Homophobes are afraid of the same?

[Bemidjiblade]

Salukifan,

Thank you for the thoughtfulness of your reply.

So are you also discrediting the research and scientific principles of all of the other organizations with a similar position on reparative therapy?  Im not saying that you have to take the word of 477,000 health and mental health professionals over the word of the 1,500 members of NARTH but I think it might be a good idea.

Yes.  I am discrediting the research and so-called scientific principles of the other organizations.  I realize that the majority of professionals may or may not agree with me, but I have to form my own opinion based upon my limited education and experience.  A student of history, I am familiar with many times when the vast majority of the scientific community were dead wrong.  At one time, the accepted scientific majority believed in false theories.  Abiogenesis, the function of heat as a liquid (until the mid 1800's in some communities), "bad blood", geocentric cosmic order, phlogiston, and many other things.  In general, for each of these items, the reaction of the scientific community as a whole is not to deal with contradictory evidence in regards to things that "everyone KNOWS to be true."  It's currently visible in terms of debates on global warming and evolutionary theory.  Anyone who disagrees has to be a kook, so it's not really worth the effort of supporting studies.  I've read many skeptical and negative reviews of reparative therapy based upon anecdotal evidence.  But I haven't seen anyone undertake a study itself to try and prove the affectiveness of reparative therapy by anyone other than NARTH and associates.  So naturally there isn't going to be peer-reviewed affirmative information.

This is not meant to be disrespectful, but you see, as I understand it the scientific method sees challenging and testing issues regardless of their popular acceptance as necessary.  That is something that the scientific community in modern times seems less and less willing to do.

If you have evidence contradictory to your theory, then you need a new theory.  Period.

Some reparative therapy even includes aversion therapy where the patient is shown sexual images of people of the same-sex and then is either subjected to electro-shock or given drugs that induce vomiting.  Call me crazy, but I have a serious problem with that.

I'm sorry, but this is a straw man arguement.  In more than 7 years working with the ex-gay movement, I have never encountered a single recommendation of such so-called therapy that amounts to torture.  Oh, mind you, it's often one of the first things thrown at me by practicing mental health professionals.  There may even be some extremist whacko who practises such barbarity.  But even our hypothetical freak "therapist" is no more typical of the reparative therapy movement than the so-called "Rev" Phelps is typical of the average Bible-believing Christian.

Ignoring the fact that I have never heard a single living therapist on either side of the ex-gay isle advocating "aversion" therapy (Though I'll admit it was done in the 30's, and to more than just ex-gay types), that is a reason for denouncing aversion therapy, and not reparative therapy.  This is simply an ad-hominum argument, appealing to an emotional reaction instead of cogent argument, and I'll admit I'm sort of disappointed to hear it coming from someone whose integrity I respect as much as I respect yours.

Reparative therapy as currently advocated by NARTH sees homosxuality as an eroticization of unmet love and bonding needs, and seeks to meet those unmet emotional needs for intimacy and acceptance.  Surely you can have no objection to such a goal.  If members of the ex-gay movement hope to see homosexual activity (not always "orientation") eliminated as a result of meeting non-sexual emotional needs, then that is something that can be agreed with or not.

I have more to say, but I'm out time at the moment.

Salukifan, your discourse continues to do you credit and it is a pleasure to dialogue with you.

[Bemidjiblade]

Salukifan,

I'm not sure whether this is a retraction or not.
The test is Pearson Assessment's Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (2) with the Criminal Justice and Correctional Report.

So, from what I'm given to understand from my source (confidentiality issues there), he was sat down after taking the MMPI-2, and told that it still tested for homosexuality even though it was declassified in the 70's.  And then he was told that he was gay and was he ready to just accept it.  Apparently showed him a graph from the report, and pointed to one spike on the graph.

Anyway, whether or not I think that was beneficial, the actual aspect of the MMPI-2 that they're referring to would probably be the Gender Role- Feminine or Gender Role Masculine categories of the testing battery.

THANK YOU, by the way for prompting me to do some digging and gaining a better understanding of the testing battery in question.

http://www.pearsonassessments.com/tests/mmpi_2.htm
http://www.pearsonassessments.com/tests/mmpi_correct.htm

There you go.

After a more careful review of the testing battery, I have to retract my ealier statement about the testing process.  Instead, perhaps I should phase it this way:

Aspects of the MMPI-2 are being used to convince people that they are or are not homosexual, and that the only healthy response in simply to begin practicing an active homosexual lifestyle.

Needless to say, I have issues with that.

In further investigation, though, I did learn that the offender in question was told that it still tested for homosexuality based upon the pre-reclassification criterion.

[Perd Hapley]

This has been a good thread, but it just keeps coming back alive like some horror movie villian.  Die, you controversial thread, die!  I'm tired of beating this dead horse!