Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
→Excellent summary of opponent's approach
: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!
: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)
: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)
==Will science examine the issue?==
The primary argument '''against''' reparative therapy seems to be that no unbiased organization supports it. This is not a scientific argument, but a political one.
Science proves something is harmful (or useless) by running actual experiments, not by taking opinion polls or citing authorities.
Lucius's example of (supposedly) meeting '''one''' person is flawed:
#One case is never sufficient. Several hundred is considered a minimum study size.
#The "treatment" is merely a parody of RT - a program filled with coercion, which is not which RT is.
We need a better description of RT. We need to describe the public relations campaign against it, which as my encounter with LuciusF shows, is mainly a smear campaign.
Most of all, we need to summarize the scientific studies of RT, even if only its supporters have studied it.
The refusal of opponents to take a look at something is '''by no means''' evidence that it's flawed, but more likely an indication of the opponents' anti-scientific [[bias]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:39, 12 April 2011 (EDT)