13
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 295:
Line 295: + + + +
Talk:Conversion therapy (view source)
Revision as of 04:45, February 23, 2009
, 04:45, February 23, 2009→Excellent summary of opponent's approach
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)
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)
:Thanks for you reply Ed. I appreciate the time but I take issue with some of your characterizations.
:Firstly, I don't think any argument for gay rights need be premised on the existence of a "gay gene." Religion, for example, isn't "immutable" or genetically coded, but we still protect it through nondiscrimination laws. The question predicate to whether something ought to be protected is whether forcing someone to change the trait would work a great and unjustified hardship. I aim to prove that reparative therapy DOES work such a hardship.
:You suggest I look to NARTH as an example of an "unbiased" survey of the effectiveness of reparative therapy. NARTH - the National Association for the Research and Treatment of Homosexuality - is the epitome of a biased source. Its entire existence is predicated on the effectiveness of reparative therapy. I would take their research with a grain of salt, and also internalize the [http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_nart.htm#study grave errors pointed out] by the Religious Tolerance group. For one, it wasn't published in a peer reviewed journal, or even error-checked!
:I'll submit to you that you've failed to rebut my argument that reparative therapy is useless at best, and affirmatively damaging at worst. I'll bolster it with this anecdote: have you ever ''met'' anyone who's undergone reparative therapy? I have. It nearly killed him. His "treatment" involved sleep deprivation, starvation, isolation, and all the other horrors typically associated with torture, added with daily shaming and deliberate attempts to subvert any notion of his self-esteem or individuality. Thankfully, the treatment failed: years later, he's still gay and comfortable with himself. Is that so wrong?-[[User:LuciusF|LuciusF]] 23:45, 22 February 2009 (EST)