Is Reparative Therapy Meaningful?

[melikio]

http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Brea ... =2007-4-23

I disagree with Colson's view on homosexuality for the most part.

Two Questions:

WHY must his "type" of Christian view be considered the correct view?

What do we do with all the people for whom reparative therapy is ineffective or potentially damaging?

-Mel-

[Goat]

http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Brea ... =2007-4-23

I disagree with Colson's view on homosexuality for the most part.

Two Questions:

WHY must his "type" of Christian view be considered the correct view?

What do we do with all the people for whom reparative therapy is ineffective or potentially damaging?

-Mel-

I think the 'repartative therapy' is highly damaging to almost everyone. the revisitsm rate for the ones they consider 'success' is very high. The suicide rate
is also very high.

[melikio]

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/h ... nging.html
A bit more info on Reparative Therapy.

Even if its efficacy weren't "questionable", should we somehow believe it is right/moral to compel homosexual people to undergo such treatment?

-Mel-

[melikio]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm

And this is a pretty good link to show (at least) the various viewpoints on homosexuality which tend to exist.

I think anyone would be hard-pressed to find a peer-reviewed article which states that the concept of Reparative Therapy is particularly viable.

-Mel-

[Goat]

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/h ... nging.html
A bit more info on Reparative Therapy.

Even if its efficacy weren't "questionable", should we somehow believe it is right/moral to compel homosexual people to undergo such treatment?

-Mel-

I think it would be morally reprehensible to 'compel' people for that 'treatment'. However, if someone seeks it from their own free will, that is a different matter. I think anybody seeking to go through ti should be informed about it's problems, but it should be their choice, one way or another.

[agnosis]

I agree that imposing such therapy on others is utterly deplorable, and I find it quite sad that people even feel a need to undergo it because of society's attitudes to homosexuality. The issue of 'treating' bisexuals just seems completely ridiculous. I am bisexual myself, but I quite frequently pretend to be straight, to the extent that most of my best friends haven't even realised that I'm not. It is very easy for bisexuals to pretend not to feel attracted to the same sex any more, especially if you factor in the part of the article that talked about people still thinking about doing things with their left hands. Basically, the programme convinced a few bisexual people to stop engaging in homosexual practices for a while, but did no follow-up study and didn't really mind if the subjects still had homosexual thoughts?? Bizarre!

I think one paragraph of that article hit the nail on the head...

Why is it important for gay men and lesbians to become heterosexual in the first place? Doesn't the real problem lie in society's hostility toward people who are homosexual or bisexual?

It sometimes seems to me that society has got itself stuck in a timewarp, in which fewer people are practicing Christians, or practicing members of any religion which casts homosexuality as sinful, yet there remains this preconception that homosexuality is somehow unnatural.

This totally baffles me. Generally, statistics say that 10% of the adult population are gay, and I have seen in one or two places that 90% of women are bisexual to some extent. While we might dispute the specifics of these figures, my point is this - if homosexuality is so unnatural, why are there so many gay people in the world?

Bringing this back to a Christian context, I have never quite understood why God would make some people gay, thus making it more difficult for them to lead sinless lives. Why does God expose different people to different levels of temptation?

[sledheavy]

No one can force anyone to be who they're not.

And even still, we might have to consider that it might be the same concept on both ends.

I've come to accept that there are some people who consider christianity as a part of their lives, and wouldn't change otherwise.

Doesn't matter that it's just a methodology or principle or practice, it's there's.

I don't feel compelled to take that away from them, much less try to get them to change.

There's a certain time and a place for alteration, especially when it's needed. What gives us the right to force them otherwise?

Depends on the degree of thought, that's where our topics tend to become grey.

If a thought or idea goes wasted, it's in the name of ignorance.

To not consider,

to only give the same answer twice,

or to never feel empathy,

that's much worse than the opposite side of the spectrum. That not only implies that you don't want to be forced, but in general, you don't want to learn.

There's nothing more dehumanizing then that.

[Confused]

http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Brea ... =2007-4-23

I disagree with Colson's view on homosexuality for the most part.

Two Questions:

WHY must his "type" of Christian view be considered the correct view?

What do we do with all the people for whom reparative therapy is ineffective or potentially damaging?

-Mel-

I think his delusional message is bordering on the basis of reparative therapy for sex offenders, for which we already know is nearly impossible. However, we view sexual deviance (pedophilia etc) as mental disorders to some extent. He seems to want to quantify homosexuality as the same issue. What he fails to grasp is that homosexuality cannot be inferred as a mental disorder because in most cases, it isn't interfering with ones daily life. It becomes an identity or adjustment disorder when the person lives in fear of being discovered as a homosexual. This is society induced, not personal choice.

I don't see it as a disorder requiring reparative therapy. It is a lifestyle that in no way undermines society or others rights. It is strictly religious doctrine that influences the political mindset effectively making it a hush hush issue, lest the politicians tick off one of the special interest groups contributing to their campaign. If anything, the mindset of reparative therapy will do nothing but contribute to the negative view of homosexuality that already exists. It will cause irreparable damage to those who undergo it. Why not accept a person the way they are. So long as they are not infringing on your rights, why the hoopla?

[Confused]

No one can force anyone to be who they're not.

And even still, we might have to consider that it might be the same concept on both ends.

I've come to accept that there are some people who consider christianity as a part of their lives, and wouldn't change otherwise.

Doesn't matter that it's just a methodology or principle or practice, it's there's.

I don't feel compelled to take that away from them, much less try to get them to change.

There's a certain time and a place for alteration, especially when it's needed. What gives us the right to force them otherwise?

Depends on the degree of thought, that's where our topics tend to become grey.

If a thought or idea goes wasted, it's in the name of ignorance.

To not consider,

to only give the same answer twice,

or to never feel empathy,

that's much worse than the opposite side of the spectrum. That not only implies that you don't want to be forced, but in general, you don't want to learn.

There's nothing more dehumanizing then that.

The more I read you posts, the more I find respect in them. I admire it.

[sledheavy]

No one can force anyone to be who they're not.

And even still, we might have to consider that it might be the same concept on both ends.

I've come to accept that there are some people who consider christianity as a part of their lives, and wouldn't change otherwise.

Doesn't matter that it's just a methodology or principle or practice, it's there's.

I don't feel compelled to take that away from them, much less try to get them to change.

There's a certain time and a place for alteration, especially when it's needed. What gives us the right to force them otherwise?

Depends on the degree of thought, that's where our topics tend to become grey.

If a thought or idea goes wasted, it's in the name of ignorance.

To not consider,

to only give the same answer twice,

or to never feel empathy,

that's much worse than the opposite side of the spectrum. That not only implies that you don't want to be forced, but in general, you don't want to learn.

There's nothing more dehumanizing then that.

The more I read you posts, the more I find respect in them. I admire it.

Thanks, man I really wish I could get you a copy of this manuscript.