trick questions to lure into a trap or anything.

I think we can take as a given that you feel conversion therapies, regardless of how much harm they may or may not do, should remain legal as long some group, no matter how small, can claim success from such treatments. Yes?

Would you agree that reasonable regulation and limitations to prevent obvious harm and fraud that is applied to all medical therapies should be applied to these therapies? Reasonable being defined by what the average person thinks is reasonable not what the pro or anti-LGBT movements might think is reasonable. For examples, banning trepidation, lobotomies, etc. would be reasonable. And just for emphasis, I repeat we are talking about the same standards that would be applied to all such treatments, not just conversion therapy.

Would you agree that persons who have no desire to undergo such treatments should have that right?

Would you agree that public decency laws such as laws against nudity, public sex acts, etc. should be enforced but only as long as they are enforced against all persons equally?

Would you agree that laws concerning rape, pedophilia, and age of consent should be enforced but only as long as they are enforced against all persons equally?

Would you agree that society should discourage sexually active adults from engaging in multi-partner anonymous sex, and unsafe sex as long as such discouragement is applied to all persons equally?

Would you agree that knowledge-based education and encouragement of long term committed relationships through such institutions as marriage are effective tools to help provide such discouragement of above?

Would you agree that consenting adults who engage in safe sex, are not engaged in multi-partner anonymous relationships, are disease free, and their romantic activities are the same as the average persons should have a right to their private relationships?

 

[Arthur Brain]

And last but not least:

A Response to Spitzer’s (2012) Reassessment of His 2003 Study of Reparative Therapy of Homosexuality

Spitzer was very clear about the methodological adequacy of his study and how he believed that he had found some significant changes among the participants he interviewed. Spitzer pointed out that he ‘‘…used [9 different measures] and…it was…methodologically quite superior’’(Throckmorton,2004, p. 3). Spitzer recorded changes not just in participants’ behavior, but also in their feelings, fantasies, attractions, and how they performed sexually. Considering that measures used in previous studies were limited, this was considered a significant advancement in research methodology.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/churchplantmedia-cms/restored_hope_network/spitzer.pdf

Robert Spitzer, again?

In a letter to Kenneth J Zucker, editor of Journal of Sexual Behavior, Spitzer wrote:

"Several months ago I told you that because of my revised view of my 2001 study of reparative therapy changing sexual orientation, I was considering writing something that would acknowledge that I now judged the major critiques of the study as largely correct. After discussing my revised view of the study with Gabriel Arana, a reporter for American Prospect', and with Malcolm Ritter, an Associated Press science writer, I decided that I had to make public my current thinking about the study. Here it is.


"Basic Research Question. From the beginning it was: "can some version of reparative therapy enable individuals to change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual?" Realizing that the study design made it impossible to answer this question, I suggested that the study could be viewed as answering the question, "how do individuals undergoing reparative therapy describe changes in sexual orientation?" – a not very interesting question.
"The Fatal Flaw in the Study – There was no way to judge the credibility of subject reports of change in sexual orientation. I offered several (unconvincing) reasons why it was reasonable to assume that the subject's reports of change were credible and not self-deception or outright lying. But the simple fact is that there was no way to determine if the subject's accounts of change were valid.
I believe I owe the gay community an apology for my study making unproven claims of the efficacy of reparative therapy. I also apologize to any gay person who wasted time and energy undergoing some form of reparative therapy because they believed that I had proven that reparative therapy works with some "highly motivated" individuals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spitzer_(psychiatrist)#cite_note-29

You just don't learn do you...

 

[Arthur Brain]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
More people need to get to know EX LGBT folks, as unlike proud and unrepentant homosexuals, they're honest about what caused their perverse sexual desires and that they can be changed. EX LGBT folks will tell others about the deathstyle that comes with homosexuality. They'll tell others about the harassment they the are subjected to by the LGBT movement for having the audacity to leave a movement that no one is supposed to leave unless it's in a coffin.



First of all: define "succeed", as many people have different goals when it comes to therapy.

One must also remember that these people are dealing with insurmountable odds to begin with.
They have a terribly skewed outlook on natural sexual relations as they were subjected to horrific trauma as children. Keep in mind that grown women who have been raped often times aren't able to overcome the trauma and enjoy natural sex again, even with the help of therapy. Also remember that those attempting to understand and possibly overcome their same sex desires are constantly told by the LGBT owned media and fraudulent psychological associations that they can't succeed. Support is instrumental when dealing with an unwanted desire.

While there are thousands and thousands of success stories out there, if just one person (just one) is able to overcome those odds and lead a normal and happy life because of spiritual and/or psychological therapy, then that is proof that homosexuality is a changeable desire and behavior.

There's only one measure of "success" if conversion therapy actually works in its supposed aim. That being, for people to change from having a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual one. As Kit has pointed out, a bi sexual may consider it fruitful to solely pursue relations with the opposite sex. They're still not "cured" of same sex attraction. A homosexual may want to pursue celibacy for personal reasons. They still haven't been "cured" so unless you can provide peer reviewed, corroborated and credible research that objectively shows actual success where people have changed from homo to heterosexual orientation, then the entire practice of "conversion therapy" itself is quackery. It's certainly been shown to cause plenty of harm hence the reason why these places have been systematically shut down. The practice is roundly condemned across the entire scientific and medical community so don't bother blaming the "LGBTQ movement".

 

[ok doser]

There's only one measure of "success" if conversion therapy actually works .....

and that would be converting people who are having homo sex into people who are no longer having homo sex

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Robert Spitzer, again?

Yes, the same Robert Spitzer who as a psychologist was interested in the truth and whose study showed that SOCE therapy was very successful, not the Robert Spitzer who 9 years later due to ongoing harassment and without a doubt death threats from the ever so tolerant LGBT movement changed his findings.