Petition to the BSA

[FunkyTown]

Asking for proof of base assertions is overthinking things? I just think that rather than crucify a group because it fits our preconceived notions, we should try to look at the facts objectively.

[Vort]

Asking for proof of base assertions is overthinking things? I just think that rather than crucify a group because it fits our preconceived notions, we should try to look at the facts objectively.

I think the observation was: The "task force" was comprised of people with demonstrably pro-homosexual leanings and utterly devoid of those with positive experience in reparative therapy. Why is this observation out of bounds? Surely you will admit that, given this observation, the task force's "findings" seem very conveniently predetermined.

[carlimac]

Ok I have a theory about this. Why would they have only chosen those with pro-gay leanings for this task force. I think that they already had the end result they wanted in mind: A recommendation against reparitive therapy. And why would they want that? To avoid lawsuits from people wanting that therapy who 1) find a doctor who refuses to do it, or 2) go to a doctor who does it but it doesn't work.

This recommendation doesn't make the therapy illegal but it does give the psyches an official way out if they don't want to do it. I can see the logic in it, but the method of arriving at that conclusion seems dishonest. Why not at least put together a review board of people who are decidedly neutral about the issue? Well, of course. It's not a sure thing that the APA would get the recommendation they wanted. They might even find out that it actually does work and that it helps people. Heaven forbid.

And to take it a step further, those who want reparitive therapy are probably mostly all religious sorts. In the professional community, religion and psychlogy don't get along too well.

Edited May 3, 2012 by carlimac

[Soulsearcher]

Ok I have a theory about this. Why would they have only chosen those with pro-gay leanings for this task force. I think that they already had the end result they wanted in mind: A recommendation against reparitive therapy. And why would they want that? To avoid lawsuits from people wanting that therapy who 1) find a doctor who refuses to do it, or 2) go to a doctor who does it but it doesn't work.

This recommendation doesn't make the therapy illegal but it does give the psyches an official way out if they don't want to do it. I can see the logic in it, but the method of arriving at that conclusion seems dishonest. Why not at least put together a review board of people who are decidedly neutral about the issue? Well, of course. It's not a sure thing that the APA would get the recommendation they wanted. They might even find out that it actually does work and that it helps people. Heaven forbid.

And to take it a step further, those who want reparitive therapy are probably mostly all religious sorts. In the professional community, religion and psychlogy don't get along too well.

I'm wondering if anyone read the whole article?

The purpose of the article is strategies for mental care for homosexuals. how to cope with many different factors. It does address therapies designed to reduce or cure homosexuality, but it goes much deeper than that.

One of the reasons they might have left out the people listed from the NARTH article is they tend to have only one view of things and that view isn't supported by the association. They have a clear stance on the cause of homosexuality which has been dis-proven and they tend to have only one view of treatments and aren't open to any other. If you aren't open to anything but the one way then how can you be objective. If you read the article they don't really bash or make strong conclusions about repairative therapy, they do offer cautions and make comments about it's lack of clear results. Also I'm not sure if we are reading the same report but the one i read was actually quite accepting of religion and even supportive of it in some places. It listed some of the harms i've mention such as people seeking treatment out of fear and pressure but also seems quite supportive or people seeking the therapy as long as those giving it don't make the mistakes that the group found to be harmful which most of it is common sense. They have specific sections in most of the chapters for religious specific advice and i don't see any of it as negative, in fact a great deal of it sounds very much like what the Church says now any ways.

The easiest way of looking at it is if you were to conduct a forum on the value of christianity, you might invite catholics, LDS, baptist ect ect, but would you invite atheists who no matter what you tell them refuse to accept christ ever was and therefore anything to do with him has value?

Edited May 4, 2012 by Soulsearcher

[carlimac]

I'm wondering if anyone read the whole article?

The purpose of the article is strategies for mental care for homosexuals. how to cope with many different factors. It does address therapies designed to reduce or cure homosexuality, but it goes much deeper than that.

One of the reasons they might have left out the people listed from the NARTH article is they tend to have only one view of things and that view isn't supported by the association. They have a clear stance on the cause of homosexuality which has been dis-proven and they tend to have only one view of treatments and aren't open to any other. If you aren't open to anything but the one way then how can you be objective. If you read the article they don't really bash or make strong conclusions about repairative therapy, they do offer cautions and make comments about it's lack of clear results. Also I'm not sure if we are reading the same report but the one i read was actually quite accepting of religion and even supportive of it in some places. It listed some of the harms i've mention such as people seeking treatment out of fear and pressure but also seems quite supportive or people seeking the therapy as long as those giving it don't make the mistakes that the group found to be harmful which most of it is common sense. They have specific sections in most of the chapters for religious specific advice and i don't see any of it as negative, in fact a great deal of it sounds very much like what the Church says now any ways.

