Is homosexuality a choice?

[_Droopy]

I also coudn't help pointing out a comment from the NARTH website referencing the original study, that, contra to what E. and some others here have claimed:

The authors note that the APA has moderated its viewpoint somewhat since then, fluctuating between statements that sexual-orientation change is “uncommon,” to the view that science “cannot yet” make conclusive statements about such change from the available literature.

The APA perspective on the matter, as I've long maintained, is a work in progress.

[_Droopy]

Graham doesn't seem to have caught hold of the obvious here before he posted: (Italics mine)

The conclusions based upon the Jones/Yarhouse data, unfortunately, appear biased: Both Jones and Yarhouse work at conservative Christian universities, and compromises in study design and execution were made in order to secure the cooperation of ex-gay members of Exodus International, an organization that claims to support people leaving homosexuality. This book quickly secured endorsements from ex-gay and antigay therapists, but support from mainstream mental-health professionals has thus far been lacking.

Kevin does not seem to appreciate that his source here admits to the existence of ex-gay psychotherapists, ex-gay ministries (and hence, to ex-gay ministers) and to ex-gays per se, while then going on to criticize the study for alleged flaws all to the point of showing that the concept of actually being "ex-gay" is all but an impossibility, which is the general consensus of the secular humanist/leftist/"progressive" weltanschauung (and hence the mainstream of opinion on this board).

Anything...anything for the cause.

[_lulu]

Kevin does not seem to appreciate that his source here admits to the existence of ex-gay psychotherapists, ex-gay ministries (and hence, to ex-gay ministers) and to ex-gays per se, while then going on to criticize the study for alleged flaws all to the point of showing that the concept of actually being "ex-gay" is all but an impossibility, which is the general consensus of the secular humanist/leftist/"progressive" weltanschauung (and hence the mainstream of opinion on this board).

Anything...anything for the cause.

Why, yes, Droopy. Yes indeed.
Gertrude Stein couldn't have said it better herself.
Hemmingway, on the other hand, would have composed some sentences that made sense.

[_EAllusion]

These two statements aren't alike

1) The effectiveness of reparative therapy for motivated individuals is well established.

2) There is no rigorous support of the effectiveness of sexual reorientation interventions in the literature. Some self-report surveys indicate that it may rarely happen, though that is possibly a consequence of reduction in sexual drive or false reporting rather than alteration of sexual orientation. A small number of bisexuals may learn to focus more on one sex even if their orientation does not change. Potential harm of such intervention is a real risk and inadequately controlled for.

[_EAllusion]

No. Psychology is not science...

Yeah, while you are trashing psychology in order to dismiss a blue chip meta-analysis put out by a group of well-respected psychologists, you also are attempting to pimp a a paper of less prestigious origin that is at least an attempt at psychology. You should have the "Psychology?! Pfft!" Droopy talk to the Droopy who is attempting to argue a psychological point with a stab at psychological evidence.

[_EAllusion]

The fact that you now have to admit to the reality at hand here,

I already linked a lengthy paper, the APA one you dismissed without so much as skimming, that rakes the paper you linked over the coals* for its methodological flaws (like having no control groups). It isn't sufficient to conclude anything. I was pointing out the paper itself only identifies a few people out of an already highly filtered pool where reorientation may have happened, and even in those few cases no reorientation may have occurred as a consequence of the therapy. How this is "admitting the reality at hand here" is strange. You're furiously backpedaling on your claim here regardless, which I just pointed out in an above post. If sexual orientation interventions very uncommonly result in change - change that may not even involve reorientation - and present significant inadequately controlled for risk, then under no circumstances does it make sense say their effectiveness "has been well established." You might as well assert that hitting people in the head with hammers is a well-established therapy for depression.

