Wednesday, August 23rd | 1 Elul 5777

Close

Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

Subscribe
May 25, 2012 10:45 am

Married Men Can Finally Come Out of the Closet

avatar by Moshe Averick

Email a copy of "Married Men Can Finally Come Out of the Closet" to a friend

Christian psychotherapist, Lesley Pilkington

The British Association for Counseling and Psychotherapy (BACP) has struck a blow for progressive people everywhere, by taking away the senior accredited status of psychotherapist Lesley Pilkington. Ms. Pilkington committed the horribly unprofessional offense of fulfilling the request of Patrick Strudwick to help him overcome his unwanted homosexual tendencies. Strudwick claimed that his homosexuality was causing him to be depressed. The BACP ruling acknowledged that Strudwick “was comfortable and accepting of her approach, such as saying “Amen” at the end of prayers,” and telling Pilkington that he had recently become more religious.

The BACP declared such therapy as “reckless,” “disrespectful,” and “dogmatic.” They demand that psychotherapists “affirm” homosexuality, even if the client does not. (The BACP is also considering issuing guidelines that psychotherapists affirm “natural” suicidal tendencies even if the client does not. After all, what the hell do clients know about psychotherapy anyway!)

It turns out that the Strudwick was not being totally honest with Pilkington. (In clinical terms this is known as “Lying.”) It seems he was not really interested in overcoming his homosexuality; he was involved in a “sting” operation. He deliberately misled Pilkington in order “to root out therapists and psychiatrists who are practicing these techniques…The ultimate aim was to prevent religious groups from offering counseling which aims to change sexual orientation.” If it is unclear to the reader what this has to do with married men “coming out of the closet” please read on.

In a related story, sociology professor, Eric Anderson, graced us all with a dazzling display of wisdom and enlightenment in his new book, The Monogamy Gap: Men, Love, and the Reality of Cheating. It seems that Anderson has uncovered a startling, hitherto fore unknown fact about the male of our species: many men experience difficulty remaining faithful in monogamous relationships. “The end result of this disconnect between the expectation of fidelity and men’s inability to stay monogamous is heartache and disillusionment. The sooner we let go of the monogamy ideal, the happier we’ll all be.” I ask the reader’s forgiveness for putting this in what might be perhaps confusing, clinical and scientific terminology: Men would like to have sex with lots of different women. (Now I understand why Anderson made it to the rank of Professor.) It seems that Anderson’s findings were confirmed by rigorous scientific investigation. He made his incredible discovery by surreptitiously eavesdropping on male locker room conversations all over the world. (Actually, Anderson’s findings are old news. None other than Jimmy Carter – though arguably the most incompetent President in history, he is a male – confessed in a November, 1976 interview in Playboy magazine that “I’ve committed adultery in my heart many times.”)

Related coverage

September 7, 2016 6:28 am
8

Petty Orthodoxy

Thetorah.com is a website that analyzes the weekly reading of the Torah for people who do not take every word in the Torah...

Jimmy Carter, "I've committed adultery in my heart many times."

Anderson has empowered men to have the courage to come out of the closet. We are sick and tired of being BULLIED by womyn (politically correct and non gender-discriminatory term for female), be they wives, girlfriends, or significant others. How cruel of them to expect us to practice fidelity by changing our genetically wired and – dare I say it – Gd given sexual orientation. In fact, it should be classified as a hate crime! Let men everywhere demand that the BACP and the American Psychiatric Association issue new guidelines for mental health professionals and marriage counselors. Womyn must be told, in no uncertain terms, that men are entitled to be true to themselves. Not only should mistresses and polygamy be encouraged, but we must create new ceremonies affirming committed adulterous relationships.

What are we to make of all of the above? What comes to mind are the final moments of the classic 1957 film, Bridge Over the River Kwai, when Major Clipton (James Donald), upon witnessing the blood-letting with which the film ends, screams out in horror: Madness! Madness!

Rabbi Moshe Averick is an orthodox rabbi, a regular columnist for the Algemeiner Journal, and author of Nonsense of a High Order: The Confused and Illusory World of the Atheist. It is available on Amazon.com and Kindle. Rabbi Averick can be reached via his website. If you wish to be informed when new articles appear, send an email to moe.david@hotmail.com with the email address and the word “Subscribe” in the subject line.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • Is Nobel Prize winning biologist David Baltimore a Creationist? Or does he have a seemingly better reason for his “science of information” theory?

    • I can understand why you guys, Moshe and Rex, hold to the bogus “specified information in DNA” notion. It is a simple rationalization for your religious “IDOL” doctrine.

      But what is Baltimore’s story? Is he just traveling the same track with you guys? Or did he get there by a different route?

  • RexTugwell

    Those who deny that there is information in the cell and therefore life are wrong yet again. Nobel Prize winning biologist, David Baltimore said “Modern biology is a science of information.” Manfred Eigen (another Nobel Prize winner), Bernd Olaf-Kuppers, John Maynard and many other biologists have said that the origin of information is biology’s central problem.

    On the other hand, whoever said the existence of information is a consequence of consciousness was right. Of course we all know the implications of that admission. Hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

    • “Information is knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction.”

      At the origin of life, there was no information around anywhere. There was nobody around to investigate, study, or get instruction from anybody about anything.

      You can imagine that there was some “supernatural consciousness,” but that is fiction not science or information.

      {}{}“On the other hand, whoever said the existence of information is a consequence of consciousness was right. Of course we all know the implications of that admission.”{}{}

      The “implication” is that there was no information around before humans evolved sufficiently to engage in “investigation, study, and instruction.”

