Joshua Lynsen has an article this morning which provides some insight into the APA response to the religious coalition’s request for a meeting. Apparently, it is being considered which seems like a good thing to me.
70 thoughts on “The Washington Blade writes about the APA task force”
Comments are closed.
JAG brings up what I believe to be one of the main problems when considering conservative church responses…it’s what I call a ‘sin meter mentality’. When I addressed church gatherings years ago, I often quipped that ‘on a scale of 1 to 10, most Christians had homosexuality as a 13’. They’d be quick to point out that it’s ‘an abomination’ yet fail to notice that ‘lying lips are an abomination’ as well. (And, LOL, don’t get me started on gluttony…which seems to be the church’s pet sin. I’m not the only one that thinks that televangelists, as a group, seem to be projecting ‘fat and happy”.)
Sonya –
regarding your comments:
“Our forefathers humbly recognized that human beings have no rights except those granted by Jehovah God, the Creator, who has spoken on homosexuality, calling it unnatural and immoral. So there is no “right” to sodomy or to “homosexual marriage” — even if we decide to pretend otherwise.”
Funny, this same argument was used to justify things like slavery…after all, many christians of the time said that the “creator” was clear (see the verse “slaves obey your master.”) about slavery.
Time and and ebb and flow of societal disapproval seems to change religious tenor on more than one occasion. My prediction? We’ll hear a big “oh, we’re sorry” on the subject of same-sex marriage as well.
And as for the sodomy argument…it’s more prevalent in opposite-sexed marriage than you think. Hmm…and as long as we’re focusing on “sins”…what about gluttony?
I see a lot of overweight churchgoers these days, and nobody says anything to them. In fact, these sinners are even allowed to JOIN.
Please, even if you see homosexuality as a sin, treat all sinners the same.
Jayhuck –
“if I remember correctly, and then to give them ALL the available evidence on the subject – and that includes the fact that there are Christians who are gay and who don’t feel the need to change, even as they should give them information on groups like Exodus et al!”
Thank you for your statements…enough of the false dichotomy pitting christianity against homosexuality. There are a lot of gay/lesbian christians, reconciling churches and ministries out there.
And many places of God who accept and celebrate them for exactly who they are.
Folks – I do not think we are getting anywhere with this. I am closing all comments on this thread. Please everybody — breathe deeply and let’s try again on another thread.
Moderating comments is difficult given the time it takes to read every comment and try to make distinctions between strong feeling and personal attacks. At times, I think I might just let it all go through without moderation and at other times, I think I will just remove comments altogether.
Again, I ask that all concerned keep remarks to the thread we are on and provide reasons for disagreements that exist on substantive issues. Inasmuch as I have allowed personal attacks through, I apologize.
For awhile anyway, references to personal characteristics (there you go again) or assuming what someone believes (you think all gays are evil) will be deleted no matter how substantive the actual comment is.
If folks want to email me about this, do so. But no more comments on this thread.
Dr. Throckmorton,
I am going to ask you the same as Eddy did – I know my last response was removed and yet Timothy’s continue to be posted. Since mine was written in a very different manner than the ones you continue to post on his behalf, I’m wondering why mine was removed. I am respectfully asking that you post it. Please do not lose any more people who have contributed here in order to accommodate one who uses your forum for venting and targeting others with personal attacks. Those who have been targeted have asked the perpetrator to stop in the nicest way we can and yet he chooses to violate the rules of decency and by his own admission – attack. I am asking you to consider it as well and will respect whatever you decide.
Timothy,
Even if it were true, it’s not the ONLY thing. BUT, since it’s the only thing HERE, I’m finding it difficult to justify sticking around.
Warren,
Would it be possible to establish some kind of discussion forum or group where we wouldn’t have to put up with the bullying and constant topic derailment and domination? (No, I wasn’t bullied…but Anon2 definitely was–and has been nearly every time he’s returned–and Ann got a sampling too.)
I honestly believe that a number of the topics you presented have warranted more discussion than they were allowed to receive. …I’m not saying to quit this. I’m suggesting that a topic might come up once every week or two that some of us might like to discuss at length–and to some sort of ‘resolve’ without the constant offensive posturing. Can you give it some thought?
