The Homosexual Double Standard, Ad-hoc, Cavalcade!

[Sparko]

He asked for the evidence and you cited a lit review.

aw let's give him a break. It takes a while to cherry pick your evidence from a google search.

[Epoetker]

Its’ a civil rights issue, nothing more; homosexuals are tax-paying citizens and as such are entitled to the same equal rights as the rest of us.

So are pedophiles, but if a bunch of them secured some territory and bought a bunch of kids from the third world to set up a pedophile society in peace, I'd still call for its destruction. There are more things in a civilized society than are ever dreamt of in your legalistic religion:

Alcoholism, substance abuse, sleeping around, disgusting sex acts — liberals see more and more harm being done to the individual, and the need for others to care for them until they're better. Hence their solutions follow the model of self-focused therapy. (That is, when they are not "tolerant of" i.e. callous toward others descending into degradation, although in fairness that is more of a libertarian than a liberal inclination.)

Conservatives see the pollution of the individual in these cases, but they also see how this person's decay will weaken the bonds of everyone who is connected to them. And not only in the sense of actively threatening to harm others, e.g. a drunk who begins beating his wife. Even a non-violent, apathetic drunk will weaken the bond between him and his wife, and therefore between his family and the others in the community. The video game addict isn't just "wasting his life" — which he certainly is — he's one less anchor for social ties that run throughout the community.

The end-point of a liberal-guided society is the insectoid hive found in East Asia, where each little drone in each little cell follows their OCD rituals to maintain individual cleanliness (and indirectly, public cleanliness), and where junkies are sent off to heal themselves at video game addiction camp. But also where nothing is held sacred or taboo, and so where everything is in a constant state of flux, no two drones identifying with each other, and none of them feeling securely rooted in the past.

White folks are never going to become that atomized and soulless, but normal people need to point out where the liberal path would ultimately take us, to guard against the Panglossian assurances of how great it'll be when everyone tolerates everyone else's lifestyle choices, or the fallback agnosticism about how we can't know what the effects will be unless we try it. (Hey, I know, let's eat random wild berries — we won't know which are poisonous until we swallow a bucketful.)

They might lazily object about "OMG, seriously? Slippery slope arguments in 2014, really?" But normal folks don't want to take even one more step in the insectoid direction. We've already gone down that path far enough.

[Jedidiah]

Wow. You really need to work on your googling skills.

Neither of those are scientific studies or actual evidence. They are articles that are basically opinion pieces doing nothing more than you are doing, claiming it doesn't work. Although both do admit that sometimes it does. Try again.

Hey there are no real scientific sources for evidence. Give the guy a brake.

And that is not a spelling error.

[Spartacus]

What significance does the reparative/conversion therapy question have for the overall debate? I'd take an answer from any corner on this, because right now it seems to me that y'all are fighting over a non-point.

[fm93]

I did read the articles, SP. did you? They are not studies. They reference some old studies and try to pick them apart, but you said their was extensive studies and years of research that proved that conversion therapy did not work.

The research data and those studies are specifically cited in those articles.

These articles are not studies. They are opinion pieces.

An opinion piece simply reflects an author's opinion. In these articles, the authors are explaining based on data and facts WHY scientists believe conversion therapy is ineffective.

Show me the studies. Show me the EXTENSIVE scientific studies going over many years.

Specifically, I said there was extensive data from years of research and studies, and through it all there's been no conclusive evidence of conversion therapy being effective. Many studies were shown to be flawed and therefore unreliable (which is what the authors in the articles I linked to demonstrated), and followup from researchers like Dr. Robert Spitzer (to name a famous instance) revealed that even in the reported success cases, the change wasn't genuine. (Spitzer consequently recanted his own study a few years ago.) Technically it's not so much "There are tons of studies that specifically say 'conversion therapy doesn't work'" as "We've looked through the studies on both sides and have never found conclusive evidence of conversion therapy being effective, and by this point we're justified in concluding that it doesn't work."

That said, if you insist on ignoring the many cited studies in the articles and want those that specifically say "It doesn't work," you can examine the work of Ariel Shidlo and Michael Schroeder ("Changing Sexual Orientation: A Consumer's Report"), for starters, or read Spitzer's recantation for an analysis of the failure cases.

All you seem to be able to do is parrot the party line

You need to stop with this rhetoric. I can't be "parroting the party line" when there's no party with which I'm affiliated. I'm not conservative, obviously, but I'm not liberal either. Nor did I derive my beliefs on this issue from "liberal credos." Everything I've posted is something I learned from school that can be found in any accredited university in America.

