Law to protect people from anti-gay therapy

[KillerDiller]

I realize that consensual adult relations are different in terms of level of harm, but they not necessarily harmless in this regard. Especially when children are involved and the parent with this keying (orientation) is encouraged to put sex ahead of responsibility.

Again, with no evidence that homosexual parents "put sex ahead of responsibility" any more than heterosexual parents do, your argument about the potential for social harm is not convincing.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Pragma]

Again, with no evidence that homosexual parents parents "put sex ahead of responsibility" any more than heterosexual parents do, your argument about the potential for social harm is not convincing.

Yeah I didn't really understand that argument either. I thought the post was kind of hard to follow.

 

[Qwerk]

Again, with no evidence that homosexual parents "put sex ahead of responsibility" any more than heterosexual parents do, your argument about the potential for social harm is not convincing.

I think he was referring to gay spouses/parents divorcing their straight spouses after having children. Of course, as I said before, this would obviously be less of a problem if gay people weren't encouraged by conversion therapists to pursue straight relationships and have children with spouses they aren't attracted to. And there's obviously the question of whether having unhappy parents is better than having happier divorced parents.

Either that, or he was referring to the stereotype of the gay community being a bunch of irresponsible sex maniacs. If that's true, it speaks to how seriously he's taking this issue.

 

[KillerDiller]

I think he was referring to gay spouses/parents divorcing their straight spouses after having children.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that is the case. I think you and I are simply picking apart that argument from different angles. My point is that cheating and divorce are not the sole province of marriages where one partner is homosexual. So, when he says that homosexuality represents increased social harm, I still wonder what is being compared. Clearly, having two heterosexual parents isn't very protective.

 

[Qwerk]

So, when he says that homosexuality represents increased social harm, I still wonder what is being compared.

That makes two of us. His posts remind me of some of the research proposals I get at the writing center where I tutor. Variables unclear, sample unclear. And so on. I'm sure we could go on all day about it, since nearly everyone here is involved in some sort of research...

 

[roubs]

It's fairly obvious these are things the poster knows in his gut, and contrary evidence is clearly being manufactured by the vast homoacademia complex--rife with biases and easy to dismiss. There must be tens of studies out there showing how damaging homosexual parents are, if only the establishment would allow them to be published.

 

[Pragma]

Citation needed... on all parts.. Appreciate the respectful comments guys, and like I said I realize I am on the losing side of this social battle at this point. But I do find it interesting that really no one is able to offer substantive empirical refutations (and there are some, although ultimately limited) of my statements. "That doesn't sound quite right to me..." Etc. Well of course it doesn't, because even though there is truth to it the position it is extremely politically incorrect and thus easy to dismiss without really engaging with the actual points. And in terms of "gut", this goes far beyond that.

Going to delete all these posts, for posterity.

I think this is the part where people were looking for citations.

Again with the deleting? Suit yourself...

 

[Doctor Eliza]

I think this is the part where people were looking for citations.

Again with the deleting? Suit yourself...

The deleting feels a little like when you are a kid and playing a board game and the other kid is afraid he is going to lose, so he throws the cards and pieces all over the place and declares that he is quitting.

If Psy stands by what he says, then I see no reason for him to delete it.

Dr. E

 

[Pragma]

Yeah, and I am as well waiting for citation. You are obviously an ideologue IMO, and you know better, especially in your use of certain terminology in supporting the gay rights movement (e.g. "moving mountains"). I think you were raised to know better, but the intellectual hubris and social pressure of the intellectual world (or perhaps even a religious denomination itself) has caused you to change sides on this important debate. You still express some ambivalence, which I am sure befuddles and miffs your pro-gay peers, but in fact that is the closest you come to being on the right side of this debate. These are only my opinions; I realize I may be wrong and I fully am ready for you to dismiss me as such. If I am wrong, please disregard. In any case, a citation is needed on both sides, although frankly I don't think this is the place to waste the time on it at this point. It involves judgment values when it comes down to it, but there is empirical evidence that can be used to argue either sides, and more evidence is needed through studies. However, the majority of studies will be influenced by politics in the academic world (i.e. contrary findings not published, which is common), so anyone seeking reality is advised to consume psych "science" with caution.

