California, the land of the “tolerant,” recently has become the land of censorship and oppression, thanks to its passage of SB 1172. Set to go into effect Jan. 1, this new law bans anyone under the age of 18 from receiving licensed counseling that in any way steers them away from same-sex attraction, including away from sexual acts.
Under SB 1172, if a 14-year-old is fearful or depressed because of some feelings of same-sex attraction, he could not request any counseling that would help him understand and minimize those feelings. Soon, only counseling affirming same-sex attraction and behaviors will be allowed in California. Parental wishes regarding the kind of counseling their child needs are irrelevant under this statute. Religious youths will be unable to receive any reparative counseling from their clergy who are licensed counselors. In fact, all licensed counselors or psychiatrists are explicitly censored from providing reparative counseling, despite a professional assessment that such counseling is critical to their patient.
So if you're a licensed therapist in California, and a parent brings his kid into your office, and the kid and the parent request psychological counseling to steer the child away from homosexual acts, you break the law if you counsel the child to overcome his same sex attraction.
The law has already been signed by Governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown, and is scheduled to go into effect in California January 1st.
Forget about the First Amendment issue. Forget privacy issues between therapist and patient. Forget even about common decency-- trying to help a kid who wants help to steer away from a life of perversion and sin and disease. Obviously this law violates every applicable Constitutional and moral principle you can think of.
This is what it means: the LGBT agenda is evil and totalitarian to the bone, and the fact that this law can pass a legislature quietly, without inciting massive outrage and defiance, means that we as a nation are much further down the road to Hell than we realize.
a life of perversion and sin
ReplyDeleteHow come no one counselled you? I can think of nobody more intellectually perverted and sinful than Egnor.
Dr. Egnor,
ReplyDeleteYour homophobia may have a simple root cause. Could it be that you are afraid to find out that you are gay? It's OK to come out of the closet. I know some people who did.
Hoo
And I ask you, Hoo: could it be that you are afraid to find out that you are intelligent? OK to come out of the closet.
DeleteNo need to hide it as well as you have.
Dr. Egnor,
DeleteThank you for your concern. I hope I did not offend you in any way by suggesting that you might be gay. I meant no offense.
Hoo
Dr. Egnor,
DeleteWhen I wrote "I meant no offense," I fully meant that. There is nothing offensive in my book about being gay. I suspected that it could be offensive in yours. It looks like I was right.
Hoo
Nasty bigoted slurs are what the left do, Egnor. Some of them try to dignify it with psychobabble. Lipstick on a pig, IMO.
DeleteWhat was exactly the slur, Dr. Boggs? Suggesting that Dr. Egnor might be a homosexual?
DeleteHoo
@Hoo:
DeleteYou obviously used it as an insult. I love irony.
Oh, the old "you're obviously a repressed homosexual" line. That was predictable.
DeleteThe Torch
I "obviously" used it as an insult? That is a revealing suggestion, Dr. Egnor. Insulting is in the eye of the beholder. I don't find being labeled gay insulting any more than being labeled female or black. You do.
DeleteHoo
Dr Hoo: phobias are serious, crippling, psychological disorders. Using trumped-up internet "diagnoses" of a disorder as an attack against another person with whom you have a political disagreement is character assassination and a slur. In fact, it was a common tactic of the KGB and was a hallmark of Soviet psychiatry.
DeleteIt is a tactic often resorted to by sh**-eating totalitarian pigs. :-)
Not that you are one, of course.
I'm just sayin'.
Homosexuality is something you do, and yes it's insulting. Being female and black is not. It's who you are.
DeleteThe Torch
@Homophobe Hoo:
DeleteIt's funny watching you try to back out of this. Do you accuse all of your opponents of being closet gays?
Oh, so it was a non-sequitur remark? Thank you for clarifying that, Dr. Boggs.
DeleteHoo
P.S. I hope that you are aware that homophobia is not a psychological disorder. If you were not, I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the list.
Ah, the Torch tells it like it is! Bravo!
DeleteWould anyone else like to join him and state for the record that homosexuality is insulting?
Hoo
I'll join him.
DeleteTRISH
Actually, Hoo, it wasn't a non sequitur. A non sequitur is an illogical conclusion or irrelevant remark. It was neither. I just wasn't accusing you of being a sh**-eating totalitarian pig ready to diagnose disagreement as psychological imbalance. I leave that tactic to the political mavens on MSNBC and their acolytes.
DeleteAnd the link you provide is no evidence of anything, as it links to a webpage that refers to its own content as "abbreviated from the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV)".
I believe, based on my interest in Cohen's kappa (a statistic), that the DSM-V is the most current edition. I'm not sure what it says about homophobia, if anything, or phobias in general. I just know that psychiatrists themselves are not much better than chance at diagnosing many disorders. Statistically, that is.