Mary,
You are right about the selection of the word “Creator”. As many of the early leaders of the country would not have been considered “Christain” in the sense that we know it, they were very hesitant to appeal to Jehovah God. Thus you see references to “Nature and Nature’s God”, to “Providence”, and to “The Creator” without any references to Christianity, Jehovah, or Christ.
And, as she often is, Sonja is rebutted by the very words she selected. She just put emphasis on the wrong part:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
She was so eager to try and force God into that sentence that she didn’t read it. She forgot that this self-evident truth is that all men are equal regardless as to merits of rank or race or status or sex or orientation and that the right of each man to pursue happiness cannot be alienated – that is, cannot be severed from them even if their government does not respect or enforce that right.
It is this unalienable right that exists in Darfur, even though those holding the right to life are being slaughtered. The right of those victims of the modern slave trade to freedom exists even though their captors don’t recognize it. And my right to pursue happiness stands whether or not Sonja passes constitutional amendments to try and block it or not.
This is how we recognize moral governments. Those who honor the inalienable rights are guided by the Creator, and those who seek to set themselves above other men and to hold the right to pursue happiness, to live life, and to enjoy liberty exclusive to themselves seek an immoral government.
I challenge Sonja – and really all of us – to look at our efforts and our desires and see if we truly believe that all men (and women) are created equally. And do we really believe that each of us in entitled and righted to live, enjoy liberty, and pursue happiness on an equal standing?
Eddy,
It’s either politics or Exodus. It’s Always either politics or Exodus.
Wait…. isn’t that the same thing? 😉
Sonja,
Our forefathers used the word creator – having been very educated men, some of them even had Korans in their posession – I wonder if you know the intent of their minds when that was written, what was argued about before it was signed, and why it is sooooo vague as to what is meant by creator.
American Gospel – which was recently on the bestseller’s list is a good book to read for historical quotes, value, insight just for thought.
NICKC,
I (as in me, Mary) do not have Alan Chambers. I do not support his politics, policies, or position on many social issues. I disagree with his use of his position AS MUCH as I disagree with Wayne Besen and his political fairy telling of the facts, truth, reality as well.
You are (without having much historical information) just as guilty of blaming others when you blame me.
And the topic of this thread is….? Anyone? Anyone?
(53 comments so far…derailed in the early 20’s somewhere)
LOL! And what has the topic become? Anyone? Anyone? That’s right…politics…good answer! But, an easy question really. Since, there’s only two possible answers. It’s either politics or Exodus. It’s Always either politics or Exodus.
Congratulations on another successful derailment!!!
Incidentally, I’m still waiting for an example of “misrepresentation and spin”. I’ll gladly retract any dishonest statements on my part, Ann.
Ann,
I have a challenge for you. Go back and re-read my comments. I think you will find (to your surprise) that I was arguing ideas, beliefs, and positions, not attacking persons. My comments were in the form of “you believe… I believe…”.
Contrast that with your comments which were directed at me personally. I find it amusing that your personal attacks are in the form of accusing me of… personal attacks. Hence my comment to you about irony.
I have nothing against either you or Anon2. Any criticism I have is for your beliefs, opinions, claims, or assertions.
Sonja Dalton: “Our forefathers humbly recognized that human beings have no rights except those granted by Jehovah God, the Creator, who has spoken on homosexuality, calling it unnatural and immoral. So there is no “right” to sodomy or to “homosexual marriage” — even if we decide to pretend otherwise.”
You know you can interpret any scripture any way you like, many if not most of the ‘forefathers’ and perhaps the writer of the passage were deists, not a Christians. Their interpretation was pretty much what was literally written, and it doesn’t say Jehovah, or even god. My interpretation of the script is that my Creator is my mother and she’s jiggy with my homosexuality as both a natural and moral expression of my sexually intimate self.
On the Anon2/TImothy debacle I naturally go down on the side of Timothy. And there is that word… nature. But it is less a question of nature than it is a question of man’s own intellect. Aristotlian ‘natural law’ is not a statement of nature but a statement of man’s intellectual interpretation of nature in a way which is a somewhat arrogant and prideful of man’s position in nature. Nor was ‘natural law’ ever a complete statement about the totality of nature. Aristotlian ‘natural law’ is a philosophy which is almost as much a religion as the Christianity which incorporated it under Aquinas.