The easiest way of looking at it is if you were to conduct a forum on the value of christianity, you might invite catholics, LDS, baptist ect ect, but would you invite atheists who no matter what you tell them refuse to accept christ ever was and therefore anything to do with him has value?

I haven't read the whole article but I didn't know there were any stances proven or disproven about the cause of homosexuality. I thought the jury was still out.

[Soulsearcher]

I haven't read the whole article but I didn't know there were any stances proven or disproven about the cause of homosexuality. I thought the jury was still out.

They've pretty much disproved the parenting and trauma aspects. They haven't found supportable evidence that parenting or trauma is connected to homosexuality, and yet some of the stuff NARTH and other such groups put out still blames over bearing mothers, distant fathers and claims that all homosexuals were abused at some point. To use these views and then form a counseling therapy around it means that it will be flawed no matter what because you aren't addressing any of the real issues. The paper that the review board does an excellent and seemingly unbiased job of breaking down everything including orientation and orientation identity and how that figures in to therapies aimed at "changing" orientation. While they have very very low success rates for actually changing orientation i do support many of the suggestions for therapy that this paper suggests for those therapies, including how to tie faith in and make it a positive with out using guilt or fear. I think you'd actually like most of it being it also does echo some of your thoughts.

[Echo2002]

I believe since the BSA is a private organization they can make what ever rules they want to make.

I do agree to believe that only gay men are pedophiles is dangerous. What about all of the seemingly normal "straight" men that are pedophiles? I don't think a lesbian is going to molest a boy(not saying it can't happen, but unlikely), but how can you allow lesbians but not allow gay men? I too am surprised that they are allowing women to serve in BSA above the cub scout level. I see this a being dangerous also. Look at how many sexual relationships occur between teen boys and female teachers.

I don't know what the solution is to protecting our children from sexual predators.

[Vort]

I do agree to believe that only gay men are pedophiles is dangerous. What about all of the seemingly normal "straight" men that are pedophiles?

Just as a matter of definition, any man who derives pleasure from sexual experience with boys is homosexual. However he self-identifies, this indisputable central fact remains. The only way around it is to massage the meaning of the term "homosexual" -- which of course some will do.

I don't know if homosexuals are more likely to molest boys than heterosexuals. But however that may be, I agree with the BSA's policies in this matter.

[Echo2002]

I should have said to assume that only openly gay men are likely to molest boys is dangerous.

Sandusky is a good example of a guy living a heterosexual lifestyle, but participated in homosexual activities. Some people claim it's all about control. I think control is part of it, but if it was strictly only about control Sandusky would have been molesting little girls and not little boys.

[FunkyTown]

I think the observation was: The "task force" was comprised of people with demonstrably pro-homosexual leanings and utterly devoid of those with positive experience in reparative therapy. Why is this observation out of bounds? Surely you will admit that, given this observation, the task force's "findings" seem very conveniently predetermined.

If that observation is true, which is why I asked them to quote source. Anything that suggests the leanings of the members with regards to this particular issue. There's no evidence of that in any of the proofs posted. And I'm being very lenient with the term 'proofs' as it was mostly editorializing.

[Soulsearcher]

Something a little related i found interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/health/dr-robert-l-spitzer-noted-psychiatrist-apologizes-for-study-on-gay-cure.html?bl

[carlimac]

Something a little related i found interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/health/dr-robert-l-spitzer-noted-psychiatrist-apologizes-for-study-on-gay-cure.html?bl

It is thought provoking. But his reasons for recanting seem just as unscientific. How does he know Mr. Arana wasn't lying to himself, too? I'd like to see any study on homosexuality that is pure and scientifically exact. There aren't any. There just can't be when studying the mind.

I think the APA should get out of the business of stating anything official about homosexuality other than it's a subjective and widely varied experience for individuals. They should just say, "If some folks want reparitive therapy, here are the doctors who practice it. No one is forcing them to go through it but it's available if they want it." With a more relaxed and open minded- even positive approach, maybe the therapy would be less controversial and distressing for the whole community. Why can't gays just live and let live about those who don't want to embrace and engage in their SSA?

Those who don't think this is politically driven and an effort to normalize a lifestyle that is destructive to society are burying their heads in the sand.

[FunkyTown]

Those who don't think this is politically driven and an effort to normalize a lifestyle that is destructive to society are burying their heads in the sand.

I would love to be enlightened. Quote source?

[carlimac]

I would love to be enlightened. Quote source?

The source is moi! MY own intuition. Be enlightened by just thinking it out for yourself, listening to spiritual promptings and not relying on studies and the arm of flesh. It's pretty clear. Just saying...

Edited May 21, 2012 by carlimac

[Wingnut]

The source is moi! MY own intuition. Be enlightened by just thinking it out for yourself, listening to spiritual promptings and not relying on studies and the arm of flesh. It's pretty clear. Just saying...