But putting your research capabilities and source selection aside puts your diagnosis in a whole different light; i.e., " Could it be that you are afraid to find out that you are gay?"
Accusations of latent homosexuality are so 1950's. I doubt that Sigmund Freud himself would be a Freudian, or even a follower of psychodynamic thinking, if he were alive today. That whole theory is nothing but a self-referential, non-falsifiable, mish-mash of metaphors. One would think that an eminent scientist such as yourself would have enough self-regard not to fall for such flimflam.
Dr. Boggs,
DeleteIf you are "not sure what [DSM-V] says about homophobia" but are sure that it is a psychological disorder, you ought to double-check. 'Cause there is a slight chance you could be wrong.
Just sayin'.
Hoo
Did I say I was sure it was a phobia? Of course not. You brought it up, along with the psychological "cause" of latent or repressed homosexuality. I merely, and wrongly - I apologize - assumed you knew what you were talking about. I won't make that mistake again.
DeleteSo this homophobia thing... I take your word (but not your website's word) it's not a disorder, in the medical sense, or some sense, but it's a... what?... caused by repression or latent something-or-other, or... I dunno?? What? Not flossing?
Why don't you get back to me on that when you have a little better grip on the problem. 'K?
And I saw a typo in my previous comment: "That whole theory..." should be "That whole 'theory'..."
It looks like you need to consult a dictionary, Dr. Boggs. Here is a definition from Merriam-Websters.
Deletehomophobia: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.
I used the term precisely in this sense.
Hoo
Oh, so the word "homophobia" is just a synonym for "irrational bigotry" dressed up in a pseudo-psychiatric tutu.
DeleteThanks for clearing that up. Helps me adjust my filters. I thought it for a little while it was more than just a slur.
The word isn't dressed up in anything. It is its standard, common meaning listed in a fucking dictionary. I am glad you have learned what it means. Better late than never.
DeleteHoo
Dr. Egnor is for turning elementary schools into armed camps, obsessed with DDT, and now, in favor of child abuse that drives children to suicide. With examples like this, it’s no wonder people are turning away from Christianity.
ReplyDelete-KW
In favor of child abuse that drives children to suicide? How so, KW?
DeleteThis is emotional blackmail. Please stop using the tragedy of suicides as an excuse to strip us of our constitutional rights.
Homosexuality is a a cult. You can check out any time you want but you can never leave. Sick.
The Torch
Homosexuality is a a cult. You can check out any time you want but you can never leave. Sick.
DeleteWhat? This doesn't make any sense.
Sounds like Governor Brown hit the nail on the head:
ReplyDelete"This bill bans non-scientific 'therapies' that have driven young people to depression and suicide. These practices have no basis in science or medicine and they will now be relegated to the dustbin of quackery."
Apparently, you think it's OK that kids who have homosexual feelings are forced by their parents to undergo medieval practices like exorcism, telling them they are evil and possessed by demons. Then act all shocked and surprised when such kids blow their brains out with daddy's semi-automatic.
Troy...
DeletePlease.
If they got rid of all the quacks in California, the state economy would collapse.
Take a look at this video on Quantum Vibrational Healing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoelNFT5C8E
Take a look at this video on Quantum Vibrational Healing
DeleteThat was hilarious. But then again, in my experience, staring at movies zooming in on the Mandelbrot set can have a relaxing effect, even without holding crystals connected to a USB port.
Says a lot about the sorry state of science education.
"The increased rates of substance abuse and suicide might have something to do with the fact that they are sensitive to being despised by so many people, don't you think?"
DeleteNo. And they aren't despised. They're praised to the hilt.
Homosexuality is a symptom of a deeper hurt, just as drug use is. Many homosexuals were abused themselves as children.
"Anyway, if someone wants to live a dangerous lifestyle, that's their business."
True. But if they go to a doctor or therapist and ask for assistance in ending it, what's it to you? That's kind of a self-defeating argument. It's no one's business if a teenager wants to engage in anal sex with other teenagers, but if he wants to stop then the government has to prohibit people from assisting him.
TRISH
True. But if they go to a doctor or therapist and ask for assistance in ending it, what's it to you?
DeleteNothing, really. But shouldn't 'therapies' that don't work and may be harmful be outlawed? I don't suppose you have a problem with forbidding doctors to proscribe harmful drugs, do you?
Hoo,
DeleteThat's one person, not the overwhelming voice of society that says "do it!"
Plenty of commenters here think Christianity is a sick cult. Why don't we have the same rate of substance abuse and suicide?
TRISH
No. And they aren't despised. They're praised to the hilt.
DeleteAren't you confused with Republican congressmen?
