unwanted attractions equal socially induced shame. Some deal with it better than others. Attempts to change one’s orientation are futile and destructive.

Stephen,

I’m not too sure about changing one’s orientation, however, one can change a perspective toward it and many successfully do. Ethical therapy and one’s personal desire matter a lot in successful treatment.

To find out more about where the science is you might want to look at Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why: The Science of Sexual Orientation by Simon LeVay.

I am referring to credible, substantiated, and widely accepted agreement about sexual orientations. We do not have that yet. Simon LeVay is one person and, so far, his views have not been widely accepted as a standard.

The reporter wanted to expose her. And why not? Her harmful incompetence should be exposed. I wouldn’t want a doctor treating my measles by bleeding me. By and large British people do not want American evangelicals interfering in their lives. The damage they can do has been brought into higher relief due to the deplorable situation in Uganda. We hear a lot about ‘cures’ from Lively and co. It also raised its head during the repeal of DADT.

I think what the reporter did is reprehensible. He mis-represented himself with the intention of harming the therapist. He followed through with it. He is deceptive and yet, is calling the therapist out for the same thing. I don’t know how he can be defended.

As ever, Eddy likes to blame gay people for reacting to the never-ending stream of nonsense directed at us every day. ‘Diversity NOT accepted’ indeed! The reason I mentioned this case was the link in the OP to a story on the FRC, leading proponents of praying the gay away.

I hold a very different opinion of Eddy than you. He puts it all into perspective and is not afraid challenging that which needs to be challenged. In the face of verbal bullying, his courage and intelligence is to be admired.

Have you found the facts I asked you for regarding your comment on Narth? Are there any?

How did this thread become about NARTH, and reparative therapy?

David Blakeslee,

I am not sure why Stephen made the following comment

Ann, NARTH and all its derivatives are entirely religious in nature. Finally the ‘cure’ is all about ‘accepting Jesus’.

I questioned it here and have yet to hear any response back.

Stephen,

I believe this statement is not true. Please point me to something that supports your statement regarding Narth as being entirely religious in nature and that the cure they cite is all about accepting Jesus.

I believe the diversion came from Stephen citing the article about the UK therapist that Dr. Throckmorton has a separate thread on now.

Chronic mental illness = UK Therapist = reparative therapy = Narth = oy vey.

David Blakeslee# ~ Jan 16, 2011 at 10:29 pm

“The issue at the core appears to be something else entirely: Legal protections for the SMI that occasionally put the public at severe risk”

What about legal protections for the rest of the population that occasionally put the public at severe risk? Are you concerned about those as well?

can anyone answer the following questions:

what percentage of murders are committed by those with a mental illness?

what percentage of murders are committed by young male minorities? by racists (or other bigots)? by people who play violent video games? by other identifiable groups?

what percentage of those with a mental illness commit murder, or other violent crime? what about the other groups mentioned above?

I think examining/improving the mental healthcare system in the US is a good idea, but not ignoring a person’s rights he just because he is mentally ill.

Rampage murders appear to be performed disproportionately by Males, with SMI, under the age of 40 (?).

Here is another tidbit: SMI and drug abuse. Loughner experimented with pot, alcohol and legal hallucinogens.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/us/18salvia.html?_r=1

Be it noted that the diversity that is NOT tolerated is for a person who is homosexually inclined to believe that perhaps they were NOT born gay…that the ‘inclusivity of treatment’ is indeed discriminating against those of their kind who believe that their homosexuality may have been a learned response or behavior…that those who believe such are indeed judged to be foolish and misguided. Any homosexually inclined person who believes that their homosexual inclinations are NOT a ‘fundamental aspect of (their) personal identity’ shall be without recourse or resource in psychiatry despite the fact that it has not yet been determined that homosexuality is inborn

Good points.