Tuesday, November 27, 2012, 1:32 PM
Heather wrote: There is no one type of therapy. You will find as many types of therapies (regarding homosexuality or any other problem) as there are therapists.
Boonton wrote: This statement is a strong indication that such therapy simply doesn’t work. Therapists are a bit like businesses. If something is discovered that seems to work, others will copy it and it will become quite common. If every therapist who is trying to ‘convert gays’ has ‘his own therapy’, that’s a good sign none of the therapies work.
Heather replied (CENSORED):
Your comment is a strong indication of how little you know about what therapy entails. No therapy is identical – ever – no matter what the issue. I guess in your view then it’s time to throw all therapists in the trash can and burn all psychology books.
You would be making a very ignorant mistake though. For one, an individual’s psychological makeup is quite unique when you go beyond the surface. People who normalize homosexuality have a reduced and ignorant view of the human mind which does not correspond to reality, especially regarding sexuality. People who normalize homosexuality ignore complexity and delude themselves thinking that the human mind is similar to an ant’s or an amoeba. It’s not.
Second, not only is each individual psychological makeup unique, so are the circumstances each person finds themselves in, and so is their personal history. So, one could never address profound problems with a simplistic cloned 1-2-3 therapeutic method. Each individual has a need for a different type of therapy, completely personalized, because they are unlike anyone else.
Third, again, unlike the ignorant and reductionist theories of people who normalize homosexuality, there is no one causal factor, nor even the same cloned set of causal factors for homosexuality. Therefore every therapy must be different.
Fourth, just because therapies are not identical doesn’t mean that they are all completely different. And yes, therapists do share with each other their experiences and knowledge.
Fifth, the knowledge for developing appropriate and successful therapeutic methods for any problem can only be obtained by clinical practice. Which is exactly what the ignorant and irresponsible homosexuals against therapy want to outlaw. Homosexuals want absolute ignorance enforced on the mental health and medical sectors. They are anti-science and anti-knowledge.
Sixth, a therapy is sort of like a marriage. It’s not because one fails that all will fail or that the idea of marriage itself is misguided. If the four men mentioned in the article went through harmful experiences, they should seek redress. Just like a any other patient or consumer.
Seventh, there are plenty of real examples of therapies which have provided benefits to people who had developed a homosexuality problem. It appears that you are completely ignorant about all of them – thus you prefer indulging in tabloid-like reports wailing about little gay victims of “conversion therapy” while purposefully ignoring real, successful examples of therapies that prove your views on homosexuality are flawed.
Eighth, many therapeutic experiences are confidential, so this also contributes to the reason why there is less information about what happens in many cases – and that certainly includes many successful cases.
David wrote: “Just because a relatively small number of people have a variant characteristic doesn’t mean “something went wrong” to cause it. ”
Heather replied (CENSORED):
And yet, when therapists investigate cases of people with a homosexual problem or a bisexual mentality, they find so many psychological and cultural problems that generated the homosexuality dynamics. Just like with pedophilia, promiscuity, adultery, etc.
Maybe this is why homosexuals want to ban knowledge and therapy regarding what causes a person to develop a dysfunctional homosexuality problem.
It’s a small number of people with a homosexual problem who adopt boys so they can sexually abuse them, but hey, it’s just like being left handed! All about the similarities…
David Nickol writes:
“Then perhaps you aren’t taking the time to think about what is being said before you send a dismissive response.” He also writes to Heather: “It is a very basic concept which you don’t seem to grasp or even recognize.” And to Sasha: ” It sounds like you have an eight-year-old complaint… ”
Heather wrote (CENSORED):
On another recent thread, David claimed the Pope (no less!) would be appalled sometimes at the tone employed on this blog by people who criticized David’s normalization of homosexuality.
I’m just guessing, but I think if the Pope looked at David’s tone, he wouldn’t be too happy – and maybe even quite appalled at seeing that David writes with such tone and then tries to almost speak in the name of the Pope as some kind of standard that only other people must adhere to.
David in Houston wrote: By the way, no one is telling you to “celebrate” homosexuality.
Heather replied: On the contrary, this is exactly what is happening. Many people cannot either get a job or keep a job or get an education if they question your views about normalizing homosexuality. Not only that, many people who have expressed publicly their objections to homosexuality – because it is dysfunctional – have been vilified.
Your other question regarding superiority is a canard. Are you inferior, the same, or superior to Hitler? This is a shifty question because it does not explicit what is being compared.
If you have a dysfunctional mind, are you inferior to someone who has a wholesome mind? If you are ignorant and unethical, are you inferior to someone who is knowledgeable and ethical? If you have a sexually perverted mind, are you inferior to someone who does not?
These are not questions about the type of superiority that is promoted in racial superiority types of ideology, but a question of interior quality. People are not clones and therefore they cannot have the same quality in regard to every single of their aspects.
Boonton wrote: “How many jobs require you to comment on your views of homosexuality? Political pundit? Director of a Gay Rights group?”
Heather replied: Education, counseling, medical, human resources, public policy, government, military, non-profit, etc.
Furthermore, we can assume from your comment that if one should freely express views that question your homosexuality agenda, they should be persecuted from their jobs; they are not entitled to speaking their views without being persecuted.
Michael PS wrote: “Pressure from equals is not to be confounded with persecution by by the state. When people are safe from force applied from above, they require no saving from the influence around them. Opinion finds its own level.”
Heather replied (CENSORED):
Are you saying people do not need to eat if they are living in a state where there is no state persecution?
Since SEVERAL of the above post were censored, it was followed up by this one – also CENSORED:
Dear Mr. Reno,
Although you censored my reply to Boonton criticizing his profoundly ignorant claims that any therapy related to investigating and resolving homosexual dynamics is bad, thus allowing your blog to serve as a conduit for the smear of therapists working with such issues, a federal judge in California has reached a very opposite decision, even if the decision is not yet finalized.
“U.S. District Court Judge William Shubb made a decision just hours after a hearing on the issue, ruling that the First Amendment rights of psychiatrists, psychologists and other mental health professionals who engage in “reparative” or “conversion” therapy outweigh concern that the practice poses a danger to young people.”
Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/us/article/Judge-temporarily-blocks-Calif-gay-therapy-law-4088434.php#ixzz2E4yekSw9
It is unfortunate that this blog prefers to endorse Boonton’s basest ignorance on the matter and let it go unquestioned. I hope the Californian courts will continue on the right track and expose how wrong you and Boonton are, and correctly rule on the matter in a finalized way.