[QUOTE=cheesehead;185677]Can you give us a link to the report?[/quote]Repeat after me: "Google is my friend." See the first couple of links at: [url]http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/[/url]

[quote]Okay, that statement is about whether or not SOCE works to change orientation. In particular, it says there's insufficient evidence for concluding that SOCE works (see below), or the opposite.

But "and some research suggests that efforts to produce change could be harmful, inducing depression and suicidal tendencies" (from the part of the article that both you and I quoted) is about whether SOCE has harmful side effects -- a different matter.

IIRC the FDA approves drugs only if they're "safe and effective". Here, we're not discussing a drug or FDA approval, but (I am judging only by the article and have not read the report to which you refer) they're saying that there's insufficient evidence that SOCE is [I]either[/I] safe [I]or[/I] effective -- that SOCE may have harmful side effects, and it hasn't been shown to achieve its intended goal.

...

"Repudiate" may be too strong a word [I]if[/I] taken to refer to a context where evidence definitely shows SOCE to be ineffective (with no mention of safety).

But if it's supposed to refer to a context where evidence is claimed to show that SOCE is both safe and effective (or either!) -- as the context seems to be to me in this article -- it seems appropriate, doesn't it?[/QUOTE]But they didn't repudiate that effectiveness, only that the studies are inconclusive due to lack of rigour. They didn't repudiate the safety either; again, only the lack of rigour in the studies which state it is safe.

I'm not opposed to them issuing warnings. I just think "repudiate" seems premature, and more studies need to be done which avoid the lack of rigour.

I'm not sure my last post made any sense. LOL. I guess if the headline had read "Psychologists repudiate the gay-to-straight therapists' claims of verified success" that would be accurate. No argument there. It just seems that, as it stands, the headline is misleading; and the tone of the title should have been softened to match the material below it.

[quote=Zeta-Flux;185736]I'm not sure my last post made any sense. LOL. I guess if the headline had read "Psychologists repudiate the gay-to-straight therapists' claims of verified success" that would be accurate. No argument there. It just seems that, as it stands, the headline is misleading; and the tone of the title should have been softened to match the material below it.[/quote]
Let's do less analysis on headlines.

[I]Variety[/I] once had "STICKS NIX HICK PIX" (oft-misspelled, oft-parodied).

In reading the task force's findings, I was struck with one section in particular. From page 2:

[quote]The task force, in recognition of human diversity, conceptualized affirmative interventions within the domain of cultural competence, consistent with general multicultural approaches that acknowledge the importance of age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, and socioeconomic status. We see this multiculturally competent and affirmative approach as grounded in the acceptance of the following scientific facts:

- Same-sex sexual attractions, behavior, and orientations per se are normal and positive variants of human sexuality- in other words, they do not indicate either mental or developmental disorders.

- Homosexuality and bisexuality are stigmatized, and this stigma can have a variety of negative consequences (e.g., minority stress) throughout the life span.

- Same-sex attractions and behavior occur in the context of a variety or sexual orientations and sexual orientation identities, and for some, sexual orientation identity (i.e., individual or group membership and affiliation, self-labeling) is fluid or has an indefinite outcome.

- Gay men, lesbians, and bisexual individuals form stable, committed relationships and families that are equivalent to heterosexual relationships and families in essential respects.

- Some individuals choose to live their lives in accordance with personal or religious values (e.g., telic congruence).[/quote]

Items 2, 3, and 5 are simply true by direct example. But what do you all think about these "scientific facts"? Are you "multiculturally competent"?

Item 4: Is the ability to propagate a species not an essential aspect of the family? Is it only that the individuals involved are committed?

Item 1: Is not being a result of mental or developmental disorder a sign that the behavior is "a normal and positive variant"? How does one decide when a behavior is normal and positive, as a scientific fact? What specific behaviors of the same-sex group are they speaking of (and which are they avoiding), when they qualify with "per se"?

[quote=Zeta-Flux;185785]Items 2, 3, and 5 are simply true by direct example. But what do you all think about these "scientific facts"?[/quote]Does your question have something to do with putting quotes around [I]scientific facts[/I] -- that you're questioning whether those three "simply true" items are in the category of "scientific fact"?

None of those three statements contradicts anything I know (if that is relevant to your question).