Well, I think that the issues that people are having with your posts is that you seem to present your opinion, but then call it a fact, and acknowledge it is unpopular. Then you demand citations from others (which I am sure folks who are more immersed in this area of study than I am could provide if they felt inclined), but don't provide your own. It's sort of a vicious cycle.

Not sure what to make of your Pragma analysis, but I guess I'll just say I am flattered by your effort

Value judgments are value judgments, and no research is entirely unbiased. But I think many folks would argue that the bias is much more evident in some studies compared to others.

 

[Qwerk]

In any case, a citation is needed on both sides, although frankly I don't think this is the place to waste the time on it at this point. It involves judgment values when it comes down to it, but there is empirical evidence that can be used to argue either sides, and more evidence is needed through studies.

I actually wasn't demanding citations. Rather, I wanted to know how you're attempting to evaluate what social or psychological harm that you claim homosexuality causes, since you seem so convinced that it does. What are you measuring? How are you measuring it? So far, you've consistently brought up this nebulous "harm" that you don't seem to be able to define.

 

[Qwerk]

Also, this:

No, I stand by it, but I am also prudent and wary of this site given I can't delete my profile and the fact that I realize my posts can easily be used to demonize me (in fact I have been rude on many occasions, although ultimately this shouldn't undermine my credibility on debate positions--but the posts can be used in that regard, especially if linked to my IRL identity). I will stand by these positions as an academic and professional, but believe me, I will do so with extreme caution, as I expect even threats to my life eventually, nevermind my professional career.

That was a rather cheap shot ad hominem in any case "Dr. E.," which just demonstrates that you, as well as others here, are not serious about substantive debate in this forum, but rather in maintaining status quo PCness and order when it comes down to it.

Re: the bolded portion -- really? Really?

 

[MBellows]

On the issue of heterosexual sodomy (ego-dystonic homoeroticism), I also see that as problematic, but part of the reason that ego-syntonic homoeroticism is so problematic is that it contains a self-justification along with a problem bx.

Do you have even one reasonable justification for the comparison between opposite-sex non-penile vaginal sexual contact and ego-dystonic homoeroticism?

 

[roubs]

Being really really uncomfortable with gay people--like so uncomfortable you have to talk about your discomfort w/them a lot--sounds a bit like a form of of 'ego-dystonic homoeroticism'

or,

what The Onion said

 

[Qwerk]

EDIT: Sorry, double post.

 

[Qwerk]

Yes, really. You would be surprised of the level of hatred for those who speak politically unpopular views.... if you weren't on that popular side of the fence.

I would not be surprised. I have experienced many direct threats to my physical safety because of my sexuality. I would be very surprised, however, if I learned that anyone had made a serious, in-person threat of death or bodily harm to you (not over the internet) for your views.

I'm also positive that no one on this board is going to threaten to kill you for what you're saying. I think you know that.

By what right do you say a traditionally reprehensible behavior causes no harms to those who are directly impacted by it?

Good clinicians and researchers use evidence, not tradition, as a basis for practice/research. The burden of proof is still on you to show that it's harmful, since you're the one making the claim. (Otherwise, going by tradition, the burden of proof would be on you to show that you're not a sorcerer and haven't destroyed our crops with your black magic. )

 

[MBellows]

You are in the majority group (i.e., heterosexual). By majority in my second response, I was referring to voting majority - not majority/minority group membership.

The point is that I am hard pressed to think of a single instance in which a person who opposed homosexuality or gay marriage was assaulted or murdered for that. Though, I can easily think of lots of cases where this has happened to gay and lesbian individuals. So your comment about fearing for your life due to your views is unnecessarily dramatic in light of the actual evidence.

