Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yeah, if you want to take "NARTH"'s word for it.
Did you read the "NARTH" mission statement?
I used them as but ONE example of the fact that there IS debate. I didn't say they were right, or wrong. This is no more my field than it is yours , Madeline's, nor Allie's . But the FACT that they dissent PROVES that Madeline's assertion that an entire field agrees on something was incorrect. No?
The "entire" medical field doesn't agree that HIV causes AIDs. There are still some goofs out there who just can't but the +1 correlation with HIV and AIDs and they refuse to accept the known virological facts that HIV destroys CD4+ T-cells (the diagnosis of AIDS is purely related to the number of CD4+ cells in the body). Ron Paul is one of them.
However, the vast majority of the field accepts it and dismisses those who don't buy it as "out there".
So you can't say the "entire field" agrees on anything. The overwhelming consensus is that Homosexuality is not something a person can change about themselves.
I wonder how much bank NARTH is making from Focus on the Family donations?
And the even bigger point...our government and schools NEVER get to deny anything to anyone based on religion.
Ever.
So you'd support a Wahhibist having a top secret security clearance and access to state secrets?
I didn't think so.
Why should I have a problem with that? Why do you have a problem with it?
The larger point is, your religious beliefs don't get to trump the standards of a profession you want to enter.
If you can't buy the Christian Scientist scenario, then how about this:
"You are a Jehovah's Witness in medical school who believes blood is sacred and refuses to do a transfusion on a patient."
Or:
"You are a Rastafarian in medical school that believes it's your religious right to walk around and see patients with a doobie hanging out of your mouth."
Jehovah's Witnesses actually have some sound medical studies backing them up about the transfusions, not that any of them will ever enroll in medical school.
There are sound medical studies backing up the notion that blood shouldn't be transfused because it makes God angry?
I don't think so.
There are plenty of studies about the dangers of blood transfusion (I should know, I am a co-author on a paper that we are trying to publish about blood transfusion), but it has nothing to do with anyone's religious beliefs.
Frankly, I find it annoying that a patient would rather die of shock then three units of blood. However, I recognize that it's their decision and not mine and that my personal opinion on the matter is not germane to the issue.
See how simple that is? I don't get to foist my personal opinions on people in a professional setting.
So you'd support a Wahhibist having a top secret security clearance and access to state secrets?
I didn't think so.
Why should I have a problem with that? Why do you have a problem with it?
In today's climate I can see the thought behind such sentiment. BUT the reality is that if someone has underwent the necessary top secret clearance procedures than their religious standings have been vetted to the max, so there shouldn't be a problem.
So you'd support a Wahhibist having a top secret security clearance and access to state secrets?
I didn't think so.
Why should I have a problem with that? Why do you have a problem with it?
Other than the fact that Wahibbism is linked to AQ and Sunni extremism and that might not be the kind of person who should be trusted with launch codes?
Nothing. Nothing at all.
Seriously though, the government routinely denies things to people based on their beliefs and associations.
We weren't discussing choice, we were discussing whether it was a mental illness, by the way I don't agree that it i s, I think it is a choice though.
I don't believe the overwhelming consensus is that it isn't either. Think you're wrong on that one.
blah blah blah ad hominem all do
Seriously?
"Facist"?
Some people need to get a grip.
me? I was pointing out that she just spews out ad hominem and nonsense and I meant to say 'all day' and not 'all do'
I suspect then, based on the way this discussion has gone, that those members of the medical profession who do not agree that HIV causes AIDS should be expelled from their own profession because they do not conform to scientific thinking. Can't have people thinking outside the box and maybe coming up with a cure, now can we?
Immie
Jehovah's Witnesses actually have some sound medical studies backing them up about the transfusions, not that any of them will ever enroll in medical school.
There are sound medical studies backing up the notion that blood shouldn't be transfused because it makes God angry?
I don't think so.
There are plenty of studies about the dangers of blood transfusion (I should know, I am a co-author on a paper that we are trying to publish about blood transfusion), but it has nothing to do with anyone's religious beliefs.
Frankly, I find it annoying that a patient would rather die of shock then three units of blood. However, I recognize that it's their decision and not mine and that my personal opinion on the matter is not germane to the issue.
See how simple that is? I don't get to foist my personal opinions on people in a professional setting.
I believe Ms. Keeton has stated that she understands and agrees with that statement.
Immie
We weren't discussing choice, we were discussing whether it was a mental illness, by the way I don't agree that it i s, I think it is a choice though.
I don't believe the overwhelming consensus is that it isn't either. Think you're wrong on that one.
The overwhelming consensus is that homosexuality is not a mental illness and is not a personal choice.
See the DSM IV or the American Psychiatric Association for further clarification on the matter.
Seriously?
"Facist"?
Some people need to get a grip.
me? I was pointing out that she just spews out ad hominem and nonsense and I meant to say 'all day' and not 'all do'
No. Allie.
As much whining about other people on this thread as she has done, she's done a sufficient job of mucking the subject up with a bunch of penny ante insults and absurd hyperbole.
