Comments

  1. Mickey says

    The organizations that use distorted work have never stopped when asked before and will not now. Too much money is at stake. And sadly when they have the choice between money and truth we all know how “christians” decide.

  2. TampaZeke says

    Wait a minute. Robert Spitzer was NEVER a proponent of “ex-gay therapy”. In fact he was very instrumental in having homosexuality removed from the classification of mental disorder. He simply did a study with poor methodology that presented subjective interviews as proof of the possibility of change in sexual orientation. Even then he STRONGLY advised against such attempts. Upon further review of his work he realized the faults in his study and asked to print a retraction. The Archives of Sexual Behavior, the journal which published his original study, refused to print his retraction but he has recently gone on record refuting his study and even more clearly and strongly condemning the practice of “ex-gay therapy”.

    Calling him a charlatan who targeted gay people for therapy is not only dead wrong but it’s highly offensive and insulting.

  3. TampaZeke says

    Wait a minute. Robert Spitzer was NEVER a proponent of “ex-gay therapy”. In fact he was very instrumental in having homosexuality removed from the classification of mental disorder. He simply did a study with poor methodology that presented subjective interviews as proof of the possibility of change in sexual orientation. Even then he STRONGLY advised against such attempts. Upon further review of his work he realized the faults in his study and asked to print a retraction. The Archives of Sexual Behavior, the journal which published his original study, refused to print his retraction but he has recently gone on record refuting his study and even more clearly and strongly condemning the practice of “ex-gay therapy”. Spitzer was VERY vocal about how his study was being misrepresented by “ex-gay” and anti-gay groups.

    Calling him a charlatan who targeted gay people for therapy is not only dead wrong but it’s highly offensive and insulting.

  4. Rick says

    @Tampazeke, you are absolutely right; I should have read Andrew’s description more carefully. Spitzer has never engaged in ex-gay therapy. He merely did a study that has been widely (mis)cited by that camp.

    Andrew: you may want to change that. At the very least, get rid of the ‘charlatan’ charge. That is completely off base.

  5. JD says

    It says right in the video that Spitzer lead the charge to get homosexuality out of the DSM – how can you get more pro-gay than that?!!?!

    The poor guy made a mistake that accidentally helped the bad guys, and he feels awful about it and has done everything he can to fix it. The least we can do as a community is actually get the record right.

  6. Chad says

    I applaud Spitzer for clearing the air on this issue.
    we all know this is not going to change anything regarding opposition to homosexuality; the origin of which is religious, first and foremost.

  7. Opinionated says

    I think the Andrew Christian models should go around to these pray the gay away places and do a little dancing in their sexy undies for them them and let’s see how long their “therapy” last. After they are done there they can stop by my place too. :)

  8. anon says

    Firstly allow me to start off by saying that these are my opinions. I am not saying (by any means) that these opinions are fact for the aggregate. Having known many homosexuals, I find that I have not met one of them which was biologically instructed to be homosexual which indicates that their homosexuality was by choice. Possibly from birth or later in life. I have seen many instances where people have chosen to become homosexual later in life but it is rare to find one who is homosexual going straight. I believe that this is mainly because of peer pressure, familial relations, and unspoken social ideals which the homosexual person experiences. I see this as mostly a one way street as the human brain attempts to make sense of the world and once you have crossed over the line to become homosexual, it is rare that you will find an individual who will go back to being straight save it be by pure will alone (which is where praying steps into play). On countless occasions I have seen other homosexuals encouraging others to become homosexual. I mostly believe that by pure will alone a person can affect his choice in personal matters. I say mostly because many of us live in an internal prison without walls. Most of us attempt to breach those walls even if it may seem as though we are kicking against the pricks because it is in our human nature to be free. This concept is engrained in each of us. Homosexuality as an idea of choice can be seen as “going with the flow” because it is easy to cross the line but crossing back over the event horizon requires more energy… Sometimes more energy than can ever be mustered. If you want to be straight, fine… be straight… If you want to be gay… fine… be gay… but do not involve my life with your choices otherwise you are imposing your invisible prison bars upon others and deserve the unpleasentries owed. On the issue of gay marriage – Not to knock the president or any other person – I find that the whole issue is quite lacking. I see legal marriage in the US as a state based institution. Many states of legalized this type of marriage but what concerns me more than the fact that these people are engaging this activity (which really shouldn’t be any of my business) is that of the implied results of said action. What I mean is this – Many states of common law marriage laws and most have different regulations backing those laws. Some states you must live together for at least 10 years to be concidered legally married. Some states only require you and your partner to say that you are married in front of a noteworthy person and you could be concidered legally married. The problem is this; Should the federal government step in and legalize this institution in aggregate over all of the states, then each state MUST look into their local laws regarding the institution and in conjunction rectify the language for the aggregate. I say this because I know many homosexuals who will say things like “oh – that person is gay” when in actuality they may not be. I live with some homosexuals and if I were to pass away, I would not want my assets transferred to them if they were to say – oh we were common law married. Because of this – what do we do? Make a database of all homosexuals or straights in order to sign your name to an alleged side? Not that I’m attempting to be democratic or republican on the matter – but – people do bad things. They do those things because of pride and choice. I know that some people who are common law married deserve to be considered married regardless of legal idiology. I also see that homosexuals desire to be a part of that idiology. This is why I think it is more appropriate to consider a legal union of individuals of the same sex as opposed to “marriage” of same sex individuals. It is not the governemnts right to say who can be unioned or not as it is a personal choice but I see the two unions as a completely different thing. Marriage and legal unions.

Leave A Reply