      The “origin of information” is dependent upon the “origin of life,” since without life, information could never have happened.

    • RexTugwell

      Merriam-Webster dictionary

      Information – 2)b – the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects

      It’s like shooting fish in a barrel

      • moshe averick

        Rex,

        Be gentle, my friend, be gentle.

        • Gentle or otherwise, Rex has still got it wrong. You, too, Moshe.

        • RexTugwell

          My apologies, Rabbi and to you, too, Steve

          • For what, may I ask?

          • RexTugwell

            My apologies for quoting the factually wrong part of the definition of “information” whereas you were quoting the factually correct part of selfsame definition.

            mea culpa

          • You’re wrong about so many things, Rex, why pick that one? And what’s the nonsense about “apologies”? If you really think you’ve made a mistake, all you have to do is change your mind. “Apologies” are not the way to go. (Even if you don’t mean it, it is a very weak way to try to make a point.)

          • I guess you’ll have to admit, Rex, that you shot yourself in the foot, instead of getting any fish.

      • Merriam-Webster dictionary

        Information – 2a (1) : knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction

        You’re looking in the wrong barrel, Rex. And you’re shooting blanks.

      • Notice that defintion “2)b” offered by Rex (as googled from Merriam-Webster) is factually wrong on the point of “communicated.”

        Both nucleotides in DNA and binary digits in a computer program do produce specific effects. But, since neither DNA nor computers are conscious beings, those effects do not arise from communication.

        It is invalid to claim that all causal relationships are forms of communication.

        • When you use a hammer to nail two pieces of wood together, you are not communicating with the wood, the nail, or even the hammer.

          You are causing a specific effect, but it is plain silly to claim you are “communicating instructions to the nail.”

          Likewise, nucleotides in DNA are capable of producing specific effects. But it is still ludicrous to claim that the process is one of “communication.”

    • {}{}“… biologists have said that the origin of information is biology’s central problem.”{}{}

      Why just biology? Why isn’t is a problem for geologists to find the origin of the information communicated from mountains to snow to cause avalanches?

      That “central problem” is a fake — an attempt to sneak in the supernatural.

    • }{}{David Baltimore said “Modern biology is a science of information.”}{}{

      Where did he say that? What was the context? It would be interesting to investigate the idea.

  • Eli

    “I am simply stating that we can recognize intelligent causation.”

    How do you recognize intelligent causation?

    • One crucial aspect of it is to be able to identify which objects, processes, effects, etc., are man-made. At this point in history, man is the only known agent of intelligent causation (beyond the sensory level).

    • moshe averick

      Eli,

      The same way that you do. How do you recognize intelligent causation if you were to receive intelligible morse code messages (or any other type of code for that matter) from a distant galaxy?

      We are starting to go around in circles Eli, It is a given that we can recognize intelligent causation. Please make your point.

      • Emma

        Sometimes natural random phenomena can resemble “languages.” For instance, this fish.

        http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/bulletnose/phukfish.jpg

        Of course, that is just that particular organism’s natural pigment. It is only a “word” because we, beings who are literate in the English language, recognize it as a word and the concept it represents.

      • {}{}“How do you recognize intelligent causation if you were to receive intelligible morse code messages (or any other type of code for that matter) from a distant galaxy?”{}{}

        You would recognize it by first noticing its resemblance to known codes (i.e., something man-made).

    • RexTugwell

      There are only three types of causes: chance, necessity or intelligence. If a thing has specified complexity, the cause is intelligence.

      • {{{}}}“If a thing has specified complexity, the cause is intelligence.”{{{}}}

        Correct.

        That is why there was no “specified complexity” in the DNA that led to the evolution of humans. Before humans, there was nothing capable of making specifications.

  • Eli

    “Is it logical to make what generalization?”

    Any generalization. It’s called abstract thinking. But let’s take two concrete examples.

    ———-

    Example 1.

    There are several examples of FCSI that are the product of material intelligent beings. Therefore, all FCSI is the product of material or immaterial intelligent beings.

    In the premise, X = FCSI, Y = product of material intelligence.
    In the conclusion, X = FCSI, Y = product of material or immaterial intelligence.

    ———-

    Example 2.

    There are several examples of material intelligent beings that contain FCSI. Therefore, all material and immaterial intelligent beings contain FCSI.

    In the premise, X = material intelligent beings, Y = contain FCSI.
    In the conclusion, X = material and intelligent beings, Y = contain FCSI.

    ———-

    Are these logical generalizations?

    • Absolutely not, Eli. You are way, way off track.

    • {{}}“There are several examples of material intelligent beings that contain FCSI.”{{}}

      There is no such thing.

      The number of examples you can actually produce is: zero.

      The number of possible examples is: zero.

    • moshe averick

      Eli,

      I already explained to you. I am not making any generalizations about material or non-material intelligent beings. I am simply stating that we can recognize intelligent causation. What exactly is the form of intelligence behind the particular phenomenon being examined would require a separate investigation.

      Your question is not relevant to anything that I have stated.

      • {{}}“I am simply stating that we can recognize intelligent causation.”{{}}

        Your “IDOL” theory belies that claim. Since you believe that life and the universe were “intelligently caused,” then you are not doing a reasonable job of being able to “recognize intelligent causation.”

  • ayla

    Steve Stoddard: you say there is no “stored information” in nature….what about seeds? DNA? Evidence of intelligence. Just like us writing these posts, displaying our intelligence (hopefully) with stored information.

