Huge CRC Has Support of Hundreds of Doctors
Blair High School kids have a TV show called "Shades of Life," and they had a segment on this week about the sex-ed curriculum. They taped a couple of us from from TeachTheFacts.org, and brought in a health teacher and a school board member, plus John Garza, the CRC's lawyer.
Here's how he wrapped up his part:
Not that hard to imagine why the school board wouldn't meet with them. Was it because they're a bunch of nuts? Or maybe it was because they made up stuff and lied about what was in the previous curriculum, and then sued the county. Really, why should the board meet with them?
They literally crawled on their knees?
My wife and I went to the Sanctuary of Fátima, Portugal, a few years back, where three children in 1917 saw visions of the Virgin of the Rosary. At Fátima, they have a path of carpet laid down, so pilgrims can literally crawl on their knees to offer prayers to the Virgin Mother. They literally crawl for hundreds of yards.
I don't remember seeing the CRC do that, do you?
And that 4,000, wow. Earlier in the interview, when he was asked about who the CRC was, he said they have "4,000 parents."
Let's just say, the CRC has closer to "four" members than "four thousand."
But it's that petition part that needs attention. We have a petition from 225 doctors that agree with what we have to say who are here in Montgomery County.
The CRC's representative on the citiziens committee, Ruth Jacobs, is a physician who works out at Shady Grove hospital. She brought a petition to work and asked doctors to sign it. Here's what it said:
Getting doctors to sign a petition against anal sex is not going to be especially hard, and it does not indicate that they support the CRC's position on anything.
The first paragraph here says that there is no research saying whether condoms are effective for anal intercourse or not. No surprise, doctors will agree to that.
The second paragraph, in case any of them read that far, says that the new curriculum "must use the Surgeons Generals statement and NIH consensus conference (3) statement to warn students of the risks of anal intercourse and of the risks of condom failure during anal intercourse."
First of all, look, the first paragraph said "solid data ... are lacking," so why would you sign a petition warning about the "risks of condom failure" when there are no data? That's just embarrassing.
And that Surgeon General's statement. Quick: what is the name of the Surgeon General? Can't think of it?
You're right.
There isn't one.
This refers to a Surgeon General back in the 1980s, during the darkest days of the AIDS epidemic, when they realized that gay men were passing the virus through anal intercourse. C. Everett Koop tried to get them to stop that, he told them how dangerous it was. It was a bold statement in those days, and we applaud him for it.
But for the ordinary person today, the statement is not correct. Just not correct. A recent survey says that about forty percent of adult Americans have had anal intercourse. And nothing horrible happened. Oh, maybe they didn't like it, maybe it hurt, but the fact is, it's a common behavior, riskier than vaginal sex if your partner has an STD, but not much. It doesn't deserve a scary, out-of-date, misrepresented warning from a long-gone Surgeon General.
And the "NIH consensus conference" did have a statement that HIV/AIDS can be sexually transmitted by anal, penile-vaginal, and oral intercourse. The highest rate of transmission is through anal exposure. Interesting statement, I think that is a way of saying that gay guys get HIV more than the rest of us. True, that.
But this petition is about condoms. And look what that same NIH report says about condoms:
Since they already said that anal exposure accounted for the highest rate of transmission, they are obviously talking about anal intercourse here.
And yes, the research is in, it's good, condoms really do reduce the risk of catching HIV. Strong evidence for the effectiveness of condoms for reducing sexually transmitted HIV. What more do you want?
But the CRC's position opposes teaching about condoms for anal sex. The NIH consensus conference recommends them, CRC is against them.
So how is it that doctors sign a petition against anal sex, and in favor of condoms, and John Garza refers to them as "225 doctors that agree with what we have to say?"
Here's how he wrapped up his part:
The reason we filed suit was because we begged Jerry Weast and the Board to meet with us to talk about our concerns. They refused to talk to us. We sent them letters. We literally crawled on our knees and asked them please just listen to what we have to say. We have 4,000 parents here. We have a petition from 225 doctors that agree with what we have to say who are here in Montgomery County. We asked 226 and 225 agreed with us and the Board won't meet with us.
Not that hard to imagine why the school board wouldn't meet with them. Was it because they're a bunch of nuts? Or maybe it was because they made up stuff and lied about what was in the previous curriculum, and then sued the county. Really, why should the board meet with them?
They literally crawled on their knees?
My wife and I went to the Sanctuary of Fátima, Portugal, a few years back, where three children in 1917 saw visions of the Virgin of the Rosary. At Fátima, they have a path of carpet laid down, so pilgrims can literally crawl on their knees to offer prayers to the Virgin Mother. They literally crawl for hundreds of yards.
I don't remember seeing the CRC do that, do you?
And that 4,000, wow. Earlier in the interview, when he was asked about who the CRC was, he said they have "4,000 parents."
Let's just say, the CRC has closer to "four" members than "four thousand."
But it's that petition part that needs attention. We have a petition from 225 doctors that agree with what we have to say who are here in Montgomery County.