You might be surprised to learn that not everyone's spiritual experiences will concur with your own.

[carlimac]

You might be surprised to learn that not everyone's spiritual experiences will concur with your own.

No, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised. :)

[FunkyTown]

The source is moi! MY own intuition. Be enlightened by just thinking it out for yourself, listening to spiritual promptings and not relying on studies and the arm of flesh. It's pretty clear. Just saying...

That's definitely not something I can argue. 'Personal intuition' can't be denied as I am obviously not you.

Just be aware that laws can't be passed based on personal intuition, nor can any kind of consensus in the world be reached by everyone following personal intuition.

Truthfully, rather than attacking the study itself, I think it would have been better for all involved to simply show the counter-evidence. Better, but not more effective. If there's one thing I've learned in my life, it's that the best way to build a consensus in the world is to keep repeating what you want to be in the global subconscious. He who has the most advertising wins.

I can quote source, if you want.

[carlimac]

That's definitely not something I can argue. 'Personal intuition' can't be denied as I am obviously not you.

Just be aware that laws can't be passed based on personal intuition, nor can any kind of consensus in the world be reached by everyone following personal intuition.

Truthfully, rather than attacking the study itself, I think it would have been better for all involved to simply show the counter-evidence. Better, but not more effective. If there's one thing I've learned in my life, it's that the best way to build a consensus in the world is to keep repeating what you want to be in the global subconscious. He who has the most advertising wins.

I can quote source, if you want.

I'm not trying to pass laws. Just trying to make sense of this mess in my own mind. Since there are so many conflicting messages in the world, I have to rely on intuition, impressions, spiritual promptings- whatever we want to call them to discern truth and right from wrong.

[Soulsearcher]

It is thought provoking. But his reasons for recanting seem just as unscientific. How does he know Mr. Arana wasn't lying to himself, too? I'd like to see any study on homosexuality that is pure and scientifically exact. There aren't any. There just can't be when studying the mind.

I think the APA should get out of the business of stating anything official about homosexuality other than it's a subjective and widely varied experience for individuals. They should just say, "If some folks want reparitive therapy, here are the doctors who practice it. No one is forcing them to go through it but it's available if they want it." With a more relaxed and open minded- even positive approach, maybe the therapy would be less controversial and distressing for the whole community. Why can't gays just live and let live about those who don't want to embrace and engage in their SSA?

Those who don't think this is politically driven and an effort to normalize a lifestyle that is destructive to society are burying their heads in the sand.

Actually if you read the entire study that you felt people were left out of there were a number of studies that seem to fit your requirement. The people running the study found that many studies were flawed but in the end they seemed to find a handful of acceptable studies.

People need to make up their minds. either the APA goes back to calling homosexuality a mental issue or they get out of it all together. People seem to think it was all political, so if it was it's still a mental issue and the APA needs to stay involved, or like the spitzer article mentioned it was brought about by a serious evaluation of fact and it no longer concerns any direct form of mental health and they all need to leave the topic alone. If you support the latter it means no licensed therapist would be treating it any way because there would be nothing to treat.

the issue with saying that doctors should stay out of deciding valid medical options is worrisome. We've seen medical experts over the years realize treatments have been harming patients and have changed what the standard is to protect those they are charged with treating. think of things that used to be widely used. heroin, cocaine, tobacco, all used to be widely used to treat medical issues, and yet we know now they do a great deal of damage, would you be willing to subject yourself to those if it was shown it might help change you loose weight or sleep better? Would you be willing to snort cocaine 2-3 times a week so you could solve some medical issue?

No you could argue they still use these things in some form, distilled and refined to make them safer, but also now they have changed some of the uses to actually direct them to a more exact need and to be used where needed and where they might actually be a benefit. If a doctor is using pure heroin as a treatment you better believe he's probably harming his patients and is going to be called on it.

The issues i think you've missed is that there are people forcing some to go through the therapy. It's been used as a threat(go or else), it's been used to control(as long as you're going...), in some cases there just hasn't been a choice( surprise you are being dragged forcefully to this place and aren't coming back until you are better). Also with the low effect and high rate of negative effects it needs to be looked at. You want a more positive laid back approach and i agree, but it has to come from all sources. The gays, the churches, society need to just back off and leave it up to people to make the choice. The therapy it's self has to actually focus on the right things as well. Right now the therapy doesn't focus on anything which is proven, instead usually using a shotgun approach to solve the issues. It's a therapy that doesn't know what it's trying to treat which is where the danger comes from. "We are trying to change you but we don't really know where it comes from so we'll take guesses and hope it makes a difference, and when it doesn't work after years and years we'll blame you because you aren't trying hard enough", also worse than this is a lot of people offering the therapy aren't doctors.

