Re: Polycarp’s mention of the Paulks as an example of a couple who have adapted contently to heterosexuality…
It may be worth noting in this context that John Paulk was seen and confronted in a gay bar on Dupont Circle in DC a few months ago. It sure seems like his “reparative therapy” didn’t take quite as well as he wishes most of us to think…
jayjay
RE: THE GAY LIFESTYLE
Here’s what I did today:
Woke up in my suburban house, took a shower, got dressed, had two cups of coffee, drove to my sales job, goofed around a little cause it’s Friday, ate my brown-bag lunch, called on some customers, and came home. After work, I checked the boards, and tonight I’m having some beers, grilling outside, and watching the Cubs. Bedtime by 11.
Tomorrow, I’ll do some chores around the house and run some errands. Maybe catch the Cubs game. Maybe go out for dinner.
Sunday, I’m going out with my parents and brother to celebrate Mother’s Day.
BTW, I’m gay. With a partner of more than 11 years. So what? My activities are, with random variations, exactly the same as MILLIONS OF OTHER PEOPLE. I don’t live a “gay lifestyle” because ONE DOESN’T EXIST; I live my lifestyle. Please get over it.
Cubs 1 Cards 0 2nd inning 
Well…
Thanks, Tris! It appears we were on the same wavelength, but you addressed the invalidity of the study in much more cogent language than I was able to muster – and with far greater thoroughness.
Jayjay, I mentioned the Paulks on purpose, being well aware of that instance – they are clearly a “formerly gay” couple living in an apparently “stable heterosexual relationship” who (or at least he) have not changed orientation. In short, it’s a clear disproof of the inference puddleglum makes from the study, regardless of the study’s validity. (By the way, I owe you an apology for mistaking you for jarbabyj over on the other thread. The similarity in names tripped me up – and you both like guys, too. 
Then I misread it and it’s my mistake, Polycarp. Mea culpa. 
And as far as being mistaken for jarbaby goes, as I said, it can only improve my perceived stature.
jayjay
Puddleglum, please read this. Hopefully it’ll give you some idea of what’s wrong with “gay conversion”
Fenris
Ok… everyone else has done a lovely job of pointing out that the study you started this debacle over is currently being used as a snotrag by informed readers. I’ll take you up on the bolded witnugget, which andygirl (I believe) mentioned briefly:
ECT is still widely used to treat resistant depression. It has a greater success rate than drug therapy, possibly because it’s usually used in situations where drug therapy has failed and psychotherapies are showing little progress. As a last-resort treatment for depression it’s almost golden, with over 70% success rates (my source is the Handbook of Depression, 2nd Ed.). Some would argue that the temporary side effects of an ECT regimen (retrograde amnesia and general disorientation lasting up to ~2 weeks is normal) are much preferable to being medicated for what might be a significant period of time, during which you could have a restricted diet, sexual side effects, headaches, etc. etc. etc. There are those who choose ECT over medications.
[personal opinion]The only possible reason homosexuals could want to be straight, I figure, is because the knuckledraggers in society gives them such a rough go of it. Some people can still thrive under those conditions, others cannot and become confused, angry, etc. If society reacted to both the same way, why would anyone want to switch? There would be no pressure.[/personal opinion] If I’m missing the boat with my opinion, someone give me feedback.
Poly,
I found our simulpost interesting, as well. I appreciate your kind words, but I doubt that I will be more able to reach this person. His mind appears to have been made up long ago. Insisting that only one possible reason can exist for a difference of opinion is a common tactic for those who prefer not to be challenged.
From the title of the thread I suspected that an overstatement was probable, even before examining the substance of the study. Science seldom speaks in such generalities. Things deteriorated rapidly from that inauspicious beginning.
Tris
That’s one of the problems with this
sort of ‘study’. A parent may see it
as ‘the kid can be changed’ and then
try to force them into this so-called
therapy…that could result in the
poor kid running away from home…or
worse - suicide.
I remember once seeing a gay news
(the TV was left on from a another
show) type program on the TV where
they showed that a large percentage
of teenage run-aways and suicides
were gays.
Variants of what andygirl said do happen.
I came out to my family when I was 17. My mother got me thrown out of my grandmother’s house saying it was “Tough Love.” She thought being on my own would “straighten me out.”
What it did was get me to lose my virginity to my first boyfriend.
The rift between us could be measured in light years. She still thinks she did nothing wrong by throwing me out on the street and making me live in parks and sleep under bushes.
You can read about it here.
Betty Bowers has a couple of “before” pictures of John Paulk.
(If you aren’t familiar with Betty Bowers, you are probably a sinner going to Hell at the speed of light. You’ve heard of ex-gay minsitries? Betty has an Ex-Negro Ministry! Praise Jesus!)
Interesting point. But if that’s true…I dunno…it might possibly be worthwhile to find out why they’re dissatified before we prescribe heterosexuality as the cure. Ya think?