    • The short answer is that you are anthropomorphizing to think of nature as “passing around information” to itself.

      Longer answer after coffee.

    • Information requires sentience, i.e., conscious processing of the raw facts of nature.

      Plants are not conscious, so there is no “information” in seeds — except as they are studied, conceptualized, and categorized by people.

      Even saying there is “information” in DNA is simply an analogy, not a literal description of the circumstances.

      Evolution is not a conscious — or consciously directed — process.

      The existence of information is a consequence of consciousness, not a cause of it.

    • Emma

      DNA is not “information” in the literal sense. It is a simplification that laymen use to explain DNA and genetics to students and the general population. A better term would be “genetic material.” DNA is entirely chemical, and everything it does is based around chemical reactions. There is no “information” being stored whatsoever in DNA.

      • Moshe Averick

        Emma,

        What you have written is simply mistaken. It means that you have a very unclear picture of how DNA actually works. THere is no question that DNA contains “information” by any definition of the word and what baffles Origin of Life researchers more than anythihng else is that the function of DNA does not follow any necessary chemical laws or reactions. It is a CODE. Just as our alphabet is a CODE. That is, a series of arbitrary symbols that represent ideas or instructions. THE arrangements of the nucleotides have no particular chemical basis. There is no chemical or physical reason why a series of three particular nucleotides code for a particular amino acid. There is no chemical link between the two entities. In other words, it could just as well have been three other nucleotides. Not only that, there is no particular chemical or physical reason why the nucleotides should be arranged in an order that codes for the construction of a hemoglobin, a protein that consists of a long string of amino acids. Please see the following article that I wrote earlier in the year that elaborates on this principle. You have made a serious error. There is no chemist or microbiologist that would agree with you.

        http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/04/04/british-geneticist-robert-saunders-leaves-a-highly-prejudiced-signature-in-his-review-of-signature-in-the-cell/

        • {}{}‘THere is no question that DNA contains “information” by any definition of the word …. It is a CODE. Just as our alphabet is a CODE. That is, a series of arbitrary symbols that represent ideas or instructions.’{}{}

          That is one point on which you are mistaken, Rabbi Averick.

          “CODE” is something one person sends to another to convey information. There are no people (in terms of the origin of life) either creating, sending, or receiving and interpreting “CODE” of any sort.

          DNA did not give anyone instructions about how to create life. There wasn’t anybody around to get instructions on how to originate life.

          And the notion that God needed to give Himself instructions on how to perform miracles is a bit silly.

        • Emma

          It’s not a code. This is basic high school biology I’m talking about here. The letters CAGT are just abbreviations that stand for cytosine, adenine, guanine, and thymine respectively. They are chemicals, not letters. This alphabet I’m using to type my response is a language. DNA is a very long and complex molecule, a polymer composed of those four chemicals mentioned above (as well as deoxyribose sugar and other things), not a language. DNA is more similar to a catalyst than a set of instructions. It does not think. It cannot “think” any more than some substances “think” to dissolve when placed in water.

          This page is useful regarding those sorts of claims. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB180.html

          • Moshe Averick

            Emma,

            DNA does not in any way at all resemble a catalyst. Sequences of nucleotides code for amino acids. They are replicated by the mRNA and fed into a ribosome which reads the codons and matches them up with the appropriate amino acid attached to the tRNA. There is no chemical connection between any of these functions. It is a code in every sense of the word. I’m sorry EMMA you are simply way off base here.

          • {}{}Moshe Averick (June 4, 2012 1:36 am) “DNA … It is a code in every sense of the word.”{}{}

            You are still dreaming, Moshe. DNA is not a code in any sense of communicating information (like, for instance, Morse Code). DNA is simply chemicals interacting without any conscious intervention of code-making, code-deciphering, or anything of the sort.

            To repeat, DNA is naturally-occurring chemicals, not code.

          • Emma

            “Sequences of nucleotides code for amino acids. They are replicated by the mRNA and fed into a ribosome which reads the codons and matches them up with the appropriate amino acid attached to the tRNA.”

            lol no. They are not “codes” for anything. They are simply sequences of specific chemical reactions that result in a particular polypeptide (protein) as the product. mRNA does not “replicate” DNA, the RNA synthase causes the two strands of DNA to “unzip.” Then the synthase reacts with a certain pattern of nucleotides on one side of the DNA and binds itself there, and begins to synthesize a chemical complement to the DNA strand it is replicating. That chemical complement is mRNA, which is then released into the cytosol of the cell from the nucleus. The mRNA finds the surface of a ribosome, where the tRNA begins a series of chemical reactions that turn the mRNA into a polypeptide chain according to its nucleotide sequence, which becomes a protein when released.

            Everything that happens in DNA transcription, replication, and translation is a chemical reaction, albeit a very complex one. But there is nothing about it that resembles a “language” whatsoever. It has no grammar, no words, no syntax. It simply has series of nucleotides that have a certain product when reacted with in a certain order. The misconception that DNA is information is a side effect of laymen trying to simplify a complex area of biology, as well as creationists who think they are scientifically literate without doing any actual scientific research in that area themselves.

          • RexTugwell

            Wow, that’s pretty impressive. Maybe you can look up epigenetics on Wikipedia too and explain to us how there’s no information in the epigenome.

          • Nevertheless, Rex, nucleotide sequences are NOT code. Code is a method of communication. DNA is not communicating with anyone. It has no such capability.

      • That is a good way to put it, Emma.

