Conversion Therapy Bans - not so quick!
Here is a study that has been quoted constantly in Australia - Columbia Law School - here
What is interesting is -of the 47 studies - 12 claim to be harmful, 1 claims no harm and 34 do not draw any harmful or harm conclusion. Yet, Columbia Law School holds the position that it is harmful but that is difficult to draw when you read all the studies. Ideology appears to play a part in these studies which are predominantly self-reporting.
For example, this is the abstract from one of the 34 undecided studies which show clearly an unbiased approach:
"The purpose of this article is to identify the ethical issues in efforts to ban reorientation therapies. The 3 primary arguments cited in the literature in favor of such a ban are discussed:
(a) homosexuality is no longer considered a mental illness,
(b) those who request change do so because of internalized homophobia, and
(c) sexual orientation is immutable.
The authors present 3 arguments in favor of providing reorientation and related services:
(a) respect for the autonomy and self-determination of persons,
(b) respect for evaluative frameworks, creeds, and religious values regarding the moral status of same-sex behavior, and
(c) service provision gave the scientific evidence that efforts to change thoughts, behaviors, and feeling-based sexual orientation can be successful
For example, not all would agree with (2) in that the APA was manipulated in changing the status of homosexuality. They voted on it. When do you vote on science? You don't. They had external and internal pressure to change the definition. Either way, it is assumed now it is no longer a mental illness, but when health concerns are presented blame is laid on stigmatization and social rejection.
Second, the gay movement now rejects (c) they no longer believe the born gay thesis let alone a gay gene. The homosexual movement now talks about sexual fluidity - which means choice. In effect, they are stating that sexual orientation is mutable.
For example, this is the abstract from one of the 34 undecided studies which show clearly an unbiased approach:
"The purpose of this article is to identify the ethical issues in efforts to ban reorientation therapies. The 3 primary arguments cited in the literature in favor of such a ban are discussed:
(a) homosexuality is no longer considered a mental illness,
(b) those who request change do so because of internalized homophobia, and
(c) sexual orientation is immutable.
The authors present 3 arguments in favor of providing reorientation and related services:
(a) respect for the autonomy and self-determination of persons,
(b) respect for evaluative frameworks, creeds, and religious values regarding the moral status of same-sex behavior, and
(c) service provision gave the scientific evidence that efforts to change thoughts, behaviors, and feeling-based sexual orientation can be successful
For example, not all would agree with (2) in that the APA was manipulated in changing the status of homosexuality. They voted on it. When do you vote on science? You don't. They had external and internal pressure to change the definition. Either way, it is assumed now it is no longer a mental illness, but when health concerns are presented blame is laid on stigmatization and social rejection.
Second, the gay movement now rejects (c) they no longer believe the born gay thesis let alone a gay gene. The homosexual movement now talks about sexual fluidity - which means choice. In effect, they are stating that sexual orientation is mutable.
GAY RESEARCH STILL SITES OTHER RESEARCH TO BACK ITS ANALYSIS
More recently, researchers from the University of Colorado Denver and the University of Oregon used the tool Web of Science to examine the ways in which scientific papers analyzed children of same-sex parents over time, and how each paper cited others to back its analysis. They found that over time, more and more papers cited other research that highlighted that there’s “no differences” in the outcomes for children based solely on whether they were raised by same-sex, heterosexual, or single parents.
“I found overwhelming evidence that scientists agree that there is not a negative impact to children of same-sex couples,” says Jimi Adams, a sociologist at the University of Colorado at Denver and co-author of the paper.
Not all of the research on the topic shares this conclusion. In January, Paul Sullins, a Catholic priest and sociology professor at Catholic University, published a paper (paywall) that found that children raised by same-sex parents were twice as likely to have emotional problems versus those raised by heterosexual parents. But his research was rejected because he's Catholic etc etc......