Also, I hope you realize that regardless of your personal views, if you are accepted into a clinical program, you're going to have to put them aside at times in order to provide the best care for your patients.

While you are right about the violence being almost exclusively one-sided. For the sake of accuracy... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2189373/I-dont-like-politics-Words-Chick-fil-A-carrying-shooter-opened-Family-Research-Council.html

 

[Qwerk]

The existing studies make it your burden

A billion other people will probably jump on this, but the existing studies that compare actual gay couples to straight couples in terms of parenting outcomes show no difference. You cited Regnerus, so you ought to be familiar with the dangers of comparing samples that aren't equivalent -- in this case, the biological children of straight couples continuously married from birth to present time vs. young adults with parents who had had same-sex relationships at some point (most of whom weren't the children of continuously partnered same-sex couples).

 

[Qwerk]

Huh, that's funny, but the Federal Judge of the opinion at issue wouldn't agree with you. And, as another poster antagonistic to me pointed out (partially correctly), that was based in part on the opinion of the APA itself that the evidence isn't conclusive... And regardless, as I stated in a previous comment, this decision is likely to be overruled IMO in any case (unfortunately).

You guys are so incredibly toxic and far off, but I know in the psych world that is exactly how you see me.

The last time I checked, judges weren't researchers. As to your second point, you can easily read the APA's position on gay parenting here, with a summary of the relevant research: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx

Also, do you really feel that my posts were toxic? I've made an effort to be polite to you, and I don't remember saying anything nasty, so that response to my post seemed kind of out-of-nowhere.

Yeah, a billion... not one of which you can name. Other than one of the several that would indicate otherwise (that heterosexual married couples provide a superior child-raising environment).

I meant that a billion other people in this forum would jump on your citation of Regnerus, probably when they've had some sleep. If you want me to look up the names and authors of specific studies, I'm happy to find them a little later when I'm not as busy. Most of them are cited in the link above.

 

[Pragma]

Yeah, a billion... not one of which you can name. Other than one of the several (Regnerus) that would indicate otherwise--that heterosexual married couples provide a superior child-raising environment. But of course because he was politically incorrect, he was massacred. Yeah, his study may have had issues, but really, as far as I can tell at this point, it is far more of a political burning that a legit scientific criticism. But by all means, take pride in the "science" behind that rejection.

The study was burned by legitimate scientific criticism, some of which was just mentioned (e.g., confounded results because of poor comparison samples).

Really psychcyclepsi, you are (again) being extremely inflammatory (and presumptuous). The claims you are making haven't been backed up at all.

 

[Qwerk]

Yeah, his study may have had issues, but really, as far as I can tell at this point, it is far more of a political burning that a legit scientific criticism. But by all means, take pride in the "science" behind that rejection.

Quoting again because you changed this post after I replied to it. You're the one who cited Regnerus, so are you going to address these "issues"? Do they change your view of his research at all? What makes you think his study is valid given the dissimilarity between the two groups being compared?

 

[Qwerk]

Yeah, a billion.. To the extent your exaggeration reflects the fact that this isn't a fair debate on this site, conceded. You still haven't named one study in contradiction to the one of several (including Regnerus) that indicate heterosexual married couples provide a superior child-raising environment. But of course because he was politically incorrect, he was massacred. Yeah, his study may have had issues, but really, as far as I can tell at this point, it is far more of a political burning that a legit scientific criticism. But by all means, take pride in the "science" behind that rejection. Part of the reason most of the children weren't continuously partnered by same-sex couples is that there tends to be a higher rate of turn over IMO--even that that of modern day heterosexual marriage. Even once that is controlled for the baseline finding will not necessarily be altered. Sample selection and Reference Class problems are perennial in scientific research, but they are often used to massacre the author of a study, unless the topic offends the political sensibilities of the psych world at large, as it has in this case. I suspect heartily that you would happily overlook any such issues in studies supporting your pet theory that your lifestyle is perfectly healthy and likely to provide the same quality of care and support to children (which is bogus).