So what is it that we teach in (public) schools? Is it what we observe in nature and not what we wish to observe nature to be (natural law)? There are people who live their lives as homosexuals, do we let the playground be the learning-ground for our children about homosexuals? Or do we speak in our classrooms about the distinctive diversity of human life?
Dr. Throckmorton,
Can we say that it is fair to attack the subject instead of attacking who wrote it as has been exhibited in some of the posts?
Ann,
I actively seek to avoid being dishonest here. If I am making misrepresentations and spin, I’d love an example so I can mend my ways.
I’m not always polite – though I try to be when others are being genuine. So I will readily concede that. But I do seek to avoid spin.
Yes, I have my perspective. But I try not to be unfair.
And yes I can be provocative – as I was with Anon2 above. But I save that for those who won’t communicate freely otherwise. If Anon2 addressed the conversation and answered the simple question, I wouldn’t have gone on the attack (which I most definitely did). I really want to know his position – and his posts seem contradictory.
I don’t think you know the meaning of irony.
Oops – Timothy – you did it again.
From where I sit, ANON2 and Timothy are both missing each other’s meaning. Both sides feel infringed upon by the other and want to express that. I do think free speech gives me the right to say my mind and to advocate for my position. I may win or lose the day but I do have the right to speak. Schools and the public square are, well, public so ideas must win or lose the day on their merits not by censorship. Only in extreme cases can we prevent expression and this is often decided by a court and not by whim of the enforcers. People have told gay people that they are living a lie, I suppose it is natural (but sad) that some will do to you what was done to them. I do think though that one cannot dictate the reactions of others.
On the other hand, it seems clear to me that intimidation and spin are used by certain elements on both ideological sides. Arguing over who does it most seems pointless. But it does occur and has right here in this thread. My advice is simply to address the substantive issues that have been raised and let the rest go.
We have an unusual forum here. There aren’t many like it. We look for common threads and understanding but there are real differences as well.
Anon2,
It is disheartening to see the “misrepresentations and spin” that he resorts to. I really don’t think he realizes how he he doing the same things to others as he accuses them of doing to him or he would stop. It is just too obvious and revealing. Perhaps someone who cares about him and how he respresents himself and others can intervene.
Ann,
I don’t think you know the meaning of irony.
Anon2,
I didn’t set out to offend you. I asked you a simple question (39519). You chose not to answer. So I had no other choice but to deduce from your comments what you believe. You seem not to like my deductions – but you don’t say that you believe otherwise.
This isn’t about “sides” or some great culture war wherein people are telling you what you have to believe. This is communication (or an attempt at it).
Rather than stomping off or leaving everyone else walking on egg shells, why don’t you just state what you believe.
You are quite insistent on your rights. So tell us: Do you or don’t you think gay people should have all and exactly the same rights and equalities as straight people and ex-gay people?
oops, Timothy is at it again – sarcastic, contemptuous, remarks – attacking on a personal level – using every opportunity to disparage what someone else says who is not supporting his beliefs.
Timothy,
Once again you misrepresent everything I have said and therefore I find I have no further comment on this with you say. I have seen the exact things you are accusing me of time and time again, but from the other side.
I bid you all farwell.
OK, Anon2, let’s look at what you believe:
You believe that your own personal values should dictate the curriculum for other parents’ children. You believe that the desire to innoculate your children from pro-gay influences trumps the rights of other parents to have fact-based information provided as to the world around them.
I find that belief to be amazingly selfish.
You don’t believe in the freedom of speech. Your desire to hear only affirming things trumps anyone else’s desire to express their opinion. I would think this is an overstatement, but you keep saying the same thing about what other people “have no right to tell you”.
I find that belief overwhelmingly totalitarian.
You believe that you can dictate what “lifestyles” are “unacceptable”. You don’t believe in individual freedoms or in choice but in dictatorial conformity.
I find that belief to abhorent.
You believe that “natural law” or religion-based law trumps constitutional protections and rights.
I find that belief to be theocratic and the enemy of freedom.
In short, Anon2, you really don’t believe that gay people should have the same rights as you. And although you seek to be the oppressor you want to disquise your animosity as martyrdom. Instead of admitting that you want to curtail my rights and freedoms you harp on about imaginary slights against you and the horrible things people are “telling you”.