*A published study that appeared in the grey literature in 2007
(Jones & Yarhouse, 2007) has been described by SOCE advocates
and its authors as having successfully addressed many of the
methodological problems that affect other recent studies, specifically
the lack of prospective research. The study is a convenience sample of
self-referred populations from religious self-help groups. The authors
claim to have found a positive effect for some study respondents
in different goals such as decreasing same-sex sexual attractions,
increasing other-sex attractions, and maintaining celibacy. However,
upon close examination, the methodological problems described in
Chapter 3 (our critique of recent studies) are characteristic of this
work, most notably the absence of a control or comparison group and
the threats to internal, external, construct, and statistical validity.
Best-practice analytical techniques were not performed in the study,
and there are significant deficiencies in the analysis of longitudinal
data, use of statistical measures, and choice of assessment measures.
The authors’ claim of finding change in sexual orientation is
unpersuasive due to their study’s methodological problems

[_lulu]

These two statements aren't alike

1) The effectiveness of reparative therapy for motivated individuals is well established.

2) There is no rigorous support of the effectiveness of sexual reorientation interventions in the literature. Some self-report surveys indicate that it may rarely happen, though that is possibly a consequence of reduction in sexual drive or false reporting rather than alteration of sexual orientation. A small number of bisexuals may learn to focus more on one sex even if their orientation does not change. Potential harm of such intervention is a real risk and inadequately controlled for.

You don't understand Droopian logic.

That fact that there are ex-gay therapists

proves that there are ex-gays.

[_Droopy]

These two statements aren't alike

1) The effectiveness of reparative therapy for motivated individuals is well established.

2) There is no rigorous support of the effectiveness of sexual reorientation interventions in the literature. Some self-report surveys indicate that it may rarely happen, though that is possibly a consequence of reduction in sexual drive or false reporting rather than alteration of sexual orientation. A small number of bisexuals may learn to focus more on one sex even if their orientation does not change. Potential harm of such intervention is a real risk and inadequately controlled for.

The eggs you're walking on here have begun to show signs of wear, E. Conversion is possible for motivated, and in particular, religiously motivated individuals. That's what the evidence now shows. If it was only 3%, 5% or 10%, the claim that "the effectiveness of reparative therapy for motivated individuals is well established" would be defensible. If anything near 23% is possible, then the claim is equally well established, but simply at a higher ratio to the entire population seeking therapeutic intervention in this area.

You're going to continue fighting this, no matter what the empirical evidence suggests, regardless, because you have an intrinsic hostility to the very idea that homosexuality may just actually be an accretion and modification that is, in point of fact, a deviation (perversion) of normative psychosexual development and that there are complex, multivariate processes of development at work, biological, psychological, and social/environmental, in its generation, and that this is unique and ideosyncratic to each individual.

Hence, a reorientation of such a psychosexual state is possible (given that it is not innate in the way heterosexual orientation is the standard, default psychosexual developmental path) is for those who do not accept their SSA and who are motivated to enter therapy seeking a perceptual restructuring of sexual ideation and feelings.

Is the percentage relatively small? Of course, and no one has ever claimed otherwise. The biological essentialist argument is central, however, for both the social Left and the extreme libertarian Right (which is, on social/cultural issues, a closing circle with the cultural Left, although it maintains its own philosophical position for somewhat different reasons).

[_EAllusion]

If anything near 23% is possible, then the claim is equally well established,

The 23% number is not a measure of success of those who received a therapeutic intervention, but rather a number within a highly self-selected sample that doesn't take into account drop outs, comparison groups, or reporter bias. And even beyond that the measurement is so highly flawed that the actual number could easily be 0%. Still, you're prepared to find a single person to vindicate yourself, but no therapy can be called effective simply because it may have produced a single case example of affecting desired change in a sea of failures. And you still refuse to address risks, which is determinant of a therapy being indicated and therefore described as "effective." Again, that's why the APA report says the evidence does not bear out the claim you wanted to make.

There are instances of acquired brain injury leading to resolution of mood disorders, but no one in their right mind would assert that causing severe head injuries is a well established therapy for depression.

[_EAllusion]

The biological essentialist argument is central, however, for both the social Left and the extreme libertarian Right (which is, on social/cultural issues, a closing circle with the cultural Left, although it maintains its own philosophical position for somewhat different reasons).

Strawman says hi.