It's hard to keep track of your posts because you keep adding to them after I think I've quoted the entire thing. I don't know if you're trying to make it seem like you answered the question before I asked it, but in the future, it would be great if you could just create a new post.

I don't understand what you mean by the first part of your paragraph. "Higher rate of turnover IMO"? What about the baseline finding? Could you explain it further?

As to the second part, of course methodological problems are used to criticize authors of studies. This is how science works. Your argument here seems to be, "Well, you'd overlook it if the results supported your argument, so I can overlook it." That is not a coherent argument, and you know it.

 

[Pragma]

I suspect heartily that you would happily overlook any such issues in studies supporting your pet theory that your lifestyle is perfectly healthy and likely to provide the same quality of care and support to children (which is bogus IMO).

While some of your personal attacks come off as adolescent and impulsive, this particular one really offends me. The fact that you are addressing a poster who has self-identified as being of minority status and basically told them (directly) that their capabilities of parenting are inferior goes beyond inflammatory. It's one thing to debate about the article in question and the science behind it, and even your general sentiments; it is quite another to directly make a statement like this to another poster.

I personally am going to begin using the ignore feature - because for weeks now I have been waiting to see if you'd be able to contribute without drama, and it hasn't happened.

 

[Pragma]

It's hard to keep track of your posts because you keep adding to them after I think I've quoted the entire thing.

Adds or subtracts - I had the same issue a different time trying to respond. Chances are, all posts will be deleted or modified significantly.

 

[Qwerk]

While some of your personal attacks come off as adolescent and impulsive, this particular one really offends me. The fact that you are addressing a poster who has self-identified as being of minority status and basically told them (directly) that their capabilities of parenting are inferior goes beyond inflammatory. It's one thing to debate about the article in question and the science behind it, and even your general sentiments; it is quite another to directly make a statement like this to another poster.

I personally am going to begin using the ignore feature - because for weeks now I have been waiting to see if you'd be able to contribute without drama, and it hasn't happened.

Damn. I went back and read that again. Man, was that low. I think this is my cue to go to bed.

 

[Qwerk]

Also, I'm going to have to talk to my partner about that "high rate of turnover." Maybe I can use it as leverage so I don't have to make the coffee all the damn time.

Okay, really going to bed this time.

 

[ResearchGirlie]

I suspect heartily that you would happily overlook any such issues in studies supporting your pet theory that your lifestyle is perfectly healthy and likely to provide the same quality of care and support to children (which is bogus IMO).

Is attacking a poster's lifestyle allowed on this board?


ETA: Sorry, I see others have already picked out this particularly offensive and disgusting quote.

 

[MBellows]

Is attacking a poster's lifestyle allowed on this board?

While I don' think the mods do much beyond reminding people to be civil, no. The board has policy posted somewhere about direct attacks and trolling.

 

[ResearchGirlie]

While I don' think the mods do much beyond reminding people to be civil, no. The board has policy posted somewhere about direct attacks and trolling.

I'm usually very anti-moderating so actually reporting a post feels strange.

 

[Pragma]

I'm usually very anti-moderating so actually reporting a post feels strange.

After I reported it, I needed some comic relief: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMEe7JqBgvg

(yes, I also posted this video within the great Thanksgiving weekend meltdown, as wigflip aptly named it).

 

[Qwerk]

It was the APA that the judge cited--the APA has indicated that there isn't enough evidence of harm. But regardless, believe me I am not staking anything on the APA.

Very funny. Nice personal attack.

You have been personally attacking me from day one. Get a life.

I did not directly attack anyone. The poster brought up his choice of lifestyle as part of his argument. I didn't attack him--I stated my opinion. I am the one clearly being (gang) attacked ITT.

You're calling me "disgusting" is a personal attack, and this is not the first time you have made outrageous and unfounded comments directed at me. See above--poster brought his own lifestyle into the conversation; I did not attack him, I responded in context.

I would report you if I was petty enough to do so, but I am not. Please stop harassing me ResearchGirl. I am dead serious.