I think you are exaggerating a tad, TRISH. I'd like to see some statistics.
DeleteWhat I know is that a mere fifty years ago homosexuality was widely considered to be sexual perversion. It is well known that Alan Turing, the father of computer science and the World War II code breaker, committed suicide because he was persecuted as a homosexual.
I don't think Christians are persecuted, let alone persecuted to the same extent, these days. A vast majority of this country is Christian. Atheists are a tiny minority. Militant atheists are a tiny minority of that tiny minority. You are well off target on this. There is no comparison. Not even close.
Hoo
"Nothing, really. But shouldn't 'therapies' that don't work and may be harmful be outlawed?"
DeleteI think you're jumping the gun here saying they don't work and cause harm. That's what the homosexual lobby says and the various corrupted "scientific" bodies. How about this--if the therapist and a willing participant want to engage in it, let them. Obviously, you have a problem with that.
"I don't suppose you have a problem with forbidding doctors to proscribe harmful drugs, do you?"
Birth control pills are a class 1 carcinogen. Let's outlaw them, what do you say?
If someone wanted to outlaw birth control pills using the fact that they cause cancer as a justification, wouldn't you ask yourself if the person had an ulterior motive beyond simply rescuing women from cancer?
TRISH
Troy's logic...
Delete"Anyway, if someone wants to live a dangerous lifestyle, that's their business."
If someone wants to kill themselves, go 'head!
"But shouldn't 'therapies' that don't work and may be harmful be outlawed?"
If someone thinks these therapies might work and wants to try them, somebody has to stop them!
The Torch
Birth control pills cause cancer and yet a "women's health" organization hands them out like candy. Crazy!
DeleteIf you want to cut funding to abortion mills they accuse you of wanting to cut funding to "women's health" organizations that don't actually do mammograms but will provide cancer-causing birth control pills.
The Torch
Torch,
DeleteCould you be a little more specific about the link between birth-control pills and cancer? How strong is it?
To give you an example, flying at 30,000 feet increases chances of getting cancer because of a larger exposure to cosmic rays high in the atmosphere. However, quantitatively your risk of getting cancer does not increase all that much even if you are a pilot of a commercial airline.
What are the quantitative aspects of the risk you are talking about?
Hoo
I was the one who brought it up, Hoo.
DeleteThe World Health Organization lists birth control pills as a carcinogen, but oddly enough not flying. Here's what Wikipedia says:
Group 1: The agent (mixture) is carcinogenic to humans. The exposure circumstance entails exposures that are carcinogenic to humans. This category is used when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. Exceptionally, an agent (mixture) may be placed in this category when evidence of carcinogenicity in humans is less than sufficient but there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals and strong evidence in exposed humans that the agent (mixture) acts through a relevant mechanism of carcinogenicity.
http://www.jillstanek.com/2009/08/did-you-know-the-world-health-organization-ranks-the-pill-as-a-group-i-carcinogen/
Other carcinogens on the list include benzine, HPV, and asbestos.
I don't want to outlaw the pill, by the way. I doubt Troy does either. So why does he want to ban reperative therapy?
TRISH
How do you find statistics for how much homosexuals are praised?
DeleteLesbianism is fashionable. Male homosexuality less so, but "homophobia" is the least fashionable of all.
"What I know is that a mere fifty years ago homosexuality was widely considered to be sexual perversion."
True. But we aren't living fifty years ago, we're living now. Fifty years ago, even the expert organizations that homosexuals like to cite thought homosexuality was a mental disorder. The experts were still experts even back then. The homosexuals only started caring about their expert opinions when they started condemning "homophobia" rather than homosexuality.
TRISH
I love how Hoo moves the goalposts. Further up the thread he uses one comment, from me, stating that homosexuality is perverse, as proof a widespread societal prejudice. My one comment means something.
DeleteNow he wants to see "statistics" about how much homosexuality is praised. I don't know, turn on MTV for a moment, will ya? Watch Tila Tequila and her bisexual dating show.
The Torch
I didn't find any authoritative information at that link, TRISH. The WHO report cited on that page is out of print and the preamble says nothing about the topic.
DeleteHere is an authoritative source: the National Cancer Institute. Oral Contraceptives and Cancer Risk. The webpage explains that oral contraceptives, which contain female hormones, sightly decrease the risk of some cancers (endometrial and ovarian) and slightly increases the risk of others (breast, cervical, and liver). It's a wash overall, the change is small to begin with, and the risk reverts to normal levels after the use of contraceptives is discontinued. The information is available and anyone can make an informed decision about the risk involved.
Hoo
P.S. By the way, the group-1 carcinogen involved in this is estrogen, a natural female hormone. So it isn't the contraceptives themselves that are labeled dangerous. Saying so was misleading.