The CRC's representative on the citiziens committee, Ruth Jacobs, is a physician who works out at Shady Grove hospital. She brought a petition to work and asked doctors to sign it. Here's what it said:
To MCPS Board of Education and Superintendent Weast
Health education is important. We the undersigned recognize that anal intercourse is a particular high risk sexual practice (1) and it is associated with the highest risk of HIV infection. We further recognize that "although there is strong evidence that condom use generally reduces sexual transmission of HIV, solid data showing the effectiveness of currently available condoms during AI, a particularly high-risk sexual practice, still are lacking."
As physicians, we are concerned for the health of the students and recommend that the new MCPS condom use lesson must use the Surgeons Generals statement and NIH consensus conference (3) statement to warn students of the risks of anal intercourse and of the risks of condom failure during anal intercourse.
Getting doctors to sign a petition against anal sex is not going to be especially hard, and it does not indicate that they support the CRC's position on anything.
The first paragraph here says that there is no research saying whether condoms are effective for anal intercourse or not. No surprise, doctors will agree to that.
The second paragraph, in case any of them read that far, says that the new curriculum "must use the Surgeons Generals statement and NIH consensus conference (3) statement to warn students of the risks of anal intercourse and of the risks of condom failure during anal intercourse."
First of all, look, the first paragraph said "solid data ... are lacking," so why would you sign a petition warning about the "risks of condom failure" when there are no data? That's just embarrassing.
And that Surgeon General's statement. Quick: what is the name of the Surgeon General? Can't think of it?
You're right.
There isn't one.
This refers to a Surgeon General back in the 1980s, during the darkest days of the AIDS epidemic, when they realized that gay men were passing the virus through anal intercourse. C. Everett Koop tried to get them to stop that, he told them how dangerous it was. It was a bold statement in those days, and we applaud him for it.
But for the ordinary person today, the statement is not correct. Just not correct. A recent survey says that about forty percent of adult Americans have had anal intercourse. And nothing horrible happened. Oh, maybe they didn't like it, maybe it hurt, but the fact is, it's a common behavior, riskier than vaginal sex if your partner has an STD, but not much. It doesn't deserve a scary, out-of-date, misrepresented warning from a long-gone Surgeon General.
And the "NIH consensus conference" did have a statement that HIV/AIDS can be sexually transmitted by anal, penile-vaginal, and oral intercourse. The highest rate of transmission is through anal exposure. Interesting statement, I think that is a way of saying that gay guys get HIV more than the rest of us. True, that.
But this petition is about condoms. And look what that same NIH report says about condoms:
The methodological strength of the studies on condoms to reduce the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission far exceeds that for other STDs. There is demonstrated exposure to HIV/AIDS through sexual intercourse with a regular partner (with an absence of other HIV/AIDS risk factors). Longitudinal studies of HIV- sexual partners of HIV+ infected cases allow for the estimation of HIV/AIDS incidence among condom users and condom non-users. From the two incidence estimates, consistent condom use decreased the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85%. These data provide strong evidence for the effectiveness of condoms for reducing sexually transmitted HIV.
Since they already said that anal exposure accounted for the highest rate of transmission, they are obviously talking about anal intercourse here.
And yes, the research is in, it's good, condoms really do reduce the risk of catching HIV. Strong evidence for the effectiveness of condoms for reducing sexually transmitted HIV. What more do you want?
But the CRC's position opposes teaching about condoms for anal sex. The NIH consensus conference recommends them, CRC is against them.
So how is it that doctors sign a petition against anal sex, and in favor of condoms, and John Garza refers to them as "225 doctors that agree with what we have to say?"
posted by JimK at 1:55 PM
40 Comments:
Because they do. This post is a sad demonstration of how concerned TTF is about teaching facts and, worse, how little concern they have for the welfare of teens in our public schools.
It's a scandal they have representation on the CAC.
A scandal.
Scandal??? Not at all what is scandalous is that opposition groups try to have a curriculum tailored to their interests only and go behind the scenes thinking that no one will notice them. Adults these days do not give their children any credit Montgomery County has one of the best school systems in the United States isn’t it possible that with all that goodness students might be able to think for themselves. Common sense would tell you that you are not supposed to "push" something in a place where something else comes out?? to me it does
"isn’t it possible that with all that goodness students might be able to think for themselves"
Not only possible but probable. This is why CRC is right that students can hear all sides of this issue and decide for themselves.
Really? Compared to other part of the country where living isn't so good MCPS kids have been a pretty good job. Thinking for yourself implyies that you do what you feel is best for you (something that sould not be determinded by CRC) after hearing the propsed statment people might still decide to have anal sex since its being made in to such a big issue and the kids who are likly to have anal sex wont have thier opnin chaged by a paragraph (they also might not read it in the first place)in my experinces girls (who are more likly to do anal sex in a hertosexual relationship and I can't really speak all that mich for homosexual relationships other then that many people think that their is more sex in homosexual relationships then there realll is )these days arnt so big on the idea of anal sex...vaginal sex maybe. I am by no means generalizing all MCPS girls
Did John Garza also tell that he as CRC's supposedly lawyer went around sending threatening letters to parents/community members for speaking out against CRC as a public entity? But yet CRC never got past those laughable letters in which CRC had no leg to stand on. CRC only tried to silence people. When those same people took on CRC for those letters well you know CRC shut up.