No, I am not presuming anything, but people ITT can't handle legit arguments.

Dude, you brought your own orientation into this thread. I could have also brought my own experiences in, but I choose not to. I did not intend to personally attack you--I will edit that out, but I think it is already abunduntly clear what my position is on this. And yes, it is my opinion that you shouldn't raise kids with a homosexual partner--that it will be harmful to the kids. That is my opinion: it is not an attack on you.

ITT: Student Doctor Psych Students and Grads demonstrate an inability to have a mature conversation on a politically charged topic.

Enjoy your site all, I think I have wasted enough time here. There are other sites where people actually have intelligence and can demonstrate the civility that they themselves demand (but consistently fail to show).

Quoting all because he's either going to modify them soon, or he really is gone for good. Probably the first one. Okay, now I'm really going to bed. (Or not. This paper is taking a while, hence the procrastination.)

 

[Qwerk]

Good for you. Go to bed. Goodnight. I already told you I would modify the first one out of respect. But I have already explained that you brought the personal stuff in, and it wasn't an attack--it was my opinion being shared consistent with the subject of this thread. You shouldn't have used personal info as leverage in an argument if you wanted that content to be entirely off limits.

If you still don't think you've been inappropriate on this board and in this thread, you are never going to demonstrate the level of insight necessary to be a clinician.

 

[Qwerk]

I did not directly attack anyone. The poster brought up his choice of lifestyle as part of his argument. I didn't attack him--I stated my opinion. I am the one clearly being attacked ITT.

I edited that post--it took one word to fix. I feel now that the involvement of the personal info was intended as hook, or at least it has been used that way by others (I did get hooked by referencing it though, and I shouldn't have used "the" instead of "your" in the first place). It is more and more clear this is not a topic anyone here (who is willing to post) really has an open mind about or at least is willing to discuss without throwing accusations.

I think this is the third version of this post. Either stop editing your posts or stop posting horrible things that later need to be edited. Actually, I think this one more offensive than the previous version.

 

[Qwerk]

That is your unsolicited opinion. I most likely already have considerably more clinical experience under my belt than you. A good clinician is able to keep personal opinions at home and meet the client's needs. I am not at work right now. Also, there is a difference between recognizing when people are angry with you and expect something of you that you are not willing to give, and being able to explore with insight personal conflict. I'm not saying I am above reproach, but to the extent that you think someone can't have a different view than you about homosexuality and still be a good clinician you are way off IMO.

It's not because you have a different opinion on homosexuality. I don't think you can be a competent clinician because I can't make myself believe that you have great judgment offline and horrible judgment online.

 

[Qwerk]

Stop accusing me of "horrible" things. I feel like you are really playing the victim here. I have posted my honest opinion--nothing more and nothing less. And I have done so in a civil manner. If you can't handle that, it is your problem and not mine. Because I think this thread has become unproductive, I will not post further in it, regardless of the many provoking, mocking, accusatory, and name-calling (or name-implying) comments that I expect will be made against me.

Okay.

 

[Pragma]

I couldn't resist (hey, this stupid manuscript has kept me up late), but I'll have to go back on ignore. Just to point out something:

This one came last...

Stop accusing me of "horrible" things. I feel like you are really playing the victim here. I have posted my honest opinion--nothing more and nothing less. And I have done so in a civil manner. If you can't handle that, it is your problem and not mine. Because I think this thread has become unproductive, I will not post further in it, regardless of the many provoking, mocking, accusatory, and name-calling (or name-implying) comments that I expect will be made against me.

These all came before, within the thread...at least the ones not deleted

Ultimately we will not likely agree on this by any means, and I expect further ridicule and accusations ITT.

Also, the effect on children is not the only impact; there is an effect on the individual that is harmful as well. As much as all on here will ridicule me for this position....