  • Eli

    A generalization is when you observe that something is true for part of a group, and conclude that that something is true for the entire group.
    For example, I have several examples of X that are Y; therefore, all X are Y. The first part of the generalization (“examples of X that are Y”) is the premise of the generalization. The second part of the generalization (“therefore, all X are Y”) is the conclusion of the generalization.

    ————————————-

    My question is this:

    If X or Y in the premise = material beings, is it logical for X or Y in the conclusion to = material AND immaterial beings?

    In other words, is it logical to make a generalization about all intelligent beings (i.e. material and immaterial) based on examples that only include material intelligent beings?

    This is a “yes” or “no” question, so either the word “yes” or “no” should appear in your answer.

    • There are no such things as “immaterial beings,” so it is never logical to include them in any non-fictional generalizations.

    • Moshe Averick

      Eli,

      Is it logical to make what generalization?

      I’m not making generalizations at all about material and non-material intelligent beings. I am simply asserting that we can recognize the products of intelligent causes as opposed to unguided processes. The intelligence behind these products can be animal, human, alien, or other.

      • {}{}“I am simply asserting that we can recognize the products of intelligent causes as opposed to unguided processes.”{}{}

        Except that you refuse to recognize that life originated from an unguided process.

        Note that is it absolutely necessary that life originated by an unguided process, since guidance is a conscious process — and consciousness depends on life (not vice-versa).

        Life, quite naturally, came first, then consciousness, quite naturally, evolved later.

  • Eli

    I guess you don’t. A generalization is when you observe that something is true for part of a group, and conclude that that something is true for the entire group.

    For example, I have several examples of X that are Y; therefore, all X are Y.

    The first part of the generalization (“examples of X that are Y”) is the premise of the generalization.

    The second part of the generalization (“therefore, all X are Y”) is the conclusion of the generalization.

    Do you understand this?

    • RexTugwell

      The fallacy of hasty generalization. Understood. What’s your point?

      • Eli

        My point depends on Moshe’s answer to this question.

        • Moshe Averick

          Eli,

          I will try to respond for the last time. I know what a generalization is. In the context of your question I do not understand how you are using the term. The only thing I can say is that material intelligent beings are distinguished from non-material intelligent beings by definition. That is to say, one group is “material” and one group is “non-material.” Is that “logical”? I don’t know, what do you think? I don’t think it has anything at all to do with logic. It is simply stating the facts as they are. Material and non-material intelligent beings share in common that they have intelligence and don’t share the nature of being material.
          Of course, that is really nothing more than a truism or a tautology. That is the best I can do.

          • {}{}“Material and non-material intelligent beings share in common that they have intelligence and don’t share the nature of being material.”{}{}

            In other words, “immaterial beings” are imaginary, not real.

            “Imaginary beings” are a fictional conceit, not anything that literally exists.

            Intelligence is entirely a natural, material, existing phenomenon.

            The “supernatural is merely an unnatural, immaterial, non-existent “phenomenon.”

          • {}{}“Material and non-material intelligent beings share in common that they have intelligence and don’t share the nature of being material.”{}{}

            In other words, “immaterial beings” are imaginary, not real.

            “Imaginary beings” are a fictional conceit, not anything that literally exists.

            Intelligence is entirely a natural, material, existing phenomenon.

            The “supernatural” is merely an unnatural, immaterial, non-existent “phenomenon.”

  • AW

    “The fact that our society has gotten used to homosexuality is irrelevant.,, People were used to lychings also.”

    Exactly. Because consensual sex between to people of the same gender and lynchings are morally equivalent.

    Care to actually define “morality”?

    • Moshe Averick

      AW,

      I never said that lynchings and homosexuality are equivalent, I just made the simple point that because people have gotten used to homosexuality in no way at all attests to its morality. When I grew up everyone “knew” that a man who thought he was a woman was an indication of a serious problem. People can get used to anything, even lynchings. In fact, if you look at the pictures of lynchings people are mugging for the camera. They certainly did not feel they were doing anything wrong at all.

      • AW

        Right.

        On a totally unrelated note, the fact that your article is on the internet doesn’t mean it’s well written or thoughtful. There are videos of projectile vomit on the internet.

      • RexTugwell

        Devastating, AW. Just devastating.

      • Emma

        That only goes to show that morality as we perceive it is a culturally conditioned response. You say that when you grew up, transsexuality and homosexuality were considered a mental illness. Today they are not, but this is for scientific reasons, not medical ones. (A “mental illness” must *always* directly cause a decreased quality of life to the sufferer, which is not an intrinsic characteristic of homosexuality and transsexuality.) While it’s true that this says nothing about the “rightness” of those things, it says nothing about their “wrongness” either.

        • Moshe Averick

          Emma,

          You are correct. “Feelings” have very little, if anything at all, to do with moral principles. In fact, the entire purpose of a moral principle is that we must subordinate our feelings to moral principles, not the other way around, which is what most people do.

          As far as your point about “decreased quality of life” you have begged the question. What do you mean by “quality” of life? We human beings are in quite a quandary when we seriously confront the issue of establishing moral priniciples.

          • {{}}“… the entire purpose of a moral principle is that we must subordinate our feelings to moral principles, not the other way around,…”{{}}

            There is one point on which you are correct, Rabbi Averick.

            Morality is a guide to action. Feeling are not tools of cognition, and therefore not a reasonable guide to action.

