Warrenwrote in one comment: “This is what we have. We do not have a representative sample of people who went into change therapy and then were followed long term with percentages of people who were helped and those were not. When we get that, we can talk a bit more intelligently about the impact. But now we don’t have it.

So yes, metaphysics and values are key. Blustering that science should be accepted over religion assumes that we actually have relevant science.”

and you made note that: “Psychodynamic practitioners in general trust case studies more than outcome research and reparative therapists are by and large psychodynamic.”

But isn’t it true that case studies are, almost by definition, anecdotal. It’s easy to write case studies of the three “successful” patients and just say nothing about the three or thirty or three hundred or thirty thousand for whom the therapy didn’t work.

Could the APA task force essentially put reparative therapy on probation–saying “put up or shut up” with the numbers already. Do the outcome studies and show us that this therapy works for most–or even a substantial minority–of patients who undergo it. You have three years to produce the peer-reviewed studies that show that the 100 success stories Robert Spitzer found aren’t all you have to show for the tens of thousands of patients you claim over the past 40 years.

Hi Jag,

Fortunately or unfortunately I come from my heart on this and not from any group or advocacy position. I agree with your statement that everyone should be treated equally – or were you quoting me 🙂

Hi Jag,

No I am not advocating that at all.

You stated

“shouldn’t all bullying stop for everyone? I think a prostitute, homeless person, orphan, the disabled, the unwed mother, and those living in poverty deserve the same rights in this area as anyone else – why would their label be excluded and sexual orientation be included – isn’t this discrimminatory – do you really think this is fair or right? We are all the same when it comes to protection under law. Please don’t promote one individual over another”

So, are you advocating that we revoke all protected classes…like those with disabilities, race, religion, sex, etc…?

Religion is a choice, and yet we protect that group. Why do we do so over others?

Just so you know, the above you mentioned ARE protected and given special protections…most places in the east coast anyway, have protections for those regardless of “socioeconomic standing” (homeless, prostitute, orphaned, poverty), gender/sex, orientation, religion, disability, etc..

The laws often protect those who cannot protect themselves. You know, even when the majority believes something is wrong or should be persecuted, the law is instituted to protect them…

Everyone should indeed be treated equally. Sadly, sometimes you have to legislate that.

Thank you for your kind and generous comment – no need to apologize – your comments have never been offensive to me as I know they haven’t been personally directed to hurt me in anyway – you have spoken with conviction and from knowledge and I only have respect for you. By the way 🙂 I read the article that you suggested and found the opposition argument to the proposed law very weak. The argument for it was much stronger. Thank you again for your patience and persistance in having me read it.