Yeah, and I am as well waiting for citation. You are obviously an ideologue IMO, and you know better, especially in your use of certain terminology in supporting the gay rights movement (e.g. "moving mountains"). I think you were raised to know better, but the intellectual hubris and social pressure of the intellectual world (or perhaps even a religious denomination itself) has caused you to change sides on this important debate. You still express some ambivalence, which I am sure befuddles and miffs your pro-gay peers, but in fact that is the closest you come to being on the right side of this debate. These are only my opinions; I realize I may be wrong and I fully am ready for you to dismiss me as such.

No, I stand by it, but I am also prudent and wary of this site given I can't delete my profile and the fact that I realize my posts can easily be used to demonize me (in fact I have been rude on many occasions, although ultimately this shouldn't undermine my credibility on debate positions--but the posts can be used in that regard, especially if linked to my IRL identity). I will stand by these positions as an academic and professional, but believe me, I will do so with extreme caution, as I expect even threats to my life eventually, nevermind my professional career.

That was a rather cheap shot ad hominem in any case "Dr. E.," which just demonstrates that you, as well as others here, are not serious about substantive debate in this forum, but rather in maintaining status quo PCness and order when it comes down to it.

On another note, I have a hard time referring to you as a doctor--I don't generally think of psychologists as such, and when non-doctor (real doctor) PhDs refer to themselves as such I find it a rather odd comment on the personality.

Yes, really. You would be surprised of the level of hatred for those who speak politically unpopular views.... if you weren't on that popular side of the fence.

I don't think you would know the type of opposition that faces someone who opposes the gay rights movement: it can be very intense, and not necessarily peaceful. And in fact, I don't know what you all are capable of if you have my personal information. Numerous posters on this site have been vitriolic toward me (and concerted in verbal attacks) to say the least. Sometimes words can be as harmful as physical violence in any case, as you probably know.

Admittedly though, the fear of life thing was probably overstated, at least in the current political climate. It's more of a legitimate fear of vicious verbal attacks and professional consequences for stating an honest opinion (that is informed by considerable observation among other things).

Huh, that's funny, but the Federal Judge of the court opinion at issue wouldn't agree with you. And, as another poster antagonistic to me pointed out (partially correctly), that was based in part on the opinion of the APA itself that the evidence isn't conclusive... And regardless, as I implied in a previous comment, this decision is likely to be overruled IMO in any case (unfortunately).

You guys are so incredibly toxic and far off IMO, but I know in the psych world that is exactly how you see me. Agree to disagree as they say?

That is a personal attack on me completely irrelevant to this thread (the bringing up of past comments etc). Also, your comment that I am being presumptuous is not warranted IMO--we are all sharing our opinions and ideas ITT: nothing more and nothing less, and it seems clear to me that you are not an expert on this topic, nor have you offered any real substantive contributions IMO other than to constantly criticize me. Glad it sounds like you finally are going to stop your relentless negative comments on me and my posts though (hopefully--you said you were using the ignore feature).

I did not directly attack anyone. The poster brought up his choice of lifestyle as part of his argument. I didn't attack him--I stated my opinion. I am the one clearly being attacked ITT.

I edited that post--it took one word to fix. I feel now that the involvement of the personal info was intended as hook, or at least it has been used that way by others (I did get hooked by referencing it though, and I should have used "the" instead of "your" in the first place). It is more and more clear this is not a topic anyone here (who is willing to post) really has an open mind about or at least is willing to discuss without throwing accusations.

Your referring to my opinion "disgusting" is very offensive in itself IMO, and this is not the first time you have made what I consider to be outrageous and unfounded comments directed at me.

Please stop harassing me ResearchGirl.

I believe psycyclepsi edited out the part where he said "I am dead serious." right after the end of the sentence there after ResearchGirl.I think the 'Please" was added.