DeleteI think you're jumping the gun here saying they don't work and cause harm. That's what the homosexual lobby says and the various corrupted "scientific" bodies.
DeleteAh, the homosexual lobby - up to no good as usual. So if scientific studies show that "reparative therapy" doesn't work or is harmful, then the studies must have been conducted by "corrupted" organizations. But studies that confirm your preconceived conclusions were obviously conducted in a proper manner.
Love the term "reparative therapy" by the way. As if some 'damage' has to be repaired. The idea that homosexuality is a 'lifestyle choice' is apparently alive and well here.
In reality, of course, feeling attracted to members of the same sex is not a choice at all but an innate tendency for a fairly constant percentage of people all over the world.
How about this--if the therapist and a willing participant want to engage in it, let them. Obviously, you have a problem with that.
Fine with me if adults want to try it. Not fine if children are forced to.
@toy:
DeleteThe only one using force here is you. A law is force.
Psychological counseling is not force. Outlawing certain conversations that counselors and patients (of any age) may have is force.
Hoo,
DeleteWhere in the page did it say that the risk is a wash?
Yes, birth control pills protect against certain forms of cancer but cause others. They are a carcinogen.
"...the risk reverts to normal levels after the use of contraceptives is discontinued."
Actually, it says ten years after use is discontinued. So if a girl starts using the pill young---and plenty do--she will probably take it for the better part of thirty years. She will be at an increased risk of cancer for forty years.
My point, if you care to see it, is that sometimes doctors do prescribe things that are somewhat harmful. I am not conceding that reperative therapy is one of them, I'm simply pointing out, to Troy, that he doesn't really want the government to prohibit doctors from writing prescriptions for drugs that harm. Plenty do. They're called side effects. Troy probably understands this, he just doesn't care because that's not his real objection. His real objection is that he thinks homosexuality is something to be celebrated and he wants to outlaw dissent.
"The information is available and anyone can make an informed decision about the risk involved."
Why don't you adopt the same attitude toward reperative therapy?
"So it isn't the contraceptives themselves that are labeled dangerous."
From 2011 WHO report: "There is sufficient evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of oral combined estrogen–progestogen contraceptives. Oral combined estrogen–progestogen contraceptives cause cancer of the breast, in-situ and invasive cancer of the uterine cervix, and cancer of the liver."
Nitpick all you want. It's a carcinogen.
TRISH
"Ah, the homosexual lobby - up to no good as usual. So if scientific studies show that 'reparative therapy' doesn't work or is harmful, then the studies must have been conducted by 'corrupted' organizations. But studies that confirm your preconceived conclusions were obviously conducted in a proper manner."
DeleteTroy, the APA used to classify homosexual attraction as a mental disorder. They still classify gender identity disorder as a disorder, though they caution people not to say so because of the stigma associated with it. "They're sick, just don't say they're sick because that hurts their feelings." In due time they will remove that one from their book as well.
The people of the APA are recognized as experts but they can still be wrong and they are certainly influenced by societal trends and their own prejudices. If you don't believe me, ask yourself this: were they influenced by societal trends and their own prejudices prior to 1973?
I don't believe for a moment that an honest experiment can be conducted in an environment that demands that results come out the "right" way.
"The idea that homosexuality is a 'lifestyle choice' is apparently alive and well here."
That's because it is a lifestyle choice. Just like heterosexuality and celibacy and whatever else you're into. You choose who you sleep with.
"In reality, of course, feeling attracted to members of the same sex is not a choice..."
Feeling attracted is not homosexuality. Feelings of attraction are not a lifestyle choice. Homosexuality is. Do I need to explain to you the difference between wanting to do something and doing it? Do you not understand the difference?
"Fine with me if adults want to try it. Not fine if children are forced to."
Now you're backtracking. You told me that this is just like doctors prescribing drugs that harm. Are you in favor of doctors prescribing drugs that harm to people adults?
Anyway, this law doesn't differentiate between willing and unwilling minors. The child could want the therapy but too bad, he can't have it. I would point out that parents are responsible for nearly all of their children's medical decisions. When I was a kid I didn't want to take my medicine; my mother "forced" me. Adults force things on children. Sounds like another one of your smokescreens.
TRISH
Troy, the APA used to classify homosexual attraction as a mental disorder.
DeleteYes, and women had the vapors, hysteria and were unfit to vote. I like to think we have progressed since then.
They still classify gender identity disorder as a disorder, though they caution people not to say so because of the stigma associated with it.
And of course it is a disorder in a sense. So is homosexuality. In the sense that something went 'wrong' during development, causing them to have abnormal sexual preferences or gender identity feelings. But there is nothing they can do about it, and there is no good reason to deny them their own pursuit of happiness.
