A person (abesm2013) dropped by on my About page and an exchange developed. But since it has nothing to do with the About page, I’m moving it here.
It’s a great example of how people believe that absolute lack of scientific proof is actual hardcore proof of their beliefs!
This person in particular believes that anyone who says they have changed orientation must be lying. When I asked for them of proof of this, they lazily linked to a study saying that some people lie about the number of sexual partners they had, in order to fulfill social expectations!
See, they said! Scientific proof! Because lying about number of sexual partners equals lying about sexual orientation changes!
And concerning their claim that everyone must be lying, why everyone and not just some people? See their “logic” here: Because if some people lie (about number of sexual partners) than everybody lies (about changing from homosexuality to heterosexuality). See how “scientific” that is?
abesm2013 stated: “Testimonies are useless, since people tend to lie about their sexuality.”
But abesm2013 isn’t claiming that people merely tend to lie, because that would mean some lie and others tell the truth; he is claiming they all lie if they say they have changed orientation. Every single one of these participants that he knows nothing about must be lying. Why? Because abesm2013 said so.
“Scientific evidence” for abesm2013 is like that.
It’s “interesting” that abesm2013 doesn’t claim that the testimonies of people saying they didn’t change their homosexual orientation are “useless,” given that the study included such participants.
abesm2013 says self-reporting is “unreliable,” yet he thinks making claims of lies out of thin air, with no proof for it, is what? Science! Reliable! He could have added “toldya!” I am right about my theory because everyone who counters what I think is lying about their experience. How do I know? Because I said they are liars. Interviewing people in research is now useless because they are all liars. We can just ask abesm2013.
I pointed to this article by Peter Sprigg:
Why Science Doesn’t Support Orientation-Change Bans, quoting a study by Ritch Savin-Williams:
“In the data set of the longitudinal Add Health study, of the Wave I boys who indicated that they had exclusive same-sex romantic attraction, only 11 percent reported exclusive same-sex attraction one year later; 48 percent reported only opposite-sex attraction, 35 percent reported no attraction to either sex, and six percent reported attraction to both sexes. … Not only did those who were exclusively homosexual not all remain so, but only 11 percent did. Some measure of change in sexual orientation—which many homosexual activists say is impossible, and never happens to anyone—is not only possible, but it is the norm for adolescents with same-sex attractions, having been experienced by 89 percent of the respondents only one year later.”
abesm2013 said: nothing in this study is true because it was quoted by Sprigg. What proof does he have that the study is false? “It was quoted by Sprigg and I don’t like Sprigg, therefore the study is false and everyone who doesn’t say what I want them to say is a liar.”
I mean, seriously. Another great example of how irrational people are when thinking about sexuality. Some of the people who claim to base their views on scientific evidence are the most irrational and unscientific of all.
September 10, 2013 at 8:39 pm
You have been awfully silent about the demise of Exodus International, perhaps the biggest blow the conversion-therapy crowd has suffered. Why is that?
September 10, 2013 at 9:04 pm
Good question. I don’t know much about them – my guess is that you don’t know either, or am I wrong?
You can only say that their closing was a “blow” to the “conversion-therapy crowd,” if you imply that anything anyone does is “therapy.” I just looked them up on wikipedia and as far I can see (and I don’t have time right now to research more), the Exodus people mentioned are not psychologists or clinical therapists, and the organization itself had a stated purpose to be a *ministry*. Now while a ministry can be therapeutic (just as going fishing or winning on the lottery can), it’s definitely not therapy in the clinical sense.
Therefore, the closing of Exodus has no impact on “conversion therapy” practiced by any other psychologists and therapists.
September 10, 2013 at 9:21 pm
Virtually all of the organizations that promote sexual-orientation change are ministries.
September 10, 2013 at 9:29 pm
Sure, because therapists are not “organizations.” The majority of therapists perform individual work. Therefore the number of therapists that work with homosexuality problems is much greater than the number of ministry organizations for this purpose.
September 10, 2013 at 9:32 pm
All mainstream medical and psychological groups reject attempts to change sexual orientation. Only religious people provide that.
September 10, 2013 at 9:44 pm
That’s certainly not true for individual therapists. And many therapists belong to these mainstream professional organizations because it’s a necessary career move, not because they agree with everything any organization says.
September 10, 2013 at 10:01 pm
If they’re not obeying those guidelines then they’re not doing their job and they can be charged for malpractice. There is ZERO objective evidence that supports the idea that homosexuals can become heterosexual.
September 10, 2013 at 11:01 pm
I doubt they could be charged for anything, because they aren’t doing anything wrong. And, on top of it, there are people who want to resolve their homosexuality problem.
“There is ZERO objective evidence that supports the idea that homosexuals can become heterosexual.”
You forgot to prove that all the studies and testimonies about people effectively resolving their homosexual problem are false. “Because I say so” is not a) evidence, b) or objective.
September 10, 2013 at 11:22 pm
Those “studies” are based on self-reporting, a big no-no in the scientific community. Testimonies are useless, since people tend to lie about their sexuality.
September 10, 2013 at 11:32 pm
The link you posted has no association with any study about people resolving their homosexuality problem, much less that the people in the latter lie. You just made that up that they lie because you don’t like what they are saying. You have never investigated the etiology of homosexuality, you have never talked to anyone who has resolved their problem, and you don’t even read correctly the links you post here.