Well, I’m sorry. But “you said mean things” just doesn’t rank up there with your desire to control my life.
Until you are willing to allow me the same rights and freedoms that you want, you aren’t going to get much more sympathy for your “no one understands or love me” complaint. The boo-boo to your feelings just doesn’t compare to the holes you are blasting in my civil equalities.
If, however, you want to endorse freedom and equality for all, then I’ll be glad to help you change the language of the people who are offending your sensebilities.
ANON2,
I agree with you – 100% on that.
Jayhuck,
And progays do not have the right to force their beliefs on my children in school or in my church if I do not wish for them to be influenced by this. And they do not have the right to tell me I am living a lie if I do not accept that all with the homosexual lifestyle is good. There are definitely good people who may embrace that lifestyle, but there are many aspects of it that are unacceptable as there are in straight communities. The bottom line for me is that we all fall short and need to look at ourselves before we begin to impose ourselves on others. I will be the first to recognize how difficult this can be.
ANON2
I think you might have misunderstood Timothy – that is exactly what he is saying – I think – that no one should try to force their beliefs on anyone else – and that includes Ex-Gay groups like Exodus using their power and influence to affect politics negatively for gay people – Sorry for going here again, but Ex-Gays don’t have the right to prevent gay marriage anymore than Gay people have a right to somehow prevent Ex-Gays from pursuing their bliss.
Regarding you assertion of scientific evidence – there is VASTLY more scientific evidence pointing to a genetic component of homosexuality than there is any scientific evidence for a general positive experience of Reparative Therapy
Our nation’s founding documents plainly define the origin of any/all “rights” afforded to US Citizens:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Our forefathers humbly recognized that human beings have no rights except those granted by Jehovah God, the Creator, who has spoken on homosexuality, calling it unnatural and immoral. So there is no “right” to sodomy or to “homosexual marriage” — even if we decide to pretend otherwise.
Hi Mary,
I don’t talk about myself on this blog but let me just say that your comments to Anon2 #39612 meant a lot to me. Thank you.
ANON2,
You will find a lot of people just like yourself. Your own answers need not be explained to anyone else. I know for myself that my family pretty much thinks I am ridiculous for changing. As if it was thier life!! Be strong and keep doing what you need to do.
So, NEITHER ex-gay nor gay would have the right to marry their own gender??
Tim,
I base my idea of rights on what is natural not what is enforced by a man made law. If that is natural for you then perhaps that is true, but that does not give you the right to impose your acceptance on me or to say that I am living a lie because I have not accepted my homosexual feelings. I am not implying that is what you would do, but time and time again I have heard this used as a way to close down discussion. I also hear the idea that there is no scientific evidence that change is possible so this claim cannot be made and yet the evidence for the genetic link is also very inconclusive, but yet we are expected to believe this. And don’t tell me it is supportive because I have read much of the literature and what the media says about it and what science is telling us are very different things. For this reason I will not give up on the possibility of change and I will not try to convince anyone who wants to explore their family of origin issues to not do so because someone else is telling me that they have nothing to do with my SSA.
Good point Tim 🙂
Anon2,
I am happy that you have found a life that you wish to pursue. You did say one thing that I want to commend:
They do not want to tell gay people they cannot live as they wish,..
Would it then be fair to say that we have found common ground on the following items?
1. Gay persons should be free to live as they wish with ALL of the rights of heterosexuals and ex-gays.
2. Ex-gay persons should be free to live as they wish with ALL of the rights of heterosexuals and gays.
Yes, thank you ANON2.
Hi Anon2,
And, there are also those who simply make a decision to quietly walk away from how they formerly lived and identified themselves and we never hear about those individuals. Whatever their personal reasons were for doing so, they should be respected as well. Thank you for your post – it was needed and appreciated.
The rise of internet porn among women has been reported. I think we will see numbers increase on this for awhile.
NICKC,
You put Warren in a side or group? What about people such as myself – ex gay, liberal, anti-violence. I’m sorry but Wayne Besen has a very different color when the “public” isn’t looking. And I doubt Glatze is on my side or Warren’s side.
And can you explain your comment about my being thinned skin??