[quote]Item 4: Is the ability to propagate a species not an essential aspect of the family?[/quote]That would depend on whether one made that ability a requirement for being in a family, I suppose -- ones definition of "family".

When I was young, two families on our block consisted of a single[sup]*[/sup] mother and her children. At that age, it never occurred to me to ask about the exact nature of the relationship of either woman to some hypothetical adult male who was the children's father. I just accepted that most families with children had two adult parents present, but some didn't and there were vague attributes such as [I]divorced[/I] or [I]separated[/I] or [I]abandoned[/I] or [I]widowed[/I] attached to the latter cases.

In those single[sup]*[/sup]-mother cases, there was not the presence of two fertile (presumably) adults of opposite gender that would be necessary for propagation without an outside factor such as artificial insemination or adoption, living together in the house -- but they were always referred to as [I]families[/I] in conversations I heard.

Does a family of, say, a man, a woman and their children, a boy and a girl, cease to be a family if either the man or the woman, but not both, leaves/dies?

Did the grouping of my grandmother and one of her adult daughters living with her for many years constitute a family? When that adult daughter, at an age which I'd now estimate to have been almost certainly past her menopause, married a man and moved away from her mother, did the newlyweds constitute a family or not, assuming there was no possibility of their propogating?

- - -

[sup]*[/sup] -- By "single" I mean simply living without an adult man present. I had/have no actual knowledge of their marital status either at the time I knew them or in their pasts. It never occurred to me to notice whether either wore a wedding ring, for instance, and I never asked my friends, the children, about their fathers.

[quote]Item 1: Is not being a result of mental or developmental disorder a sign that the behavior is "a normal and positive variant"?[/quote]? Do you want to reword that?

[quote]What specific behaviors of the same-sex group are they speaking of (and which are they avoiding), when they qualify with "per se"?[/quote]Since the article's sentence is "Same-sex sexual attractions, behavior, and orientations per se are ...", I think "per se" applies to "sexual attractions, behavior, and orientation".

Totally frivolous
 

Gay Tyson?
Gay Gordons?

Let us restore the word to its original meaning.
Queers please keep it private.

PS Harringay.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;185848]Does your question have something to do with putting quotes around [I]scientific facts[/I] -- that you're questioning whether those three "simply true" items are in the category of "scientific fact"?

None of those three statements contradicts anything I know (if that is relevant to your question).[/quote]LOL. As I said, they are true by direct example. It would be quite surprised to hear that they did contradict anything you knew.

I put quotes around "scientific fact" because that is how the five points were described. In effect, I was asking the group: Do you find that appellation appropriate and apropos? Do you view those five items as established scientific fact? Any comments on any individual points?

[quote]That would depend on whether one made that ability a requirement for being in a family, I suppose -- ones definition of "family".

When I was young, two families on our block consisted of a single[sup]*[/sup] mother and her children. At that age, it never occurred to me to ask about the exact nature of the relationship of either woman to some hypothetical adult male who was the children's father. I just accepted that most families with children had two adult parents present, but some didn't and there were vague attributes such as [I]divorced[/I] or [I]separated[/I] or [I]abandoned[/I] or [I]widowed[/I] attached to the latter cases.

In those single[sup]*[/sup]-mother cases, there was not the presence of two fertile (presumably) adults of opposite gender that would be necessary for propagation without an outside factor such as artificial insemination or adoption, living together in the house -- but they were always referred to as [I]families[/I] in conversations I heard.

Does a family of, say, a man, a woman and their children, a boy and a girl, cease to be a family if either the man or the woman, but not both, leaves/dies?

Did the grouping of my grandmother and one of her adult daughters living with her for many years constitute a family? When that adult daughter, at an age which I'd now estimate to have been almost certainly past her menopause, married a man and moved away from her mother, did the newlyweds constitute a family or not, assuming there was no possibility of their propogating?