          • Emma

            When it comes to definitions like “mental illness,” the morality generally used is utilitarian; if the person feels distress as a direct result of their condition, then it is a mental illness. Let me explain. With a real mental illness, like bipolar disorder, the sufferer has such ups and downs of mood that they can be manic one moment and depressed the next. They could become delusional during the manic stage and believe themselves invincible, leading them to do brash things that hurt them once their mood normalizes. In the depressive stage, they could lose all motivation to work, play, etc. and become suicidal. This is also bad for them because their ability to function in their environment is impacted negatively as a result.

            A homosexual, on the other hand, does not have any psychological distress as a direct result of their condition. Being attracted to a person of the same gender in and of itself does not create any problems in functioning. However there are higher rates among queer people due to the prejudice and persecution they face. This is not a result of their sexual orientation or gender identity, but rather the result of the attitudes of the people around them. In a society that accepts people of multiple sexual orientations or gender identities, these sorts of conflicts do not arise.

        • _-_“… morality as we perceive it is a culturally conditioned response.”_-_

          That is true only for people who are avoiding the responsibility of thinking (for themselves, naturally). Such people basically don’t care about morality, so they default to absorbing what the culture happens to be pushing. But there is nothing necessary about taking that approach.

          Rational, objective morality is possible — just not popular.

  • AW

    “A simple example: In order to successfully foist legal abortion on the American people, abortion activists in the early 70″²s screamed about the thousands of woman who died every year from “back alley” abortions. It simply was a lie, the real figure was somewhere between 100-200.”

    Can you give a citation for this statistic?

    • RexTugwell

      Actually the numbers are even lower, AW.

      “In 1972, 24 women died from causes associated with legal abortion, and 39 women died from illegal abortions (5)”

      5. CDC. Abortion Surveillance, 1972. Atlanta: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, CDC, 1974:5.

      The URL is
      http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss4804a1.htm

      Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the founders of NARAL and responsible for 75,000 abortions, admitted lying about the inflated numbers of abortion-related deaths prior to 1973 to get the public to accept legalized abortion.

      • moshe averick

        REx,

        thanks for putting up the statistics. I was trying to find my copy of Bernard Nathanson’s book where he talks about this. He also cited the figures you did, but if I’m not mistaken, said that perhaps there were some unreported deaths by illegal abortions. I believe he put the absolute maximum at 200.

      • RexTugwell

        Happy to help, Rabbi. You’re right about the 200 max statistic. I think we can all agree at this point that the number is well below the 5,000 – 10,000 stat that was used to fool us. Make me wonder what other lies and misinformation is being told to us in the name of sexual freedom, women’s rights, science, etc. Gd only knows.

      • Emma

        Yes, because those women totally deserved to die. -_-

      • RexTugwell

        They deserved to die about as much as the 50 million babies that have died since Roe v Wade. Nobody had to die. Those women could have taken there babies to full term and delivered them. Stop thinking with your emotions.

    • moshe averick

      AW,

      Please see what Rex wrote. If this particular subject interests you it is worthwhile reading the late Dr. Nathnanson’s very candid book.

  • AW

    “Obviously, the first conditions for successful therapy are that the therapist is expert…”

    The American Psychiatric Association is composed of experts who, based on numerous studies, have stated that reparative therapy is unethical due to the psychological damage it inflicts.

    So, what in your estimation makes someone an “expert” therapist, since it clearly isn’t based on knowledge or research?

    • Moshe Averick

      AW,

      Since I personally know of cases where homosexuals have changed it is obvious that the APA is more motivated by political considerations and the zeitgeist than it is by reality. I know highly skilled therapists who have helped homosexuals. People have no problem discarding reality when it conflicts with their agenda. Many college students are brainwashed by humanities professors that men and woman are the same except for insignificant biological differences. Only a complete fool would believe such lunacy. That does not stop feminists and “progressive” academics from spreading these types of absurd ideas. The president of Harvard University had to resign (I forget his name) for stating some of the obvious truths about the differing intellectual skills of men and woman. Look at a demagogue like Al Sharpton; in the name of civil rights he attempts to lead a black lynch mob to lynch a white man whose guilt, at the very least is in doubt, and at best seems to be innocent, certainly of 2nd degree murder. That does not stop MSNBC from giving him his own show as a crusader for human rights.

      Just as an aside, many of the psychiatrists ( as opposed to psychologists, counselors, and therapists) I have met, are in my opinion, nuts.

      • Emma

        When you say “unwanted homosexual tendencies” I think you should definitely distinguish between homosexuals who have internalized homophobia, and straight people who simply have OCD. There is a kind of OCD where the sufferer (typically a straight person) fears that their sexual orientation is changing, and is frequently disturbed by mental images of homosexual acts. The difference is that those thoughts do not arouse them at all.

        If a person really is gay but they do not want to be, that is something they simply need to reconcile with themselves, their therapist, and possibly their religious leaders. They might choose to be celibate while identifying as gay, they might identify as gay and pursue a relationship, but reparative “therapy” would do more harm than good in these cases.

        Penn & Teller had an episode on this sort of thing that is actually quite funny, but I can’t find it right now.

    • ayla

      But in this case the “patient” informed the Dr. that he had “unwanted” tendencies, and was depressed as a result. Isn’t the Dr. then obligated to provide methods to overcome these unwanted tendencies, and thus to help the patient resolve the depression issue? Just as if a patient had requested help with depression from, say, for instance, obesity. We would all expect the Dr. to honor the patient’s request to deal with the problem he felt caused his depression.

  • Eli

    I didn’t ask if there was a reason that a non-material being coudn’t have intelligence.

    I asked…

    When making generalizations, is it logical to distinguish between material intelligent beings and “other” intelligent beings or not?