That's because it is a lifestyle choice. Just like heterosexuality and celibacy and whatever else you're into. You choose who you sleep with.
It is not a lifestyle choice. It's who you are. You can be heterosexual without ever having sex. You can be a homosexual man while being married to a woman and having children.
Now you're backtracking. You told me that this is just like doctors prescribing drugs that harm. Are you in favor of doctors prescribing drugs that harm to people adults?
I admit I have a hard time making up my mind here. I don't like curtailing freedom, but I also dislike allowing parents to damage their kids because of their religious superstitions. Trying to 'repair' children's sexual orientation does more harm than good I think, so there's a good case to forbid it.
Liberalism does more harm than good. Should it be forbidden?
DeleteDefine liberalism and make a case it does more harm than good. Then we'll talk.
DeleteI've sort of been doing it on this blog for a year and a half.
DeleteLiberalism is liberal crime policy of 1960-1990-- shorter sentences, less leeway to police, reduced enforcement.
Welfare policy 1960-1996-- subsidizing family breakup and chronic dependency
Urban housing 1960-1980-- demolition of traditional inner city neighborhoods and replacement with gigantic housing projects
Abortion license- 50 million dead children and counting.
Population control genocide programs in foreign countries, war on DDT, crazy greenie policies against oil exploration.
Gun control policies and gun free zones that have been direct causes of many massacres.
Oh--
DeleteSubprime mortgage lending coerced by the government, that led to our financial meltdown.
Massive deficit spending that will eventually cause our financial collapse.
Can we at least agree that parents should not have total freedom regarding the medical treatment of their kids? For example, should parents be allowed to not have their kids inoculated against polio? Over here, people are allowed to do that and as a result there are the occasional outbreaks in our 'bible belt', causing unnecessary misery and death. Our Christian political parties have successfully prevented the outlawing of such medieval practices.
Delete@Troy,
DeleteSex that doesn't involve choice is called rape. So, except for the narrow exception of same-sex rape, homosexuality is a choice. What you're talking about is attraction, which is something else entirely. But when two dudes decide to make it, that's a choice. Homosexuality is a choice.
Little John
That's not really defining liberalism, is it? You just call anything you disagree with liberalism. Try again.
DeleteThe question you asked isn't relevant to my comment, but her goes. He is engaging in homosexuality, yes.
DeleteIs he a homosexual? Yeah, probably. A bit more than he wants to let on.
Furthermore, a person who never engages in homosexuality (or heterosexuality) isn't really a homosexual or (or homosexual).
You obviously don't understand the words "homosexuality" and "choice."
Cynthia Nixon, actress best known for her role on Sex in the City: "For me, it's a choice."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/23/cynthia-nixon-wit-being-gay_n_1223889.html
"I gave a speech recently, an empowerment speech to a gay audience, and it included the line ‘I’ve been straight and I’ve been gay, and gay is better.’ And they tried to get me to change it, because they said it implies that homosexuality can be a choice. And for me, it is a choice. I understand that for many people it’s not, but for me it’s a choice, and you don’t get to define my gayness for me. A certain section of our community is very concerned that it not be seen as a choice, because if it’s a choice, then we could opt out."
She was excoriated for veering off the script and saying what everyone knows but no one is permitted to say--she sleeps with chicks because she wants to. It's a choice.
Little John
No wonder why you're so confused, Troy. You don't understand that sex without choice is rape.
DeleteLittle John
You obviously don't understand the words "homosexuality" and "choice."
DeleteI think we are using different definitions and that's why we are talking past each other. To me, homosexuality means preferring to have sex with a member of the same sex, while to you it apparently means engaging in a sexual act with a member of the same sex. I see it as a personality trait that is usually fixed for life, while you see it as a behavioral trait that can change any time. That's fine, as long as we understand what we each mean when we talk about homosexuality.
I think my understanding of the word is the more common understanding, also among medical professionals. But each to his own.
So according to you, men locked up in prison that engage in sex are homosexuals. I would say that they are probably heterosexuals with no other options.
In Islamic countries, where it is dangerous to engage in sex before marriage because of the potential 'honor killing' by male relatives, it is common to fuck young men to get some relief. You would call such men homosexuals. I wouldn't.
See what I mean?
"Can we at least agree that parents should not have total freedom regarding the medical treatment of their kids?"
DeleteThe law is indefensible from any perspective. It is simply the imposition of the homosexual agenda by force, without credible pretext.
The assertion that trying to help kids avoid the most dangerous activity a man can engage in-- more dangerous than drunk driving, intravenous drug abuse, or combat-- is itself so dangerous that it needs to be banned by law is laughable and not to be taken seriously.
