Well that’s a pretty silly take. I’m not worried about my relationship with God these days, in fact I am far more secure than I ever was before. It turns out that loving my neighbor was pretty important.

Encouraging people to sin because it makes them feel happy is not loving your neighbors. Actually, it contradicts the definition of love. Speaking of love, I suggest you check out 1 Corinthians 13.

I see that you are the kind of people who knew the Truth but intentionally chose to reject it and follow the Devil in order to please the feelings of various ungodly people who are proud of their sinful wicked ways and rebelling against God. Well, 2 Peter 2 has a proper description of your kind: you are false teachers behaving like dogs returning to their vomits. But no matter what you do, and how much you are trying to silence us, your lies and hypocrisies will always be exposed and the Truth will prevail over your lies.

So, are you saying that Arana’s article posted in this thread is totally debunking Spitzer’s study? There were studies done by Shidlo & Shroeder on the effects of repairative therapy, done after Spitzer twice, and they both did not replicate, by showing that people who try it cannot change and can even feel harmed by such therapy. Yet Shidlo & Shroeder did not come to conclusions that SOCE is generally harmful. There was a also a study of Jones & Yarhouse showing positive outcomes of SOCE, and a study done by Lisa Diamond, who interestingly enough opposes SOCE, came to conclusion that there is a fluidity in human sexuality, especially among women.

Just because I am willing to believe based on evidence that in general people can change their sexualities, it doesn’t mean that I support everything that other conservatives advocate. For example, I hate what George Bush did in the Middle East and Afghanistan, even though I’m registered Republican and I’ll probably vote for Trump. Obama seemed a little better than Bush but not good enough for me. I also understand that sometimes abortion is the only necessary option to save a woman’s life, hence, it should be legal, safe, and rare.

Let’s get back to the subject of Spitzer’s study and the issues surrounding it. It was actually he, who contributed to homosexuality being declassified as a mental disorder. Btw, disorder does not mean illness and by 1973, homosexuality was considered so, particularly as a deviation. Like, schizophrenia was/is mental illness, but homosexuality was not, more along claustrophobia. Spitzer and like minded individuals concluded that because homosexuals cannot feel comfortable with practicing heterosexuality it does not make them disordered. They also concluded that homosexuals can, in generally, function well and contribute to society. A lot of it was based on studies of Evelyn Hooker, but Hooker did not specify whether homosexuality itself is either good or bad thing for humanity. I got this information from books “The politics of a diagnosis” by Ronald Bayer and “Destructive trends in mental heath” by Nicolas Cummings, past APA president. Both people, like Spitzer were socially liberal and supportive of gay rights, but they admitted that they felt pressured by activism to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder.

This is why, it was a shock for LGBT community, when Spitzer published his study by claiming that some people can completely change from homosexuals to heterosexuals. His critics accused him for not checking whether these people were telling the truth. Finally, after having conversations with Arana, he publicly admitted that because he did not test credibility of his participants, he no longer has such firm conclusions. I’m fine with it, but I personally find the same thing about Arana’s article: it’s not clear whether everything he said is the truth. Also, SOCE’s therapists argue that when people do not pursue change on their own desires, it would not work for them. Arana’s own words prove that.

You are basically having an argument that is at this point 15-20 years in the past and long since debunked. Lots of newer studies disproved the conclusions drawn from the research you cite. Yes, people often cling to very old research in order to not have to adjust their beliefs. I’m sorry you have chosen to be one of them.

I’m not going to engage in a debate with you where we have to pretend there hasn’t been two decades of research superseding the work you cite, or do all the catching up in this thread. Should you get to the modern state of the science, it’s possible people may engage with you, if they believe you are arguing in good faith.

that’s the problem. I don’t think he is legitimate.

When some people see evidence that is contrary to they beliefs they will dig deeper to find out what the facts are. However, there are others who will ignore/discount anything that doesn’t fit with their preconceived notions.

If sam80 is legitimate, one of the more interesting aspects of him is that he seems to assume we just haven’t studied the same things he has. For many of us, those were our starting positions, multiple posters on here came from strong conservative backgrounds and positions, including Warren himself. In my home growing up, Mike Pence would have seemed like a moderate at best, and we learned every bit of ‘evidence’ that disproved the claims of LGBTQ, sexism, racism and socialism. We listened to Rush Limbaugh routinely, but we always had the caveat that he wasn’t a declared Christian so we had to be somewhat skeptical. G. Gordon Liddy was often referenced in our home as a patriot.

It took me literally decades to learn otherwise on many topics. I am still only moderately to the left, but I’ve taken seriously the need for evidence, research and eliminating bias. I now recognize that my previous positions on climate change, women’s rights & abortion, LGBTQA, racial and economic disparity and many other issues were in fact not evidence based, and I have adjusted my views to reflect that reality while attempting to correct the record with as many people who previously listened to me as possible. I am not afraid to admit I was wrong, and that there are some things I am likely still wrong on, but at least I’m aligning with the best available evidence now.

We didn’t all grow up as commie liberals, many of us grew up to the right of mainstream Republicans, and only our ability to learn and grow changed our views.

Who did you interview in 2004? Bob Spitzer or Arana? So, it is Bob Spitzer (God rest his soul) who believed everything Arana has written. I see. Still, Arana was not part of Spitzer’s study, and from the way the article is written it is doubtful that Nicolosi (RIP, too) ever asked Arana to participate in it. In his mind, maybe. Even if Nicolosi considered Arana a success and might have recommended him to Spitzer, Arana’s story is just his story, and it cannot be used for all people who experienced SOCE. Interestingly, the editor of Journal of Sexual Archives, Kenneth Zucker, did not retract Spitzer’s study, and the last update on it, is that Spitzer is not sure whether his participants were actually telling the truth when talking about their experience of change. He also apologized for hurting feelings of people for his previous statement that some motivated individuals could change from homosexuals to heterosexuals. That’s all there is to it.