    Still waiting for a straightforward yer or no answer to this yer or no question.

    • Moshe Averick

      Eli,

      Don’t understand your question

      • Eli

        Do you understand what a generalization is?

    • There are only “material intelligent beings.” There are no “‘other’ intelligent beings.”

      A non-material being is not a possibility.

      • ayla

        Intelligence isn’t, in and of itself, material. We, as material beings, detect intelligence when we become aware of it. But how do we detect it? What criterion do we use? We certainly know it when we see it. But intelligence is a phenomenon that has no material nature.So,where it resides, we truly do not know.

        • {}{}“But intelligence is a phenomenon that has no material nature.”{}{}

          That is clearly not true. You might as well attempt to claim that “walking is a phenomenon that has no material nature.” The trouble is that, in both cases, you are ignoring inescapable facts of reality.

          You need legs to walk and a functioning complex brain to be intelligent.

          Both walking and intelligence require well-evolved bodies, i.e., “material nature.”

          You may fantasize about it being otherwise, but, intellectually, you don’t have a leg to stand on.

          • ayla

            The difference is that walking is an observable physical activity, but intelligence is only detected by observing some sort of results. Someone might tell me that he is working out a math problem in his head, while he is, in fact, gazing out the window at a squirrel. I don’t know anything about his intelligence unless he does something to display it. Likewise, we observe intelligence on display in the stored information and order in our material world… whose intelligence are we seeing?

          • ayla

            The difference is that walking is an observable physical activity, but intelligence is only detected by observing some sort of results. Someone might tell me that he is working out a math problem in his head, while he is, in fact, gazing out the window at a squirrel. I don’t know anything about his intelligence unless he does something to display it. Likewise, we observe intelligence on display in the stored information and order in our material world… whose intelligence are we seeing when we look about?

          • {}{}“The difference is that walking is an observable physical activity, but intelligence is only detected by observing some sort of results.”{}{}

            That is a difference, but not a crucial one. And you don’t seem to be taking into account the fact that you can observe yourself exercising your intelligence when you think and write.

            {}{}“Likewise, we observe intelligence on display in the stored information and order in our material world…”{}{}

            There you are mistaken. There is no “stored information” in nature — only in man-made objects.

            The notion of “a creative intelligence behind nature” is pure fantasy.

  • RexTugwell

    Any comments on Rabbi Averick’s current piece? Or are you guys so one-dimensional that you don’t have opinions on any other topic and would rather beat the same dead horse over and over? Ironic how you keep harping on the subject of intelligence.

  • Eli

    Still waiting for a reply from Moshe –

    When making generalizations, is it logical to distinguish between material intelligent beings and “other” intelligent beings or not?

    In other words, which set of statements is logical:

    All FCSI is the product of intelligence.
    All intelligence contains FCSI.

    or…

    All FCSI is the product of material intelligence.
    All material intelligence contains FCSI.

    Which is it?

    • Moshe Averick

      Eli,

      There is nothing at all about intelligence that limits it to a material being.

      • Eli

        So am I correct in inferring that your position is that it is NOT logical to distinguish between material intelligent beings and “other” intelligent beings when making generalizations?

        • moshe averick

          Eli,

          You are correct in inferring that there is no reason that I am aware of that would preclude a non-material being from having intelligence.

          • Except that intelligence is real, and “non-material being” means “not real being” — that is, a fantasy of blind (i.e., religious) faith.

            All intelligent beings are REAL, that is, material. You could check it out.

      • RexTugwell

        What’s your point, Eli?

      • Nothing — except all the evidence and the logic of biology.

        “Non-material intelligence” is pure fantasy.

        Non-material beings are not real.

    • RexTugwell

      Eli, neither statement is logical partly because you’re missing the minor premise. Consider the following equivalent statement which is just as illogical:

      All automobiles are the product of intelligence. Therefore, all intelligence contains automobiles.

      Get yourself a copy of Signature In The Cell. It’ll answer all your questions. 

      • Good auto analogy, Rex. That shows the illogic of Averick’s notion of “Creation, by God!” (aka “Averick’s IDOL”).

    • Specified information depends on intelligence, not the other way around.

      You have cause and effect mixed up, Eli.

  • Emma

    This is honestly the first article from you in which I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about or any clue as to what point you’re trying to make. I didn’t expect it to take this long, but better late than never.

    • RexTugwell

      Let’s see if I can give it a shot.

      This type of writing is known in certain circles as tongue-in-cheek. It is a type of communication that is meant to be humorous, ironic with a dash of subtle sarcasm thrown in for good measure. At the same time, Rabbi Maverick is trying to make a valid point. He’s sort of the Jewish version of Rush Limbaugh: illustrating absurdity by being absurd.

      His point, I believe, is that it is ridiculous to simply follow our passions and tendencies without any regard to the moral and societal consequences of those choices. The juxtaposition of the BACP insisting on affirming homosexuals in their “gayness” – and suicidal tendencies! – and Rabbi Maverick’s appeal to let men screw around because monogamy is so “unnatural” is interesting. Any self-respecting wife or girlfriend would immediately object to her man’s infidelity based on an appeal to his tendency to “have sex with lots of different women”. However, because of the absolute idiocy brought on by the sexual revolution, this is where we are. Any type of sexual deviancy, be it homosexual or unfaithful heterosexual sex, is permissible and encouraged regardless of its toll on spouses, children, families or society.

      I think studies of this sort are not really science but are only attempts to justify the personal proclivities of the researcher(s).

      Hope that helps.