Gays are just using to law to keep the recruits coming, not being able to generate their own trainees.
"Can we at least agree that parents should not have total freedom regarding the medical treatment of their kids?"
DeleteThe law is indefensible from any perspective. It is simply the imposition of the homosexual agenda by force, without credible pretext.
You didn't answer the question. Try again.
The assertion that trying to help kids avoid the most dangerous activity a man can engage in-- more dangerous than drunk driving, intravenous drug abuse, or combat-- is itself so dangerous that it needs to be banned by law is laughable and not to be taken seriously.
You can't help being gay so there is no point in trying to help kids avoid it. Secondly, being gay is not an activity. Thirdly, it is ridiculous to compare it to drunk driving or drug abuse. Fourthly, it is not dangerous being gay.
Gays are just using to law to keep the recruits coming, not being able to generate their own trainees.
I'm starting to think that you are secretly gay and projecting your own desires. Perhaps you enjoyed being fondled by your priest a bit more than you are comfortable with?
"Being gay" and doing anal intercourse are different things.
DeleteSome of "being gay" is no doubt inborn. Some is learned, practiced, and either encouraged or discouraged.
None of anal intercourse is inborn. Anal intercourse is a voluntary act.
Analogy: the propensity to alcoholism is to some extend inherited. Drunk driving is a voluntary act.
We can help kids avoid voluntary acts.
Anal intercourse doesn't magically create disease. Promiscuity spreads disease. Homosexuality and promiscuity are two different things. By your logic, there should be therapists counseling people to turn from straight to gay in Africa to reduce AIDS. The law does not forbid therapists from counseling clients who want to reduce their promiscuity. The part the the radical right never seems to get is that if you guys get your way and gay men are forced back in the closet, they will be more promiscuous, not less, and any diseases they pick up will be brought home to their unsuspecting beards.
DeleteWhatever your opinion on the origin of homosexuality is, it is crystal clear by now that ex-gay programs simply do not change sexual orientation. Exodus has admitted it, the guy who founded Love Won Out has admitted he never saw anyone change, John Paul was just re-outed again as a gay guy despite his wife continuing to go to ex-gay conferences and hold their marriage up as proof that sexual orientation can be changed. Michael Johnston was arranging anonymous hookups over the internet without disclosing his HIV status at the same time he was parading himself around as the poster boy for change. Ministries like Exodus and "secular" groups like NARTH have been at this for decades, and to this day they have no credible evidence that they can change anyone's orientation. I'll grant you that the licensing board would have been a better place to deal with this, but therapists have no business exposing children to therapies that have been tried for decades and found not to work, with much anecdotal evidence of harm besides.
Boo
Your analysis of programs to help men with gay orientation, and the analysis of people who hate Christianity , isn't worth spit. Basically, it's none of your business. Programs to help people with problems as serious as homosexuality (such as AA and drug treatment programs) face enormous challenges, but help many people. God bless them for their good work.
DeleteGays have no business telling therapists and patients and parents that kids can't be told the truth about homosexuality.
The only good that can come from this obscene law and the support of asshats like you for it is that it exposes the ruthlessness of the LGBT movement and the venality of its bootlickers like you.
I'm sorry that you don't believe facts are worth spit, Mr. Egnor. By your logic, you shouldn't have written this post, because it's none of your business. Unfortunately, unethical counselors causing harm to children are everyone's business. It is unethical to engage in medical or psychological treatments that do not work and can cause harm. It's really that simple. The ex-gay movement has had decades to come up with evidence that they can actually do what they say they can do, and they have produced nothing. That is a fact, whether you like it or not. You really ought to read up on the lawsuit against JONAH. If you got a look at what these "therapies" actually involved, even you might have to concede this movement has no business being anywhere near children.
DeleteYou analogy with AA and drug treatment is interesting. In AA and drug treatment parlance, there is no such thing as an ex-alcoholic or ex-addict. In fact an important part of those programs is recognizing that participants will never get rid of their desire to use. If AA promised its participants that they could stop being alcoholics and AA leaders were regularly found to be secretly taking groups out to bars right after meetings, getting them drunk, and taking advantage of them, AA would have long since shut down.
Boo
Homosexuals have always had a weird obsession with the youth. Get the youngsters on your side, turn them against their parents, and you win the future. It's working.
ReplyDeleteGay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) started off as a child molester defense committee here in Massachusetts. Years later they went on challenge the Department of Health, demanding that the term marriage be redefined. Please don't confuse this group with GLAAD.
TRISH
TRISH
Ex-gay advocates have always had a weird obsession with the youth. Get the youngsters on your side, turn them against equality, and you win the future. It's not working.
DeleteOh wait, it's fine for ex gay activists to demand access to children. What was I thinking.