Thank you Timothy,
I will no longer be intimidated by this kind of talk. I have seen it commonly on XGW and have heard it hear. I have also experienced it for years by those trying to push a progay political view and I have seem it be quite effective in shutting down many voices that should have been heard on this topic long ago. They do not see themselves as ex-gays but rather people who believe in following what their religious traditions have given them and who wish to live there lives according to those. They do not want to tell gay people they cannot live as they wish, but they also do not want to be told that there religion is lying to them. These religious traditions are not always fundamentalist either. If you have found a faith community that will support you as an openly gay man then you should be grateful for that. If someone else finds support in a community because they do not wish to live a gay life it would seem to me that we should be able to accept that also.
And in emulation of Jayhuck, the serial poster, let me add one more point. It is, it seems to me, the critical point on this particular issue of activist gays vs activist ex-gays:
To publicly question someone’s sincerity or truthfulnees is a world away from seeking legal restrictions to keep that person from pursuing his own way of life.
Some of those who comment here–Anon2, Mary, Jack–are very thin-skinned about any questioning of their personal choices. Yet they face absolutely no legal barriers or societal stigma in their pursuit of a heterosexual identity. It’s quite a different situation on the other side of this debate.
Wayne is not the only one to question the sincerity and veracity of ex-gays who publicize themselves in order to score political points–especially since so many of those public ex-gays have been caught out in their lies in the past.
And it’s laughable for Mary to criticize someone like Wayne for being “very political” when you have Alan Chambers actually making political ads to oppose gay rights and legal protections.
Let’s remember, Warren, that just a few weeks ago you were expressing hope that we’d all be gentle in our comments on poor Michael Glatze, who actually calls for legal punishment for homosexuals as a way to contain our “cancer.” Seems to me that Wayne still has a lot to learn from your side about how to be a bully.
Anon2,
To be fair, I probably do have a condescending (or, at least, mocking) attitude towards some of your comments. And that is unkind of me. I apologize.
Warren,
I agree. Besen’s attitude and hysteria hype are a form of intimidation trying to shut down the voice of anyone with a differing perspective. He is absolutely against religion or a God that does not see things his own particular way. He is very political. He never corrects mistakes to his yellow journalism and in short he is a bully.
To my knowledge Wayne has not been in a political ad, but he has publicly questioned the sincerity of any one in a straight marriage who once lived gay. He wants ex-gays to take lie detector tests as a part of research because he says they are lying. He deliberately distorts Exodus history, saying the Gary Cooper and Michael Bussee were the sole co-founders of Exodus. Michael has disputed this and in point of fact most co-founders of Exodus are today not living as gay.
It is hard to hear the live and let live there.
Timothy,
Your condescending attitude is the exact thing that I find difficult to accept. That to me is an attempt to shut down opposition to your point of view.
Wayne Besen is perfectly capable of defending himself, if he happens to be reading these comments. However, I do know Wayne Besen personally, and I spoke at his press conference in Washington announcing the formation of Truth Wins Out. I agree completely with Jayhuck above. Wayne has no animus against individuals who want to pursue their own choice of how to live and express their sexual orientation. His campaign is against those who use false promises of “change” to spread misinformation.
The fact is that it is the ex-gays and their supporters–organizations like Focus on the Family. Concerned Women of America, and Exodus–that oppose the rights of the rest of us to live openly according to our orientation. I’ve never seen Wayne Besen appear in a political ad seeking to prohibit ex-gays from entering heterosexual marriages. I haven’t seen PFLAG trying to block sex education that recognizes heterosexuality as a normal occurence. I haven’t seen the HRC oppose protection for religious groups from hate crimes and violence.
YEah – those teo would do away with GOd.
Mary,
Yes, I agree with you – thank you for pointing that out to me – it really seems like the only fair and right thing to do for the client so they can then make their own decision based on what is best for them. It is how I would want to be treated.
Warren,
Even Wayne Besen has said that he is fine if a person wants to pursue living within their values – What he doesn’t abide is the fact that the organizations that provide many of these services (and forgive me all for going here again – and forgive me Wayne if I’m misrepresenting you here) use their power and influence to peddle non-scientifically established views on homosexuality, they distribute misinformation about gay people, and they all do this as part of a larger political agenda – I’ve heard Wayne say that a person should have the right to live the way they want, but that it is not right, good or even Christian for these self-proclaimed religious organizations like Focus on the Family or Exodus to lie!!!!!