      • Moshe Averick

        rex,

        I appreciate your clarification, good show!

        • RexTugwell

          Thank you, Rabbi

      • Emma

        “He’s sort of the Jewish version of Rush Limbaugh”

        ROFLMAO

        “it is ridiculous to simply follow our passions and tendencies without any regard to the moral and societal consequences of those choices.”

        The problem is that comparing homosexuality to adultery is not an accurate comparison. Homosexuals can form happy romantic relationships with people of the same sex the same way heterosexuals can. Bisexuals like myself (yes, we exist) are attracted to the same sex and the opposite sex, and we can have happy romantic relationships with either.

        Adultery, by comparison, almost always causes psychological pain to the adulterer’s spouse. I don’t think it should be illegal, but there is a huge difference between being attracted to one’s own sex, and cheating on one’s spouse.

        For the record, I do not consider polygamy to be intrinsically harmful or morally wrong, and frankly I think it should be legal. Polygamist relationships can succeed (I happen to know a few), but they have no legal recognition. (Of course, adding spouses would become exponentially more difficult as time went on, due to the fact that ALL the spouses have to consent to marrying one partner.)

        As for “reparative therapy,” numerous studies and individual testimonies have not only shown that changing one’s sexual orientation is impossible, but that the only possible change in the patient will be negative. Reparative therapy is severely psychologically damaging. And while I sympathize with people who have internalized their environment’s homophobia, reparative therapy should be banned to protect the vulnerable. Letting a person go to reparative therapy to “cure” their homosexuality is like letting a person eat foxglove to “cleanse their aura.” It has no possible benefit, and it will probably hurt them.

        I think “affirming suicidal tendencies” was interpreted incorrectly. If a patient expresses suicidal intentions or thoughts to their therapist, it is obviously of great concern, and therefore the therapist should not ignore these feelings or try to invalidate them. They have to be brought into the open to be dealt with. Telling a suicidally depressed person that their suicidal feelings aren’t real or are not significant is probably one of the most destructive things a person can do. Therapists must strive to avoid this.

        It was funny at the end where you implied that any studies about sex that have conclusions you don’t like must be due to the researches fudging the data. Really, how many people does a research team have to screw to fool the entire peer review process? I don’t think monogamy is unnatural in every situation (although some species like bald eagles do mate for life), but for some people it is not an ideal solution.

        • Moshe Averick

          Emma,

          1. Re: Reparative Therapy: You simply are mistaken. I personally know of two homosexuals who “changed” their sexual orientation through therapy. I am not a therapist and I would not presume to know how to guide someone through such a process anymore than I would presume to know how to help an individual with a bi-polar disorder. People struggle with all kinds of issues, same-sex attraction is just one of many. There are simply too many people who have left homosexuality to say that reparative therapy is damaging. Homosexual activists will shamelessly promote any type of phony propoganda to further their cause, just as feminists did to promote theirs. A simple example: In order to successfully foist legal abortion on the American people, abortion activists in the early 70’s screamed about the thousands of woman who died every year from “back alley” abortions. It simply was a lie, the real figure was somewhere between 100-200.

          Obviously, the first conditions for successful therapy are that the therapist is expert and competent and the person wants to change. You can’t force anyone to do something they don’t want to do. The pre-condition is to realize that a man who thinks he is a woman and a woman who thinks she is a man means that something has gone terribly wrong. I may think that I am a horse but that does not mean I will be allowed to run in the Kentucky Derby. The fact that our society has gotten used to homosexuality is irrelevant. To a large extent we have gotten used to adultery also. We have gotten used to millions of unwed girls giving birth and raising a permanant underclass of children who are doomed. so what? People were used to lychings also.

          When you say that adultery causes psychological damage you have begged the question. The only reason it causes psychological damage is because people are “adulterophobic.” If they would just get over their silly attachment to monogamy everything would be fine. Do you see how easy it is to promote any bizarre agenda by coming up with catchy phrases and calling people names?

          I personally have no problem with polygamy either, but it is against our societal norms.

          There is much more to say on these subjects, but I must end here. Thank you for your comments Emma, even though I disagree with much of what you wrote, I appreciate your measured tones and presenting your ideas clearly.

          • Emma

            While I identify with what is commonly known as the LGBT community, I find the acronym rather clumsy, and as a bisexual I do not feel comfortable implicitly excluding myself by referring only to homosexuality when it comes to non-heterosexual orientations. Therefore for the purposes of this response I will be using the word “queer” as a catch-all term for non-cisgender and non-heterosexual gender identities and sexual orientations. This is not meant as a slur. If I want to be more specific, I will use a specific term.

            There are numerous studies comparing the brains of homosexuals to the brains of heterosexuals, and there is a distinct pattern of structural difference between them that is likely due to hormones in the womb. If you’d like to make the argument that talking about your daddy issues is going to change biology, I’m sure it would be interesting to read.

            I know of several homosexuals who were very religious, and it was their religious principles that caused them to seek reparative therapy when they realized that they were feeling attractions to the same sex. They genuinely wanted to change, but because sexual orientation is an immutable and uncontrollable characteristic, they failed again and again. The organizations they were using claimed high success rates, but only among those whose desire to change was “genuine.” At the same time, they echoed the religious teachings they had heard with their own disinformation, condemning homosexuality as a mental disorder and an intrinsic moral wrong. The implication that these people got was that they just had to try harder, and they only had themselves to blame for not succeeding, leading to depression. At least one admits to having attempted suicide at this point. After numerous attempts, all of them finally broke off any attempts to “cure” themselves. Some of them were so disgusted that they broke off from their religion altogether. Instead, they sought therapy to help them grapple with the reality of their sexuality. Denying it was not an option. Condemning it was not an option. And, as they had painfully learned by this point, changing it was not an option either. All of them say that reparative therapy harmed them emotionally, psychologically, financially, and spiritually. They do not think that it should be legal, period.