[fm93]

What significance does the reparative/conversion therapy question have for the overall debate? I'd take an answer from any corner on this, because right now it seems to me that y'all are fighting over a non-point.

TimelessTheist alleged that there was a double standard when people who used to engage in gay sex but now engage in straight sex are taken to still be gay, whereas people who used to engage in straight sex but now say they're gay are taken to have been gay all along. I explained that this was because of the many direct testimonies from people of both sides, supporting the conclusion that scientists have drawn from the years of data and research: that conversion therapy doesn't truly work for most (if not all) people.

[TimelessTheist]

What significance does the reparative/conversion therapy question have for the overall debate? I'd take an answer from any corner on this, because right now it seems to me that y'all are fighting over a non-point.

Because homosexuality is supposed to be justified instead of say, pedophelia, because of consent, so ot's a double standard, essentially.

[Spartacus]

TimelessTheist alleged that there was a double standard when people who used to engage in gay sex but now engage in straight sex are taken to still be gay, whereas people who used to engage in straight sex but now say they're gay are taken to have been gay all along. I explained that this was because of the many direct testimonies from people of both sides, supporting the conclusion that scientists have drawn from the years of data and research: that conversion therapy doesn't truly work for most (if not all) people.

So what has this to do with anything other than trying to score rhetorical points off of each other? I suppose that's a question most appropriately posed to TT: if we assume that every point in the OP is true, what does it change about the overall debate?

[Spartacus]

Because homosexuality is supposed to be justified instead of say, pedophelia, because of consent, so ot's a double standard, essentially.

I still don't see how that connects to reparative therapy.

[TimelessTheist]

So are pedophiles, but if a bunch of them secured some territory and bought a bunch of kids from the third world to set up a pedophile society in peace, I'd still call for its destruction. There are more things in a civilized society than are ever dreamt of in your legalistic religion:

Morally speaking, I wouldn't, unless they started warring against another territory.

[RumTumTugger]

If it's innate-- if he was born with it-- then obviously we should accept and celebrate it.

Amen button

[fm93]

Because homosexuality is supposed to be justified instead of say, pedophelia, because of consent, so ot's a double standard, essentially.

It must be nice to so easily pretend my responses never happened.

[Sparko]

The research data and those studies are specifically cited in those articles.


An opinion piece simply reflects an author's opinion. In these articles, the authors are explaining based on data and facts WHY scientists believe conversion therapy is ineffective.


Specifically, I said there was extensive data from years of research and studies, and through it all there's been no conclusive evidence of conversion therapy being effective. Many studies were shown to be flawed and therefore unreliable (which is what the authors in the articles I linked to demonstrated), and followup from researchers like Dr. Robert Spitzer (to name a famous instance) revealed that even in the reported success cases, the change wasn't genuine. (Spitzer consequently recanted his own study a few years ago.) Technically it's not so much "There are tons of studies that specifically say 'conversion therapy doesn't work'" as "We've looked through the studies on both sides and have never found conclusive evidence of conversion therapy being effective, and by this point we're justified in concluding that it doesn't work."

That said, if you insist on ignoring the many cited studies in the articles and want those that specifically say "It doesn't work," you can examine the work of Ariel Shidlo and Michael Schroeder ("Changing Sexual Orientation: A Consumer's Report"), for starters, or read Spitzer's recantation for an analysis of the failure cases.


You need to stop with this rhetoric. I can't be "parroting the party line" when there's no party with which I'm affiliated. I'm not conservative, obviously, but I'm not liberal either. Nor did I derive my beliefs on this issue from "liberal credos." Everything I've posted is something I learned from school that can be found in any accredited university in America.

still waiting. You seem to have nothing. You made a claim you can't back up. You apparently didn't even read the links you posted. And that is sad.

[Spartacus]

It must be nice to so easily pretend my responses never happened.

I know that feel bro[/passive-aggressive]

[fm93]

still waiting. You seem to have nothing. You made a claim you can't back up. You apparently didn't even read the links you posted. And that is sad.

When I not only point out that the studies are cited in the articles but also explicitly list the names and authors of a few OTHER studies, and yet you STILL say that I didn't provide anything, I really can't muster enough energy or find any reason to continue responding to you. Go ahead and keep not reading my posts while falsely and hypocritically accusing ME of not reading. I'll spend my time answering people who actually engage with the issues.

I know that feel bro[/passive-aggressive]

I'm pretty sure I got around to responding to all of your posts and didn't ignore any of the information there, if that's what you meant. Meanwhile, TimelessTheist responded to my post in which I explained that there was more than merely consent, yet acts as if I never said it.