Religion and LGBT people

[Esquilax]

Yes, research shows that it's possible to consciously change, though difficult: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1...011.607052

Oh no, shame for you! Does anyone have that sad trumpet sound to play? Are you being fucking serious, John?

A cursory glimpse at the research you just posted shows what's terribly wrong with it. First of all, there are numerous critiques as to its scientific accuracy: http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/04...hallenged/

http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/11/a-c...ys-part-1/

http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2009/08/3750/

Of special note is that last one, indicating that the American Psychological Association found your study to be unreliable, John.

But we're just getting started: the study was funded by Exodus International, which is in itself a ministry specializing in converting gays. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, an organization like that would have a vested interest in producing studies like this one, John? Nice bit of bias right there, no?

Oh, and fun fact, just to round out this bodyslam of truth: in January of last year, the president of Exodus International, one Alan Chambers, stated that 99.9% of all participants in conversion therapy experience no change as to their attractions. He even went so far as to apologize for the previous slogan that Exodus used: "Change Is Possible."

But thanks for playing, John. It was real fun.

[John V]

Yes, research shows that it's possible to consciously change, though difficult: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1...011.607052

Oh no, shame for you! Does anyone have that sad trumpet sound to play? Are you being fucking serious, John?

A cursory glimpse at the research you just posted shows what's terribly wrong with it. First of all, there are numerous critiques as to its scientific accuracy: http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/04...hallenged/

http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/11/a-c...ys-part-1/

http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2009/08/3750/

Of special note is that last one, indicating that the American Psychological Association found your study to be unreliable, John.

But we're just getting started: the study was funded by Exodus International, which is in itself a ministry specializing in converting gays. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, an organization like that would have a vested interest in producing studies like this one, John? Nice bit of bias right there, no?

Oh, and fun fact, just to round out this bodyslam of truth: in January of last year, the president of Exodus International, one Alan Chambers, stated that 99.9% of all participants in conversion therapy experience no change as to their attractions. He even went so far as to apologize for the previous slogan that Exodus used: "Change Is Possible."

But thanks for playing, John. It was real fun.

It's from a peer-reviewed journal. Atheists tend to tout such as the gold standard of scholarship, until they don't like a particular result.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_...al_Therapy
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog/7502387

Plus there's the other longitudinal study I presented, which shows change, but doesn't give reasons for the change.

[Question Mark]

It's from a peer-reviewed journal. Atheists tend to tout such as the gold standard of scholarship, until they don't like a particular result.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_...al_Therapy
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog/7502387

Plus there's the other longitudinal study I presented, which shows change, but doesn't give reasons for the change.

He just pointed out that the book you cited had been discredited by other sources, and most significantly in my opinion, that the research was likely very biased because it was sponsored by an organisation that wishes to see intrinsic homosexuality proven false. You can't take something on face value when it obviously has an agenda.
If you could cite any book or any research, or anything else as evidence simply because it exists, then we'd believe the bible.

[John V]

He just pointed out that the book you cited had been discredited by other sources, and most significantly in my opinion, that the research was likely very biased because it was sponsored by an organisation that wishes to see intrinsic homosexuality proven false. You can't take something on face value when it obviously has an agenda.
If you could cite any book or any research, or anything else as evidence simply because it exists, then we'd believe the bible.

1. Are you claiming that peer review can't weed out biased studies?

2. The first study I gave hasn't been attacked.

[Question Mark]

I'm claiming that if something has a powerful Exodus International behind it, can be put out in the public. I'm also saying that the American Psychological Association finding the study unreliable is a pretty decent attack.

[Esquilax]

It's from a peer-reviewed journal. Atheists tend to tout such as the gold standard of scholarship, until they don't like a particular result.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_...al_Therapy
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog/7502387

Plus there's the other longitudinal study I presented, which shows change, but doesn't give reasons for the change.

You're missing the crucial fact that peer review- which is an ongoing process of self correction, by the way- continued to dissect your study, and found it wanting. From top to bottom, that last link you cited has been found to be trash; that's how peer review works.

As for your other study, I've already gone into that in detail: it doesn't show what you think it shows, for one. Secondly, wonderfully, if you'd actually bothered to look at that link at all, you'd see that it deals in the discrimination that bisexuals suffer, and is actually quite sympathetic to our cause. It literally presents exactly the case that I have been, that there are other sociological factors like bigotry that have an effect on the data. And that's just by its tone.

You don't have a leg to stand on, dude. And I notice you've got nothing to say about the head of the ministry that funded your latest citation coming out and saying the whole set up is a crock of shit, too. I wonder why that could be?

---

He just pointed out that the book you cited had been discredited by other sources, and most significantly in my opinion, that the research was likely very biased because it was sponsored by an organisation that wishes to see intrinsic homosexuality proven false. You can't take something on face value when it obviously has an agenda.
If you could cite any book or any research, or anything else as evidence simply because it exists, then we'd believe the bible.

1. Are you claiming that peer review can't weed out biased studies?

2. The first study I gave hasn't been attacked.

1. It did. It weeded out yours. Though to the author's credit, they were upfront about who was providing their funding, so there was no need to be weeded out. Just bias. Oh, and check out that last link for all the methodological issues that were present in that thing too.

2. It also doesn't show what you claim it shows.

[John V]

I'm claiming that if something has a powerful Exodus International behind it, can be put out in the public. I'm also saying that the American Psychological Association finding the study unreliable is a pretty decent attack.

Ah, so peer reviewed journals can be bought off.

[Question Mark]

I'm claiming that if something has a powerful Exodus International behind it, can be put out in the public. I'm also saying that the American Psychological Association finding the study unreliable is a pretty decent attack.

Ah, so peer reviewed journals can be bought off.

Don't you be strawmanning me now. Peer review denounced that book you cited, and Exodus International backed it. Who do you suppose common people listen to? The actual reviews of researchers and respectable organisations, or the divine power of Exodus International?
I didn't say anything about money, I said that book is backed by a powerful christian group with an agenda.

[Esquilax]

Ah, so peer reviewed journals can be bought off.

Not bought off, but they can be wrong, something you've clearly never even considered. The term you're looking for is called peer-review failure; since the reviewers of these studies generally don't have the raw data involved, certain things have to be taken on trust, and even if we remove the very clear bias in this study, there are numerous methodological problems in the execution of collecting this data, and also numerous issues that only came to light once the study had been concluded, as is the nature of self reporting, that call the conclusions therein into question.

That's the great thing about peer review, though; it generally doesn't just end at publication. You can bet your bottom dollar that if anything goes wrong in the guts of a study or report, the rest of the field will point it out. As is what happened here; the American Psychological Association isn't something piffling, John. One should pay attention when they shake their head at your citation.

[John V]

You're missing the crucial fact that peer review- which is an ongoing process of self correction, by the way- continued to dissect your study, and found it wanting. From top to bottom, that last link you cited has been found to be trash; that's how peer review works.

No, peer review found it acceptable for publication. It was then shouted down in blogs and such.

As for your other study, I've already gone into that in detail: it doesn't show what you think it shows, for one. Secondly, wonderfully, if you'd actually bothered to look at that link at all, you'd see that it deals in the discrimination that bisexuals suffer, and is actually quite sympathetic to our cause. It literally presents exactly the case that I have been, that there are other sociological factors like bigotry that have an effect on the data. And that's just by its tone.

Not that one, the other logitudinal one on women.

You don't have a leg to stand on, dude. And I notice you've got nothing to say about the head of the ministry that funded your latest citation coming out and saying the whole set up is a crock of shit, too. I wonder why that could be?

Because it's weak compared to a study in a peer-reviewed journal.