Sentences with phrase «reparative therapy»

For nearly 30 years, he has offered a «psychodynamic» form of reparative therapy for people — mostly men — seeking to change their sexual orientation.

In the present book he will likely jeopardize his credentials as a «gay spokesperson» by offering a not entirely dismissive discussion of reparative therapy for homosexuals.

Conversion therapy (also known as reparative therapy) is a formal attempt to change a gay person's sexual orientation, from homosexuality to heterosexuality.

Listening to a speech ABOUT Reparative Therapy is far different from experiencing it.

For years, conservative Christians pushed for so - called reparative therapy efforts to change people's sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual, which proved so traumatizing and dangerous to LGBT people and their parents that even the head of the most popular «ex-gay» organization, Exodus International, apologized for the damage done by those efforts and shut the organization down.

The Diocese of Chicago was then willing to tolerate a church that touted gay reparative therapy.

Last month the governor of California Jerry Brown signed legislation banning reparative therapy for minors.

In summary, research on reparative therapy does not support its effectiveness, and important questions have been raised about those who are promoting this treatment.

It is not because they are a «Christian» company, it is not just the statement that Cathy made, though it did spur the argument, IT IS because corporate money is used to support HATE groups such as the AFA (SPLC designated hate group), EXODUS International who until recently believed in / supported reparative therapy and the National Organization for Marriage.

I don't know why the church pedals reparative therapy as an answer to their theological dilemma, despite it resulting in countless suicides.

Reparative Therapy uses ALL of the same modalities as other psychologists and therapists.

The difference is that Reparative Therapy recognizes the individuals right to choose to live according to their own values and to seek healing.

Had they bothered to think for themselves (or at least do their homework) they would have found, for example, that Dr. James Dobson is correct: The American Psychological Association did dismiss reparative therapy because they were caving in to gay pressure.

Perhaps reparative therapy simply seems more hateful and thus is particularly distasteful.

I doubt reparative therapy will ever be similarly redeemed, but I do worry when social science becomes the basis for policy.

Of course the issue of reparative therapy fits with a broader narrative of gay rights and the truculence of religious conservatives in acknowledging equality for homosexuals.

Though reparative therapy may indeed be an awful thing, I'm not convinced government regulation is the best way to address it.

The main evidence in favour of reparative therapy came from a 2003 report published in Archives of Sexual Behavior (vol 32, p 403) by Robert Spitzer of the New York State Psychiatric Institute.

First, let me be clear that I am not defending reparative therapy.

I should begin by stating that there is no scientific evidence published in reputable, peer - reviewed journals indicating that reparative therapy actually works.1 In fact, the weight of the published research suggests that it is actually psychologically harmful to those who undergo this treatment.

Everything about Reparative Therapy is helpful and beneficial.

The World Health Organization calls reparative therapy «a serious threat to the health and well - being — even the lives — of affected people.»

Despite the protests of a «gay reparative therapy» group, TfL's decision not to put up their posters is not an infringement of their freedom of speech.

The drive to ban reparative therapy is understandable, but apart for the symbolic victory, I worry it won't have the intended effect.

I responded to this e-mail with my take on reparative therapy and NARTH and decided to share my analysis, given that there seems to be a lot of misconceptions in the media about whether therapy can and should be used to modify someone's sexuality.

Briefly, Boehner implied that individuals are capable of changing their sexual orientation (see SofR's related post on the idea of reparative therapy by Dr. Lehmiller here), and used Dr. Diamond's research on sexual identity labels (not sexual orientation) to supposedly support the claim that sexual orientation is malleable.

In case you are not familiar with reparative therapy, it refers to a controversial set of procedures that attempt to change someone's sexual orientation, usually from homosexual to heterosexual.

He was a leading opponent of gay rights and advocate of reparative therapy for several decades.

He was tormented as a Christian teenager by his homosexual attractions, but now, after men's retreats and an online course of reparative therapy, he says he feels glimmers of attraction for women and is thinking about dating.

Reparative therapy, the APA, NAMBLA, pedophilia, blah, blah, blah, have nothing to do with this issue, Bob.

Reparative therapy, however, should in no way be presented as a requirement for the homosexual person.

It's irresponsible, too, to ignore the fact that LGBT people who seek religious counseling are more likely to commit suicide than those who seek secular counseling or none at all, that former advocates of «reparative therapy» are speaking out about its dangers, and that telling people their sexuality is inherently and uniquely disordered and disgusting produces more despair than hope.

All of the above - mentioned medical professional organizations, in addition to the American and European Counseling Associations, stand strongly opposed to any form of reparative therapy.

Gonnerman, for his part, seems to assume that these categories of the human person are foregone conclusions in several of his writings, as well as in his recent discussion of reparative therapy, in which he calls himself «a chaste man who is also gay.»

Every major American medical authority has concluded that there is no scientific support for NARTH's view, and many have expressed concern that reparative therapy can cause harm.

This way of thinking about our sexuality and our Christian faith is, I think, just as «triumphalist» as any reparative therapy narrative.

After examining 83 studies on sexual orientation change conducted since 1960, the association concluded that reparative therapy can be harmful, sometimes sparking depression and suicidal tendencies.

Now I could be totally wrong on this, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Giglio has moved away from his position (implied in the video) that homosexuality is a «malfunction» that can be «cured» or «healed» through «reparative therapy.»