Come to think of it, I’m feeling rather unfufilled in my lifestyle. My love life is failing to fill my emotional needs. I’m dissatified. No doubt a conversion to homosexuality will make me the person I desire to be.
all homosexuals are abnormal i.e anything which deviates from the norm is abnormal so it should not bother any NORMAL PERSON what these abnormalities get up to
Yozzer certainly is abnormal
Maybe I’m more open-minded than most, but I cant understand
how any parent could throw their own son out on the street
simply because he’s gay. It’s really sad to hear about when
that happens
I know that some think it will ‘ruin’ the family having a
gay kid in the house, but isn’t throwing the kid out doing
just that without even giving it a chance?
A big part of the problem probably comes from the homophobia
spewed by ‘anti-gay’ groups.
I must say my faith has been shaken. I always thought amoungst the dopers there would be a broad base of knowledge on any subject imaginable. But it would seem I am the only one who has any knowledge of qualitative approachs to social research. Either that or those who do know about it have avoided this thread to because they didn’t want to be called names. So in the interest of defending this style of research and educating my fellow dopers I have found a link that describes this type of research in detail. Though it was written for an academic audience it seems well written enough to be understood by the layman. The page I am linking to has links in the upper left to the other pages describing qualititative methodology and the strengths and weaknesses inherent in this form of research.
http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/kb/qual.htm
I would also like to apologize for my use of the word abandonment in conjunction with ECT. As has been pointed out it is a very effective treatment for some forms of severe depression and has been unfairly stigamatized in popular culture. What I was referring to was the use of ECT to treat almost any psychiatric disorder because of a lack viable alternatives.
The conservative columnists have a hold of the story. Ok Sherman lets step into the wayback machine. Set the dial to 1950.
The wonderful Cal Thomas who makes Reagan look like FDR came out this weekend with a wonderful little diatribe where he uses the argument that Dr. Spitzer must be right because every other expert in the field is calling his study unscientific.
You can read it yourself at:
So much for the scientific debate. Now there is no reason we should not be completely gay free as a society in the next ten years. After all, all of you homosexuals out there are really just heterosexuals with insufficient motivation.
Sheesh!
:rolleyes:
The conservative columnists have a hold of the story. Ok Sherman lets step into the wayback machine. Set the dial to 1950.
The wonderful Cal Thomas who makes Reagan look like FDR came out this weekend with a wonderful little diatribe where he uses the argument that Dr. Spitzer must be right because every other expert in the field is calling his study unscientific.
You can read it yourself at:
So much for the scientific debate. Now there is no reason we should not be completely gay free as a society in the next ten years. After all, all of you homosexuals out there are really just heterosexuals with insufficient motivation.
Sheesh!
:rolleyes:
Assuming, arguendo, that Dr. Spitzer’s study was intended as qualitative research, then it was at best disingenous of you to claim that it “proved that gays can go straight” as you did in your OP. Qualitative research doesn’t prove anything; it just documents some corner of the field without making probative conclusions.
Either Dr. Spitzer misrepresented his study, or you did, or both. If we assume that Dr. Spitzer’s study is qualitative ethnographic research, then all it proves is that “some people who claim to have previously been gay now claim to be straight and claim to have satisfactory sex lives”. This falls far short of the claim made in the OP or in Spitzer’s announcement.
Do you intend to answer any of the points made to you by previous posters, or are you just going to continue to pretend that all of us are too stupid to justify your attention?
ah, yes, the ‘everyone except me is wrong’ approach. It works so well.
as for the link to the ‘quantitative research’ page, I lifted the following quote:
emphasis mine.
and here we have puddles leading the charge to take, in essence, a telephone poll and extrapolate from that essential truths calling it science.
The point made by your link was that the type of ‘research’ may have some benefit for those who are attempting to get a grasp on generalities of the issues, but (quoting above) results were not necessarily generalizable. which makes sense. You can get a nice idea of what these specific individuals thought/felt but one should not attempt to generalize their experiences to any one else (why does this seem so familiar? oh, yeah, it’s cause for 4 pages, all the other ‘less knowledgable folk’ have been trying to point out to you the lack of substantiation for extrapolating the results of this poll to the general population)
While this study could certainly be viewed as a valuable qualitative analysis of the phenomenon of trying to alter sexual orientation, I would like to draw something to your attention. The one piece of information which leaps out at us all, from the study, from the media and from you, Puddle, is… (wait for it)
A number.
66%! 66%! Look! They can change!
Please. As this is the emphasis of the publicity, this study is, by definition, quantitative. I have not had the opportunity to read the study itself, just its media hype, so I concede that it may have been the researcher’s intention to present this as an examination of what it’s like to change, not a predictor of the potential for change. That certainly hasn’t been the spin, and more to the point, that certainly hasn’t been your intention on this thread.