It's not about live and let live. I don't care if someone want's to live it or not, in case you forget unlike many in this discussion i went through it, i tried to change for a very long time. I have friends i know directly, not just some guy who wrote a book, who have went through this therapy and show the scars. We are so vocal because for the majority it doesn't work and it can hurt them. It's like offering a radical therapy that's been proven not to work and could kill a patient to treat an uninfected paper cut.

LOL Sorry MOE didn't mean to get it even more off track

[carlimac]

I haven't any idea what reparative therapy involves. I've read about the porn approach that went on at BYU. I don't know what that was all about but it seems extreme and as far as I know, it was clear that whatever they did was more harmful than helpful. They aren't doing that anymore.

So what do you suggest for someone who loathes the idea of having SSA? They don't want to be that way. Is there no hope for them? Nowhere to go to get help?

[Soulsearcher]

I haven't any idea what reparative therapy involves. I've read about the porn approach that went on at BYU. I don't know what that was all about but it seems extreme and as far as I know, it was clear that whatever they did was more harmful than helpful. They aren't doing that anymore.

So what do you suggest for someone who loathes the idea of having SSA? They don't want to be that way. Is there no hope for them? Nowhere to go to get help?

I really don't know. Out of the many many people i've talked to and my own experiences i don't know if there is hope of change. I don't think you get the massive desire i had to change and i was able to lie. i was able to pretend i was changing. It made things worse. I'm still scared, and I'm still kinda in that self loathing group, but it's slowly dying away. I don't know if anyone really changes, or if it's they are just better at pretending that i was. I don't know if the guy you keep mentioning has really changed or just puts on the mask so he can live life in the way he wants. I think that's one of the big things. People can pretend, they can say it's all different, they aren't like they were before and just live a lie and even believe it, it's not a change but it comes close enough for some. I'm not against this if it works for some and the therapies are good at helping this, they are very good at pointing you in the desired out come and not really asking if it's true or not as long as you make it seem like it is. I just know the conflict of living the lie knowing it's the lie and it can finally overwhelm you. So i don't know if there's an answer as far as change that really works.

As for current methods they still use aversion therapy in some places though stories vary from place to place on to what extent they use it. A lot of the therapies still seem to focus on the misunderstandings on gender. They seem to think making men more manly will change the desires or that figuring out what their parents did wrong will fix it, which seems kinda silly to me but in some cases can work. A lot of therapies also seem to focus on the fact they think all gays were molested, and while some were it doesn't seem to be the majority.

[TheStig]

The Church will withdraw from the the BSA if it is coerced into allowing homosexual leaders.

Priesthood leaders, do you want to raise the spiritual level of your stewardship? Follow the Brethren.

Husbands, do you want your wives to have more confidence in you and your leadership? Follow the Brethren.

Parents, do you want your children to feel your love and more willingly accept your direction? Love the Brethren.

We have in this conference heard what the Lord would have us know. What has been said and what will yet be said should be studied and pondered and prayed over, and followed. Leave no question in anyone’s mind where you stand. Declare in quiet tones that you love the Brethren and that you are going to follow them. Add exclamation marks to your words as you quietly and faithfully follow the Brethren.

Follow the Brethren - general-conference

[MarginOfError]

The Church will withdraw from the the BSA if it is coerced into allowing homosexual leaders.

Follow the Brethren - general-conference

There are worse things in the world.

[DevtheWind]

This is for the OP... I will not sign the BSA petition (If that even matters anymore) because I do not believe the BSA include gays when they say, "morally straight".

[HEthePrimate]

I haven't any idea what reparative therapy involves. I've read about the porn approach that went on at BYU. I don't know what that was all about but it seems extreme and as far as I know, it was clear that whatever they did was more harmful than helpful. They aren't doing that anymore.

So what do you suggest for someone who loathes the idea of having SSA? They don't want to be that way. Is there no hope for them? Nowhere to go to get help?

They could get counseling. But I think they should just learn to accept themselves for who they are, not feel guilty for their SSA, and realize that everybody has trials they have to deal with. Their trial may be hard, having to go through life without being allowed to have the same kind of intimate relationship with another person that heterosexual couples can have, but it can be dealt with. I have two "maiden aunts" who never married, and they have (as far as I know!) been able to live the law of chastity. It's probably hard for them, and lonely, but they're living normal, happy lives. I myself am a widower, and though it can get lonely without my wife, life continues for me, too. It's not easy, so I have empathy for homosexual folks, but "fixing" them is not the answer, any more than "fixing" my widowed heterosexuality is possible.

So if you want to be of help to your homosexual LDS friends, just be their friend and help them feel less lonely. Show you understand, and that you accept them the way they are, as homosexuals, but more important as human beings. If they need counseling, and given the rejection many LGBT people have experienced, counseling may be useful, encourage them to get it.

Good luck!