The posters who pointed out that comment ignored the context of this thread (that you had brought personal info as leverage into a debate conversation) have been after me consistently because I have in some way offended their sensibilities. They have been and continue to be relentless in this. I have legitimately apologized for stuff that is over the top, but not going to apologize for my honest opinions. I am sorry if you feel hurt, but I strongly disagree with you on this topic and it would be dishonest for me to back down out of political correctness IMO. Feel free to completely dismiss my position (I realize you already have as have others). Ultimately it does not come from a position of hatred, as hard as that may be to believe.

Okay, now I really will go flip that ignore feature back on as I promised. This thread just got so much shorter when I had it on earlier that I lost my place in it, I guess! It was a decent break from the results tables of my paper.

 

[Qwerk]

I couldn't resist (hey, this stupid manuscript has kept me up late), but I'll have to go back on ignore. Just to point out something:

This one came last...

These all came before, within the thread...at least the ones not deleted

I believe psycyclepsi edited out the part where he said "I am dead serious." right after the end of the sentence there.

Okay, now I really will go flip that ignore feature back on as I promised. This thread just got so much shorter that I lost my place in it, I guess!

Congratulations! Your procrastination just beat my procrastination. You get 50 points redeemable for a mug of bad coffee or a non-working university logo pen.

 

[Pragma]

Congratulations! Your procrastination just beat my procrastination. You get 50 points redeemable for a mug of bad coffee or a non-working university logo pen.

I might need to heat up the bad coffee when i wake up

 

[Markro311]

Let's lighten this thread up with some happy pictures: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/60-moments-that-gave-me-the-chills-during-seattle

 

[syzergy]

Let's lighten this thread up with some happy pictures: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/60-moments-that-gave-me-the-chills-during-seattle

Wow. Amazing pictures. Great way to start my morning. I wish I could have been there to celebrate with hundreds of people I don't know, all fighting for the same thing. We'll get there. In the meantime, d'awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

 

[KillerDiller]

Let's lighten this thread up with some happy pictures: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/60-moments-that-gave-me-the-chills-during-seattle

Dangit, I didn't read this thread until I went into internship this morning. Now I've missed most of my chances to respond, and I clicked on the link and have started crying. Ok, time to pull it together before leading group.

 

[Pragma]

Dangit, I didn't read this thread until I went into internship this morning. Now I've missed most of my chances to respond, and I clicked on the link and have started crying. Ok, time to pull it together before leading group.

Just more trolling. If this behavior doesn't get this person banned, I am not sure what will. It's incessant, antagonistic, and definitely not productive towards a civil discussion about the issue. The OP makes some political opinion statement, claims it as fact, then dismisses any criticism of those extreme statements, and continuously claims victimhood the entire time. It's hard to have a discussion with someone that says "I already know I am right, and you have to prove me wrong, but even then I won't believe you because your PC field sucks, and BTW, you are _(insert personal attack here)_, and I fully expect to be ridiculed and persecuted for my views"

What's worse is that the original content of the posts is often terrible, and what you even see here is filtered a lot after several edits by the OP. There was what sounded like a vague threat up last night against ResearchGirlie ("Stop harassing me ResearchGirlie. I am dead serious"), which might have seemed more benign had the poster in question not been spewing about worrying about his life being taken for his views a couple of hours earlier. Between routine stuff like this and the offensive comments directed at Qwerk last night, it seems clear to me that these meltdowns aren't going to stop anytime soon, and I'd be happy to see this poster banned. I'd say it is just about as bad as 4410, with worse personal attacks, but thankfully, less doctoral program-specific misinformation.

I've gone to ignore on the poster in question. It's not worth wasting the time anymore.