- - -

[sup]*[/sup] -- By "single" I mean simply living without an adult man present. I had/have no actual knowledge of their marital status either at the time I knew them or in their pasts. It never occurred to me to notice whether either wore a wedding ring, for instance, and I never asked my friends, the children, about their fathers.[/quote]I agree. It really does depend on one's definition. And there are enough definitions out there (say, at dictionary.com) to fit any sort of relationship. Here is a sampling:
1. parents and their children, considered as a group, whether dwelling together or not.
2. the children of one person or one couple collectively: We want a large family.
3. the spouse and children of one person: We're taking the family on vacation next week.
4. any group of persons closely related by blood, as parents, children, uncles, aunts, and cousins: to marry into a socially prominent family.
5. all those persons considered as descendants of a common progenitor.
6. Chiefly British. approved lineage, esp. noble, titled, famous, or wealthy ancestry: young men of family.
7. a group of persons who form a household under one head, including parents, children, and servants.
8. the staff, or body of assistants, of an official: the office family.
9. a group of related things or people: the family of romantic poets; the halogen family of elements.
10. a group of people who are generally not blood relations but who share common attitudes, interests, or goals and, frequently, live together: Many hippie communes of the sixties regarded themselves as families.

See #10 for an example of how broad the notion can be.

Now, to the heart of my question. The task force paper asserts that "Gay men, lesbians, and bisexual individuals form stable, committed relationships and families that are equivalent to heterosexual relationships and families in essential respects." So, imagine that Steve is a bisexual man, equally attracted to both genders. He is trying to decide whom to form a relationship with; Sally or Sam. Is it the case that whomever he chooses, the relationships would be "equivalent...in essential respects"?

[quote]? Do you want to reword that?[/quote]I thought it was clear and rhetorical. What part was upsetting or unclear or in need of rewording to you? (I'm asking this because of the extra question mark.) If A does not arise from mental or developmental disorders it does not necessarily imply that A is good, or natural, or positive. At least, that is my belief

[quote]Since the article's sentence is "Same-sex sexual attractions, behavior, and orientations per se are ...", I think "per se" applies to "sexual attractions, behavior, and orientation".[/QUOTE]What are those behaviors? And what does "per se" add to the sentence? Those were my questions.

[quote=Zeta-Flux;185852]I thought it was clear and rhetorical. What part was upsetting or unclear or in need of rewording to you?[/quote]Unclear.

Your question ("Is not being a result of mental or developmental disorder a sign that the behavior is "a normal and positive variant"? ") has a single "not", but is of the form in which I'd expect there normally to be another "not" in the second clause.

That is, I'd consider:

Is not being a result of mental or developmental disorder a sign that the behavior is [U][B]not[/B][/U] "a normal and positive variant"?

to be the (rhetorical) form usually intended. Since it's (... ahem ...) not, I need clarification about your intent. [I]Perhaps you didn't intend to ask the form with two "not"s, or otherwise mixed up the sentence during composition. Maybe it wasn't intended to be rhetorical. [/I] So I asked.

[quote]If A does not arise from mental or developmental disorders it does not necessarily imply that A is good, or natural, or positive.[/quote]See? There you used "not" in two clauses, in a parallel manner that makes the intent clear. Try taking out one of them, then not doing a double-take when reading that sentence.

[QUOTE]Try taking out one of them, then not doing a double-take when reading that sentence. [/QUOTE]

Okay.

If A does not arise from mental or developmental disorders does it necessarily imply that A is good, or natural, or positive?

The answer is no.

No double-take.

:toot: (Had to try out a new emoticon.)

[quote=Zeta-Flux;185872]Okay.

If A does not arise from mental or developmental disorders does it necessarily imply that A is good, or natural, or positive?

The answer is no.

No double-take.[/quote]I meant take out one of the "not"s [I]but don't change the order of any other words[/I].

Of[I] course[/I] you can make the sentence look sensible by rearranging the remaining words (you changed "it does" to "does it"!) after removing one "not".

Edit: This has given me an idea about what might be at the root of both this and our previous misunderstandings.

How do you see the difference between

"If A does not arise from mental or developmental disorders it does necessarily imply that A is good, or natural, or positive"

and

"If A does not arise from mental or developmental disorders does it necessarily imply that A is good, or natural, or positive"

?

Does one seem declarative but odd, while the other is distinctly interrogative?

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;185785]Item 4: Is the ability to propagate a species not an essential aspect of the family?[/QUOTE]

Obviously not an essential aspect of EVERY family. Post menapausal widows have been known to marry. Infertile men have been known to marry.