Your claim about every study participant lying is not a) based on reality, b) objective, c) scientific.
It’s clear you think that every time a study claims that people can’t change, you think that the participants aren’t lying. And every time a study claims that people can change, everyone is lying. The science of “they are all lying because I said they are!”
September 10, 2013 at 11:27 pm
Not to mention, it’s not uncommon for many who claim “effectively resolving their homosexual problem” to be caught with their own sex and/or later say they never truly changed (like John Paulk, Michael Johnston, Ted Haggard, etc.)
September 10, 2013 at 11:34 pm
None of these people were in the studies you claim everyone was lying. Not a single one! Because I found 3 people who didn’t change, everyone who claims they’ve changed is lying! Science!
September 10, 2013 at 11:43 pm
Still waiting for you to show me a single reliable, scientific source that supports what you say.
September 10, 2013 at 11:47 pm
You can find some here:
September 10, 2013 at 11:50 pm
Oh wow, links from your own blog. I am so astounded.
September 10, 2013 at 11:55 pm
And I am not astounded that you don’t have any shred of evidence that any of these studies are false or that the people in them are lying. Liberal “science” is like that – no relation to reality.
Just as I said, the people who call Sprigg unscientific are only projecting onto him what they are – entirely. See, calling people names and insulting them doesn’t prove any of your claims scientifically. It just underscores you have no evidence and no knowledge about what he discussed.
September 11, 2013 at 12:09 am
Sprigg is unscientific because he DISTORTS the work of real scientists for his own agenda.
Anyway, if you want to blindly believe in someone with no credentials and an obvious bias, go ahead.
September 11, 2013 at 5:08 am
So here is your claim: every time Sprigg quotes any research, he distorts the findings. Yet, you offer no proof of this distorting about the study posted on my blog.
I ask you again: How has Sprigg distorted the work of Ritch Savin-Williams?
I’m looking for *scientific evidence*, which you claim to have. Or do you admit that you have no scientific evidence to prove that Sprigg distorted anything in the study he quoted by Ritch Savin-Williams?
1) I posted a post with Sprigg quoting a study by Ritch Savin-Williams which presents people who said they have changed from homosexual to heterosexual.
2) You say the study findings are false. Why? Because Sprigg is unreliable.
3) I ask you what evidence do you have about the study findings being false.
4) You call Sprigg a bunch of names and claim that every study findings that he ever mentions are false.
5) I point out to you that calling Sprigg a bunch of names is not scientific evidence about any study findings. Insults are neither scientific, nor are they evidence.
6) You say that every time anyone says they have changed from homosexual to heterosexual they are lying.
7) I ask you for proof of this claim.
8) You link to a study that has nothing to do with studies about homosexuality – but where people (and not all of them) didn’t tell the exact truth.
9) I point out to you that the study you link to has no bearing to the one quoted by Sprigg.
10) I ask you again for scientific evidence proving that the study quoted by Sprigg is false.
7) (going out on a limb) you’re going to call me a bunch of names and tell me that you don’t need to have any scientific evidence about anything, especially not about your claims that these study findings are false. They are false, because you said so and you hate Sprigg. And anyone who says otherwise is lying! Science!
In case you haven’t noticed you have presented no scientific evidence to support your claim. Therefore, what we have is a study making a claim that several people changed from homosexual to heterosexual and you saying they are all lying. Yet you have no scientific evidence that the people in question are all lying – especially given that you don’t know who they are and you haven’t even read the study yourself. Does that seem remotely biased in any way? As far as I can see, it seems that you don’t think you need to read any study, because as long as any study presents scientific evidence that shows your claim about homosexuality being inborn is false, you just declare it lies and damned lies – based on no evidence. Science for you!
I have a second question for you: Do you think, given that you are incapable of presenting any scientific evidence about the Ritch Savin-Williams’ study not being correct that you are scientific or unscientific?
September 12, 2013 at 4:35 am
I’ve already posted links showing why Sprigg is unreliable and that there is no true evidence to support conversion therapy, yet you won’t even allow them to appear on this blog. All you’ve shown is a biased article with a cherry-picked paragraph. Where is the full study you claim proves change in homosexuals?
[Added by Alessandra: here are the links that had been deleted, because abesm2013 was using them to avoid answering the question I asked him. None of these links prove anything in the Savin study is wrong.
September 12, 2013 at 6:16 am
“I’ve already posted links showing why Sprigg is unreliable”
No, you didn’t. You didn’t post any link showing that Sprigg is unreliable in quoting the Ritch Savin-Williams study. None of your links had anything to do with this study.
That’s why I asked you before: what specifically do you claim is wrong with what Sprigg said about *this* study? What part of what Sprigg said is false? What part of the study is false?
You avoided the questions and just lazily copied and pasted links that have nothing to do with the study in question, that’s why they were deleted. I’ll leave them on – just to note how irrational you are when you say you proved Sprigg and this study are unreliable, but nothing you link to relates to anything Sprigg said about the study or the study itself.
So far, you gave no proof that Sprigg said anything wrong about this study. You also have not proved that everyone who says they have changed orientation is lying. The fact that some people lie about the number of partners they had does not prove everyone who says they have changed orientation are lying. You offered a proof of nothing.
Your claim that these study participants are all lying has no basis on any scientific evidence.