 

[ResearchGirlie]

Just more trolling. If this behavior doesn't get this person banned, I am not sure what will. It's incessant, antagonistic, and definitely not productive towards a civil discussion about the issue. The OP makes some political opinion statement, claims it as fact, then dismisses any criticism of those extreme statements, and continuously claims victimhood the entire time. It's hard to have a discussion with someone that says "I already know I am right, and you have to prove me wrong, but even then I won't believe you because your PC field sucks, and BTW, you are _(insert personal attack here)_, and I fully expect to be ridiculed and persecuted for my views"

What's worse is that the original content of the posts is often terrible, and what you even see here is filtered a lot after several edits by the OP. There was what sounded like a vague threat up last night against ResearchGirlie ("Stop harassing me ResearchGirlie. I am dead serious"), which might have seemed more benign had the poster in question not been spewing about worrying about his life being taken for his views a couple of hours earlier. Between routine stuff like this and the offensive comments directed at Qwerk last night, it seems clear to me that these meltdowns aren't going to stop anytime soon, and I'd be happy to see this poster banned. I'd say it is just about as bad as 4410, with worse personal attacks, but thankfully, less doctoral program-specific misinformation.

I've gone to ignore on the poster in question. It's not worth wasting the time anymore.

Agreed. Thanks to you and Qwerk for quoting the initial response towards me.

While I disagree completely with the poster's views expressed in this thread, I was fine with him expressing himself until it seemed to be a personal attack towards a poster. As posters to this board we should be able to handle and learn from the expression of differing views. It's when the views cross the line to multiple personal attacks where I draw that line.

 

[wigflip]

Hopefully I won't regret opening this one up again

Well, we can all see how that turned out.


In response to psychcylcepsi's early posts to this thread (see p. 3 approx post #138)

Ah yes. I knew the apologies you sent out last week were too good to be true.

No, in fact they were sincere, but I do sometimes get into emotional responses (back and forth) with people, and I am editing posts ITT accordingly.
.

I think the sincerity of an apology is for those affected by the offending behavior to determine. If the offending behavior doesn't change, it's reasonable to call the sincerity of the apology into question. The only difference I see between The Great Thanksgiving Weekend Implosion Posts (pre-apologies) and now is the Gold Donor status that psychcyclepsi is sporting.

It's obvious that this person does not have a handle on the literature in the area being "debated"--I don't know a single person who studies sexuality and/or intimate relationships who would take this nonsense seriously (beyond the personal attacks, which are egregious). I think Pragma has the right idea here. Ignore.

 

[wigflip]

For those of you who, like esteemed psychology Profs Herek and Peplau (who testified in CA's Prop 8 trial), remain committed to LGBT equality, there is a petition worth considering on the Courage Campaign website right now:

"Sign our petition: To President Obama and the Department of Justice: Please speak out on Prop 8 as the Supreme Court prepares to hear the case. Submit a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that a state ban on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution."

 

[Qwerk]

Apparently, Stephen Colbert did a segment on the ban. Haven't had a chance to watch it, since I'm at my agency right now, but I'm sure it's characteristically awkward: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/12/colbert-slams-ex-gay-therapy-ban_n_2285589.html

 

[wigflip]

The oranges!!

Apparently, Stephen Colbert did a segment on the ban. Haven't had a chance to watch it, since I'm at my agency right now, but I'm sure it's characteristically awkward: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/12/colbert-slams-ex-gay-therapy-ban_n_2285589.html

 

[Qwerk]

The oranges!!

Haha, yeah.

Just to address something the video brought up, I'm curious why this has been framed as a first amendment issue. I can't imagine that practicing a health science falls under the first amendment umbrella at all. If an MD wanting to give his patients harmful or ineffective treatments for physical illnesses because of his religious beliefs, he would be laughed out of court. No one would call "free speech" on it. Is it because it's talk therapy, and thus (in some people's minds) speech?

 

[wigflip]

Interesting point. Would love to hear a legal scholar's take on this.

Good point too on the other thread about advice being region-specific.

 

[MBellows]

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/...awsuit-over-requirement-counseling-gay-people

New precedent puts counseling ethical code over any perceived right for a counselor to push their religious beliefs off on an lgbtq client?

 

[wigflip]

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/...awsuit-over-requirement-counseling-gay-people

New precedent puts counseling ethical code over any perceived right for a counselor to push their religious beliefs off on an lgbtq client?

Interesting post.

I'd be willing to take all the LGBT clients off her hands and pass the religious bigots back to her.