Boo
In related news, California Progressives also led the fight to protect the rights of pedophiles who teach in the public schools.
ReplyDeleteIn the precipitating case, LA elementary school teacher Mark Berndt was arrested for, among other things, spoon-feeding semen to children at Miramonte Elementary. The story is here.
A number of parents, who, if Dr Hoo is to be believed, were "phobes" of one greek root or another, started a kerfuffle. Semen wasn't, for some reason, a listed item on the school menu (nor was the calorie count, which incensed the First Lady), and bondage activities were not listed items on the school activity list. Not that you'd need parental permission for that, of course. It's not like taking an aspirin or something.
As a result, the school district asked the state Assembly to write legislation permitting the expedited removal of such individuals. The bill went through the Assembly of [insert greek root here]phobes like grass through a goose.
Then the Progressive CA teacher union was galvanized into action, claiming the legislation was nothing but teacher "bashing"** and heralded an end to due process as we know it in America. Of course, the kickbacks from teacher union dues fed by by legislative largesse in CA serves to elect the bashers, and the bill died due to conflicts with the tight little feedback loop of cash flow.
You see, Progressives worry about the children. It's possible that children who aren't spoon-fed correct political doctrine along with a teaspoonful or so of semen on a regular basis might grow up to be... oh, I don't know... phobes of some sort.
**"Bashing" is a term of art equivalent to "phobe" among professional and talented amateur left-wing hysterics. Occasionally, one also sees the term "battering".
George,
DeleteThe Los Angeles Unified School District has had an absurd sexual abuse problem in recent years. I keep waiting for it to get as much attention as the Catholic Church's problem, or for leftists to get as upset, or for leftists to treat all teachers as if they are child molesters.
http://www.bsa.ca.gov/reports/summary/2012-103
TRISH
It's good to know that Jerry Brown is spending his time worrying about reperative therapy and not the child molesters in California's largest school district.
DeleteThe Torch
"But it's not their business if they want counseling to avoid it?"
DeleteNo, it's not their business. It's Troy's business. And Jerry Brown's business. They're going to swoop in and put a stop to it.
For the patient's own good, of course. And not because of an ideological agenda
The Torch
Hogg, et al ('97) looked at the life expectancy of gay men in Vancouver. Vancouver, BC is probably one of the most gay tolerant cities in North America.
DeleteHere's the conclusion:
"In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871."
That work was published in the International Journal of Epidemiology.
Naturally, the authors of this study were subsequently terrorized with the usual death threats and so forth, as well as castigated and vilified for even discussing such a thing in public by the likes of colleagues similar to our own Dr Hoo. We can safely assume the authors were "homophobes", a something-or-other thingamabob whose cause may be rooted in the darkest recesses of our Ids but whose manifestations are clear and easily diagnosable to the intellectually and morally anointed.
Candidly, I could care less what the life expectancy of gay men is or what they do to shorten it.
But it does burn my ass that the left demonizes fat people, smokers, junk food lovers, etc etc because they inflate public health care costs. I'll bet that the cost to treat AIDS in the gay population is borne almost exclusively by the public. I imagine that only the very rich, like Magic Johnson, could possibly afford it. maybe I'm wrong. But the bottom line for public funding is that AIDS (and other STDs) contracted through unsafe anal sex or dirty needles is no less voluntary and no less preventable than smoking- or obesity-related illness.
So what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
They don't care about this study, George. They only care about the studies that tell them they're right.
DeleteTRISH
The study wasn't trying to estimate average gay men's lifespan, they were modelling the impact of AIDS on gay men at the height of the AIDS epidemic. The researchers themselves stated in 2001 that if they went back and did it again, mortality would be greatly reduced.
DeleteBoo
Keep this in mind, folks, the next time some liberal tell you--in the context of abortion--that he doesn't want the government interfering in the doctor-patient relationship.
ReplyDeleteBen
Whew! Well, that clears that up.
ReplyDeleteApparently there's no LGBT agenda. Is removing gender identity disorder from the DSM on their list of things to do? Because that's what an agenda is.
ReplyDeleteTRISH
Example #443,812 of liberals legislating their morality. It's not enough not to engage in this type of therapy, they have to use the law to stop other people from doing it.
ReplyDeleteLittle John
@Hoo:
ReplyDelete"A study based upon statistics from 1986 through 1990 estimated that 20-year-old gay men had a 50 percent chance of becoming HIV positive by age 55"
[http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/promiscuity/]
Source: Donald R. Hoover, et al., “Estimating the 1978-1990 and Future Spread of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 in Subgroups of Homosexual Men,” American Journal of Epidemiology, 134(10): 1190-1205, p. 1203 (1991).
Let me know if I can do any other secretarial work for you, jerk.
