Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 285:
Line 285: + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Conversion therapy (view source)
Revision as of 19:26, February 22, 2009
, 19:26, February 22, 2009Why opponents are dead wrong
I copied the above from my talk page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:13, 22 February 2009 (EST)
I copied the above from my talk page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:13, 22 February 2009 (EST)
I am, of course, opposed to the spreading of deliberate falsehood in any encyclopedia. But you are right about one thing: the central claim of reparative therapy is indeed "damaging" to the campaigns of the [[gay rights movement]]. The mainstay of their ship is the notion that [[homosexuality]] is an unalterable trait. They argue that it's either inherent and inborn (presumably we'll locate a "[[gay gene]]" someday) or that it develops so early in childhood as to be incurable. And they've gotten the APA to vote that way.
But science is not actually done by vote. It's done by proposing theories and formulating hypotheses, which are then put to the test. Results consistent with the theory give us a measure of confidence, but results which contradict the theory require us to discard the theory immediately (or at least to get working on modifying it.)
What makes you think that the '''only''' [[scientific study|scientific studies]] had negative findings? How hard did you look for opposing studies? I bet you didn't even check out [[NARTH]]. I love the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, because they are the biggest website that gives [[Unification Church|my own church]] a fair shake, but they are utterly biased when it comes to homosexuality, which they regard as not being any kind of [[sin]].
Your appeal to emotion is also out of line, suggesting that advocacy of RT is akin to "[[negligent homicide]]". I wonder if you are aware of the differences between modern RT offered to those who want to change and some of the atrocious forcible methods tried in the past. RT also contrasts with merely resorting to prayer and determination.
I have yet to find an opponent of RT who knows anything about it. They just quote [[authorities]] who condemn it, without giving any rational basis for that condemnation. This is being very unscientific, which would be ironic if it weren't so downright sinister, since you opened your rejoinder with an appeal to [[science]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:26, 22 February 2009 (EST)