Timothy – You are correct about the vast majority of readers here. However, Richard Rothstein and Wayne Besen are two names that come to mind that probably wouldn’t agree. There may be more…
I have been feeling so much anger from those that are to afraid to admit that there are some people who cannot accept the their SSA is all that they are and wish to live according to the traditions of the religion rather than trust in the new religion of science that can’t seem to decide whether something is good for a person and not.
Gosh, have you?
Really?
Because I’ve never met any of those people you are feeling anger from. I don’t know ANYONE afraid to admit that you want to follow your religion. Everyone here is saying, “fine, goodie, jolly for you, have at it”.
Those angry folks you’re talking about must be the fictional “militant gay activists” we hear so much about.
Jack,
I think that’s true, but that process you describe of seeking advice is what everyone does with most decisions they make on a daily basis. Its nothing new – and you’re right – the vast majority of gay people will never seek therapy for changing their desires – mostly just the radically religious who feel they must!
I’m not saying I know the answer for ANYONE – even myself most of the time. If I gave that impression, I apologize.
Jack-
For all your capitalized excitement, you seem to overlook one little point. The APA is not an organization of CLIENTS, making rules for how individuals should live. It is a PROFESSIONAL society of THERAPISTS.
If the APA believes that a particular type of therapy has been proven ineffective, flies in the face of scientific research, and has potential to harm a large number of people, it has a responsibility to say, “You can’t practice that type of therapy and be a member in good standing of our professional organization.”
It doesn’t matter how many people might want that therapy. The job of a professional organization is to set standards for the professional practice of its members.
Now, I’m not even saying that all the above is proven about reparative therapy. But that’s really the issue being debated. It’s not a debate on individuals pursuing their own personal choices–I think we can all agree that each individual has the right to deal with same-sex attractions as he or she wishes. The question the APA faces is much narrower: Is “reparative therapy” a legitimate practice that meets the APA’s professional standards?
Ann,
Perhaps that question should be directed towards the client.
Hi Jayhuck,
I just read Dr. Throckmorton’s post – after I wrote mine – think I have my answer now.
Jayhuck – Thanks for clarifying. I’m talking about adults (not unemancipated minors, which is guided by laws, values, rules, etc. With the exception of LIFE AND DEATH ISSUES where the therapist, friend, etc. must intervene, once the therapist or friend or whoever has explained the options, opinions, all sides, IT IS UP TO THE , CLIENT, FRIEND TO DECIDE WHAT IS BEST FOR THEM. They have a right to make their own decision, right or wrong. We may disagree with it, but it is their right. Although many people do see a therapist, there are some people who haven’t seen a therapist and maybe never will, but have confided in a friend, family member, pastor, etc. So, once the person has heard all that he/she feels they need to know (whether or not we agree that they have heard enough and might need more opinions, advice, etc.), I don’t think that it is ANYONE ELSES BUSINESS (although they may have an opinion, but haven’t we heard enough already?) what their decision is (and they may not have decided as yet), whether they want to be gay, ex-gay, ex-ex gay, celibate or whatever. Sometimes, I get the impression that you think that you know the answers for others, but YOU don’t walk in their shoes. It is their decision, not yours or anyone elses what they want to be or not be.
Jayhuck,
Sometimes I have to put my thoughts in multiple posts too – anyway, I am glad the APA is considering Dr. Throckmorton’s letter – it can only expand the things being discussed and include those who need a voice. Do you or anyone else think a client who seeks therapy for SSA acceptance for/with themselves should receive the same information as the client who seeks to place their other values above their SSA and come to accept that as their goal? Should the client seeking personal values as their primary goal be given the same information as the other client?
jayhuck said:
I hope that makes more sense – I just meant a therapist needs to provide well-rounded information to the client so that they can make an intelligent decision on their own – if they are operating on a one-sided view, and have never heard or been sheltered from other views, how can they make a REAL decision? Does that makes sense?
Yes, that makes sense and that is exactly what we recommend in our framework. It is also why I took such exception to the reports of the Camerons. Counselors are often not researchers and they will often simply repeat what they read in journals without being critical consumers of the research. This occurs on all sides. Counselors need to do a much better job of keeping up.
Mary,
Actually, Wikipedia is incredibly accurate – there has been at least one study done that compares it to Encyclopedia Britannica, and it was pretty spot on. They do have controls in place so that people can’t just write anything they want. I’ve been pleasantly suprised with it as a resource!