Dr. Egnor,
ReplyDeleteThe work on which this factoid is based is very old: 1991. It is an estimate from the early days of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Mine is new and is based on hard numbers.
You may fuck off now.
Hoo
Dr. Egnor,
ReplyDeleteIt is true that you suck at numbers. I am very sorry about that. Fortunately, a neurosurgeon need not be proficient with numbers, so your day job is not in any danger.
But as a secretary you suck big time. You are rude and obnoxious. And you fart.
Hoo
@Dr. Hoo:
ReplyDeleteDo you understand the difference between prevalence and incidence?
The incidence of death over a lifetime is 100%
The prevalence, on any given day, is less.
@Dr. Hoo:
ReplyDelete[The work on which this factoid is based is very old: 1991. It is an estimate from the early days of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Mine is new and is based on hard numbers.]
Show me the new data on the lifetime incidence of HIV positive status among gay men.
Old data trumps no data, ace.
Dr. Egnor,
ReplyDeleteIf you could do math, you would go to the CDC webpage and crunch the numbers yourself. Because you suck at math, I will do this for you.
In 2009, 11,400 gay men acquired HIV. Out of 6 million. That gives a probability of 0.0019 per annum. We may estimate the sexually active lifetime of a gay man to be 30 years. The total probability of getting an HIV infection is thus 30×0.0019 = 0.057, or 5.7 percent. Not 50 percent.
It is not surprising that this number is close to the 3 percent I obtained above. HIV has been around for a while, so the population is close to equilibrium.
So I must fire you as my secretary for trying to perform tasks that are clearly above your pay.
Best,
Hoo
Chirping cricket, cheered
ReplyDeleteOn only by faint starlight.
Fears oncoming storms.
Hoo
Dr. Egnor,
ReplyDeleteI see that you took your number not directly from that dated paper (and why would you?) but from a secondary source, Facts About Youth. I researched this website and don't think you should ever use it again as a reference.
That site is a project of the American College of Pediatricians, which sounds pretty impressive, but turns out to be a fringe organization. It was founded as a socially conservative alternative to the mainstream American Academy of Pediatrics. ACP with its 200 or so members is a joke. AAP counts 60,000 members and is the real deal.
I suggest that you do not rely on crackpots in the future. That will lead to fewer senior moments.
Hoo
Further to new data trumping old data...
ReplyDeleteNate Silver, in 'the Signal and the Noise', noted that the incidence of new infections of syphilis and gonorrhoea have increased amongst homosexuals, whereas the incidence of new infections with HIV in homosexuals have decreased.
The reason, apparently, is that homosexuals know their HIV status, and choose to have sex with those of the same status. An option not available before 1990.
Assuming that people don't change their behaviors over time in response to changed circumstances is a common error, not confined to just politicians and economists.
@Hoo:
ReplyDelete[I see that you took your number not directly from that dated paper (and why would you?) but from a secondary source, Facts About Youth. I researched this website and don't think you should ever use it again as a reference.]
Thanks for your advice. Rest assured that it means a lot to me.
How about we have a moratorium on ANY self professed experts talking about sex with our children, of any sort?
ReplyDeleteHow about we teach our own kids about sex and the only education they get on it is the biology when they are old enough to understand it (12-16?)?
Before that, they could do what they used to do: Play, learn to do maths, read, and write.
How about we make it illegal, or at least very difficult, and uncomfortable to sell sex to kids? No more kiddy porn looking ads, no more adult fashions and make up for kids, no more humouring children who think they are adults with sexual licence.
It should start at home, but certainly not be limited to it.
For example,how about we no longer use the word 'cute' when referring to our teen daughters THONG collection?
Maybe we could move away from the theory that she is only 'asserting herself' when she beds her classmates and and that she is a 'victim' when she beds her teachers or the lurid details of her immature hedonistic life get spread about on a social network online.
That maybe it would be easier if she would not be taught that it is immoral to do such things at 15 or 17 but it's 'girl power' when she hit's 21. From pure evil to 'good clean fun' in 4 or 5 years is obvious bullshit. Maybe, in that light, we should just call immoral behaviour for what it is, no matter the age of the person involved? Perhaps that would send a clearer message to our youth.
The same can be done for our sons.
We could object when he hangs hard core pornographic scenes over his bed. We could explain WHY we object.
We could explain to him that he does not have to sleep with every girl that throws herself at him, nor is he simply entitled to sleep with ANYONE at all.
Nobody OWES him sex.
It is not a commodity, but a behaviour.
Also he should know that people can LIE about sex. They can use it to blackmail and coerce. That sex is often an obsession with young folks. Teach them that there is much more pleasure in life than physical orgasm.
Maybe we could teach them about LOVE?