Like "facist".
They have to repeat that lie or admit that the school is out of line.We weren't discussing choice, we were discussing whether it was a mental illness, by the way I don't agree that it i s, I think it is a choice though.
I don't believe the overwhelming consensus is that it isn't either. Think you're wrong on that one.
The overwhelming consensus is that homosexuality is not a mental illness and is not a personal choice.
See the DSM IV or the American Psychiatric Association for further clarification on the matter.
There you guys go with that, "over whelming consensus" crap again. You would think you would have learned your lesson about that from the Global Warming debate.
There is a consensus that it is not a mental illness. That is true.
There is not an over whelming consensus that there is not choice involved in it at all. As this study shows the Gene in question only makes the Mice more likely to be Gay, it does not mean they WILL be gay. There for by elimination you are left with the FACT that some people are able to choose to be or not be gay.
Immie, if a medical doctor refused to prescribe anti-retrovirals to an AIDS patient because he subscribed to some out-there theory on what causes/cures AIDS, yes, he'd get disciplined. The treatment is not in conformity with the medical profession's standard of care.
Could he nonetheless believe as he wishes? Certainly....he just cannot endanger patients' lives by carrying out such beliefs in his workplace (at least, not unless he took proper steps to set up human experiments. And given the severity of the disease, that might not be ethically possible.)
I just don't see what the problem is. You join a profession, you adhere your conduct as a professional to the standards for that profession. What you believe is up to you, as is your conduct in private (mostly; I can see things like off-duty drug abuse etc. having a bearing on one's fitness to practice).
I think one factoid you are overlooking is that this student did not seek to become a therapist for adults. She wants to be a public school counselor....that's a much more vulnerable and captive patient mix, and if the diversity is beyond her, she cannot perform adequately in the job.
No, it's not the overwhelming consensus. Kindly quote where you see non-choice presented as fact.
Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?
No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.
Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?
No; even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, often coerced by family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable. However, not all gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek assistance from a mental health professional want to change their sexual orientation. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek psychological help with the coming out process or for strategies to deal with prejudice, but most go into therapy for the same reasons and life issues that bring straight people to mental health professionals.
What About So-Called "Conversion Therapies"?
Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their clients' sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports, however. show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of these claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective that condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented; for example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported over time, as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention.
The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to patients. In 1997, the Association's Council of Representatives passed a resolution reaffirming psychology's opposition to homophobia in treatment and spelling out a client's right to unbiased treatment and self-determination. Any person who enters into therapy to deal with issues of sexual orientation has a right to expect that such therapy will take place in a professionally neutral environment, without any social bias.
Based in Washington, DC, the American Psychological Association (APA) is a scientific and professional organization that represents psychology in the United States. With 150,000 members, APA is the largest association of psychologists worldwide.
How many of you progressive nutjobs actually work in human services?
Have any of you actually worked with homosexuals in a facility?
We weren't discussing choice, we were discussing whether it was a mental illness, by the way I don't agree that it i s, I think it is a choice though.
I don't believe the overwhelming consensus is that it isn't either. Think you're wrong on that one.
The overwhelming consensus is that homosexuality is not a mental illness and is not a personal choice.
See the DSM IV or the American Psychiatric Association for further clarification on the matter.
There you guys go with that, "over whelming consensus" crap again. You would think you would have learned your lesson about that from the Global Warming debate.
There is a consensus that it is not a mental illness. That is true.
There is not an over whelming consensus that there is not choice involved in it at all. As this study shows the Gene in question only makes the Mice more likely to be Gay, it does not mean they WILL be gay. There for by elimination you are left with the FACT that some people are able to choose to be or not be gay.
me? I was pointing out that she just spews out ad hominem and nonsense and I meant to say 'all day' and not 'all do'
No. Allie.
As much whining about other people on this thread as she has done, she's done a sufficient job of mucking the subject up with a bunch of penny ante insults and absurd hyperbole.
Like "facist".
That's okay, you don't have to post any actual links or information. I've posted more than the rest of you yahoos combined.
As a matter of fact, there are a couple on here who haven't posted any facts at all. Just a sustained stream of lies and refusal to answer direct questions, or otherwise support any of the stupid claims they've made.
Kindly prove that it's the "consensus" that homosexuals aren't that way by choice.
The overwhelming consensus is that homosexuality is not a mental illness and is not a personal choice.
See the DSM IV or the American Psychiatric Association for further clarification on the matter.
There you guys go with that, "over whelming consensus" crap again. You would think you would have learned your lesson about that from the Global Warming debate.
There is a consensus that it is not a mental illness. That is true.
There is not an over whelming consensus that there is not choice involved in it at all. As this study shows the Gene in question only makes the Mice more likely to be Gay, it does not mean they WILL be gay. There for by elimination you are left with the FACT that some people are able to choose to be or not be gay.
You are wrong. See the above post.
Why do you guys spout off your opinions as fact?