            I realize that the plural of “anecdote” is not “evidence,” and my anecdotes prove no more than yours. However, the difference between your stance and my stance on this issue is that mine actually has studies and organizations backing it up. The American Psychological Association did a study of the peer-reviewed literature on reparative therapy and found that it was scientifically unsupportable. (Your stance did have one once – it was a study by Robert Spitzer, but after being criticized on numerous ethical and methodological grounds, he decided to retract it and now regrets the conclusions he drew from the study.)

            Another thing is that there is a massive list of reliable organizations who are critical of conversion therapy, such as the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the American Academy of Physician Assistants – just to name a few. There are no reliable studies or organizations who have come out in support of conversion therapy as an effective way of changing one’s sexual orientation.

            Just out of curiosity, because you accept that it is possible for a person to change their sexual orientation, do you think it is possible for a straight person to turn queer? Because there’s this straight female friend of mine. We’re close friends, but she’s so gorgeous in every way that I can’t help but be absolutely spellbound by her, always thinking about all the fun, fun things I’d do with her – if only she was as willing as I was. So far all of my attempts to seduce and corrupt her into promiscuous kinky bisexual sex have been in vain. Not even chanting the SCUM manifesto while she slept worked. If you know of anyone who is proficient at teaching conversion therapy and applying it the other way around, I’d be very grateful.

            In all seriousness though, I think reparative therapy does cause social harm by polluting people’s minds with inaccurate information about queer people. I’m all for freedom of speech, even the most repulsive, and I consider anti-queer organizations and things like that to be pretty high up on the “repulsive” list.

            I also have no idea how you’ve pulled abortion into a discussion on reparative therapy. Frankly it seems like a complete red herring meant to divert my attention away from the actual discussion. If you have any proof that the “homosexual activists” are wrong, I’d like to hear it. (Or… read it. Whatever.)

            “The pre-condition is to realize that a man who thinks he is a woman and a woman who thinks she is a man means that something has gone terribly wrong.”
            This is transsexuality you are talking about, not homosexuality. There is a difference. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation and refers who one is sexually and romantically attracted to – in this case, the same sex. Transsexualism refers to gender identity, which is the gender one perceives oneself to be. It is separate from biological sex. Like homosexuality, there is a lot of evidence showing that transsexuality has biological factors. In fact, I would go so far to say that there is more evidence that transsexualism is biological than there is for homosexuality (not to discount homosexuality at all, of course).

            Studies have found that male-to-female transsexuals (MTFs) have variations in the androgen receptor gene that reduce its effectiveness at binding testosterone, leading to female features. A similar variation occurs in the pregnenolone and progesterone genes of female-to-male transsexuals (FTMs), resulting in male features.

            There is a region in the brain called the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc), which is known for sex and anxiety responses. MTFs have BSTcs that are the size of cisgender women, and FTMs have BSTcs that are the size of cisgender men. This was consistent in transsexuals who had taken hormones and those that had not. A follow-up study looked at the number of neurons in that region instead of the volume, and found similar results. Numerous other studies have found similar conclusions: MTFs have male genotypes but female brains, and vice versa for FTMs.

            It is well-documented that the amount of exposure to androgens in the womb can affect a fetus’ traits, such as their digit ratio. MTFs have digit ratios that are more similar to cisgender females. (The study did not discuss FTMs.) In other words, this is just within the means of variation and there is biological cause (genetics and prenatal hormones). And seeing as trans people can and do live happy and healthy lives as the gender identity they claim, I fail to see how biology could have “gone wrong” here.
            “To a large extent we have gotten used to adultery also.”

            Last time I checked, cheating on your spouse is serious business. It certainly makes the tabloids.

            “We have gotten used to millions of unwed girls giving birth and raising a permanant underclass of children who are doomed. so what? People were used to lychings also.”

            Another red herring that I will not waste my time addressing.

            “When you say that adultery causes psychological damage you have begged the question. The only reason it causes psychological damage is because people are “adulterophobic.” If they would just get over their silly attachment to monogamy everything would be fine.”

            When some couples get married, they vow not to have sex with anyone outside of their marriage. Sometimes the guideline of their “contract” is that sex outside of marriage is okay only if the other partner has approved of it first. Some “contracts” (including, if I remember correctly, Albert Einstein’s) have no expectations of monogamy whatsoever. Adultery would only cause emotional harm in the first situation, and in the second situation if they did not have permission. This is not because adultery is intrinsically wrong, but because a promise between the couple has been broken. If someone entrusts a deep dark secret with you and you promise not to tell it, and you go tell it to someone else anyway, then the person with the secret will be hurt because you have broken your promise.

            “I personally have no problem with polygamy either, but it is against our societal norms.”

            Who’s to say that can’t change? After all, marriage used to be between a man and his property. When I become President, I will legalize polygamy and promote dental hygiene. Also, everyone gets a free pony.

            “There is much more to say on these subjects, but I must end here. Thank you for your comments Emma, even though I disagree with much of what you wrote, I appreciate your measured tones and presenting your ideas clearly.”

            Thanks for the response. And don’t forget to vote Emma 2012.

Algemeiner.com