If you want to know more about it you shoudl probably write one of the many people who created it – its not as simple as people just writing stuff and putting it out there though
I agree with you Jack. I have been feeling so much anger from those that are to afraid to admit that there are some people who cannot accept the their SSA is all that they are and wish to live according to the traditions of the religion rather than trust in the new religion of science that can’t seem to decide whether something is good for a person and not.
Jack and Mary,
AND, of course, people are always free NOT to seek therapy and live the way their hearts lead them – whether that is to do what society thinks is best, or what religion thinks is best, or what the person thinks is best – sometimes this involves the on or more of the first two items and sometimes it doesn’t – but when it comes to therapy, therapists can’t just do whatever it is a client wants without asking questions and without understanding why – and without some determination if it is best for the client – sigh – I have no idea why I can’t fit all my ideas into one post – I’m trying 🙂
Jack and Mary –
Sorry – here I go again with my multiple posts –
AH – I think I understand where you might be getting upset – My point wasn’t to prevent people from doing what they want, – but the job of a good therapist isn’t just to do what the client wants no matter what – if a client wants to kill themself, the therapist doesn’t help them do this – that is client-centered therapy taken to the extreme, but I hope you understand what I’m saying –
but if a person comes to a therapist and is having problems with their same-sex attractions, it is only appropriate for the therapist to figure out WHY – even Warren acknowledged this on CNN, if I remember correctly, and then to give them ALL the available evidence on the subject – and that includes the fact that there are Christians who are gay and who don’t feel the need to change, even as they should give them information on groups like Exodus et al!
I hope that makes more sense – I just meant a therapist needs to provide well-rounded information to the client so that they can make an intelligent decision on their own – if they are operating on a one-sided view, and have never heard or been sheltered from other views, how can they make a REAL decision? Does that makes sense?
Again – sorry if I offended – I didn’t mean to!!!!!!
Jack – part deux,
I absolutely AGREE people should be free to decide whatever it is that they want – but Warren would agree with this – they need to have ALL the information out there, and that doesn’t just include information from one side
Jack,
What did I say that made you think I was forcing people to do anything? All I did was respond to Mary’s question by saying we have to define those things like Religion before we can get into a discussion about them – its just a difficult topic – where is all YOUR anger coming from????
I truly apologize if I was trying to force anything on anyone. I’ve been reading over my two posts above and I don’t understand your aggression
Is wikipedia really all that accurate if people can “man” the site and influence it anyway they want to????
Jayhuck – I did not say that humanism was the samething as atheism. I do beleive it is a type of religion and conduct code.
Thank you Jack. I agree with you that people should be allowed to make up their own minds. Sometimes it does not make sense to other people how we decide.
Jayhuck, why can’t you just allow people the right to be left alone to make up their mind whether or not they want to change or remain in whatever it is that may or may not be troubling them. It is really NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. You seem so aggressive about forcing your ideas of what people should or should not do or be. Why don’t you just back off.
Mary –
As for humanism and secularism being religions – I think it depends on how you define religion. Just because I’m for keeping science and religion apart – mainly because they address very different, but overlapping, things, doesn’t mean I’m a secular humanist, or whatever it is the religious right calls people these days.
Dictionary.com defines a religion as: “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”
I suppose humanism might some this up, but is humanism the same thing as atheism – I don’t think so – There are many things that would have to be defined – and well – Mary, before we could begin to answer that question of yours 🙂
I think its always being considered Mary – but religious voices other than those that oppose homosexuality need to be included in this mix – and need to be made available to those struggling with their desires. Just because someone wants to change doesn’t mean they should – at the very least – and I think Warren would support this – they should know there are good, faithful Christian people who don’t require you to change such an important part of who you are. – at the very least, many say you don’t need therapy to live a righteous life!
I’m starting to wonder how long it will be before we see some straight people in therapy wanting to explore the SSAs that they have – I’m sure it won’t be many since being straight is VASTLY more accepted by society and religion, but I’m sure there will be some
At least, it is being considered. Why is it that humanism or secularism are not being viewed as a religion as well? Sometimes I read what the APA is attempting and that is exactly what it sounds like to me – a new religion where man is placed in the role of God.