Bet he did not cheep that did he?
What an embarrasing lot CRC and company are.
Stu
"Did John Garza also tell that he as CRC's supposedly lawyer went around sending threatening letters to parents/community members for speaking out against CRC"
What did he threaten to do to who? Fill us in.
Yes, how many letters did he send out?
What kind of threats did he make to all these people?
Were the authorities notified how threatening he was?
Oh dear CRC now worried?
"When those same people took on CRC for those letters well you know CRC shut up."
Really. How did all these people get taken on? How did they shut CRC up?
"Oh dear CRC now worried?"
Not that has been noticeable.
Let's hear about all these threats John Garza made. What was he going to do?
Let's see has Johnny Garza sent any more letters? Ask him. That is easy enough. Bet he hasn't.
Lame how Garza thought those stupid letters would threaten anyone. Just made people laugh at him and when he threatened a school even more lame.
Excerpt:
http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/schools/churchillhs/churchill_observer/news/article5.s\
htm
By Alison Pollack
During September’s Ally Week, a nationwide event in schools which encourages
students to ally with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals,
posters put up by the Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) were defaced and vandalized
with anti-gay slurs. Photos of the posters soon appeared on the Citizens for
Responsible Curriculum (CRC) website blog, prompting CRC lawyer Johnny Garza to
threaten a lawsuit against the CHS administration; no lawsuit occured as a
result of the threats.
According to GSA vice president Julia Abeles, Johnny Garza (the lawyer also
involved in the MCPS health curriculum disputes) wished to “take action against
[CHS]” and questioned whether the posters were approved by administration.
According to SGA sponsor Matthew Schilling who determines appropriateness of
club posters, language, sexual innuendo and sexuality are all factors for
rejecting a poster.
“I initialed the posters,” assistant principal Michael Richards said. “I get
angry when people silence each other; it’s cowardly.”
Stu
CRC President Sends Legal Threat
JimK
"Did John Garza also tell that he as CRC's supposedly lawyer went around sending threatening letters to parents/community members for speaking out against CRC as a public entity?"
So, instead of letterS, there was one letter. And the big "threat" was to sue for false personal statements. Unless one is either guilty or believes the local judiciary is unfair, that's not much of a threat.
Once again, TTF hyperbole creates a false impression.
Garza has sent at least 3 letters threatening lawsuits since Jan 2005 -- one to the Churchill High School Gay Straight Alliance, one to the BOE, and one to a private citizen. Then there's his work on behalf of haters' rights to put flyers into backpacks that now enable KKK, GOD HATES FAGS, and the like, as long as they form non-profit organizations, to send home flyers along with PFOX.
Enjoy your association with him Anon. Sounds like a match made in Hades.
Garza also threatened the husband of a local school PTA Pres. with one of his "letters."
Stu
"Garza has sent at least 3 letters threatening lawsuits since Jan 2005 -- one to the Churchill High School Gay Straight Alliance,"
about one view being presented and the opposition excluded
"one to the BOE,"
are you talking about stopping the constitutionally flawed Fishback provisions?
"and one to a private citizen."
for defamation
"Then there's his work on behalf of haters' rights to put flyers into backpacks that now enable KKK, GOD HATES FAGS, and the like, as long as they form non-profit organizations,"
Actually, it was defending the rights of religious minorities to the same privileges everyone else had. I doubt the KKK will be able to send out flyers but far-out groups like TTF and associated organizations like PFLAG and GLSEN might. That's the chance you take with free speech.
defending the rights of religious minorities
How convenient. Anon has been arguing for years that the US is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles with no wall separating church and state. Now, all of a sudden Christians are the "minority religion."
Spin spin spin.
From what I understand there are now 270 doctors on the petition and growing!
"How convenient. Anon has been arguing for years that the US is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles with no wall separating church and state."
Have I? I think my position is that we have a Judeo-Christian heritage so in that sense we are. Also, I believe many of the ideas that inspired our founding fathers can be traced from the Protestant reformation.
But there are ways of defining such that would suggest we are not. At the time of the American Revolution, for example, only 10% of Americans attended church.
"Now, all of a sudden Christians are the "minority religion.""
Well, in Montgomery County, Bible-believing evangelicals are. Same as Puritans in King George's Anglican England.
One of the reasons the founders intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state was the oppressive nature of some religions during colonial times. For a time, some colonies were theocracies with "state religions" and laws that allowed the jailing of supporters of other denominations for daring to speak publicly about their non state-sanctioned faith.
"Puritan oppression, including torture and imprisonment of many leaders non-Puritan Christian sects, led to the (voluntary or involuntary) "banishment" of many Christian leaders and their followers from the Massachusetts Bay Colony. This negative impact of Puritanism on many new colonists had a positive result on American history in that it led to the founding of many new colonies - including: Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, New Hampshire, and others - as religious havens that were created for devout Christians who wanted to live outside the oppressive reach of Puritan theocracy.
The power and influence of Puritan leaders in New England declined further after the Salem Witch Trials in Salem, Massachusetts in the 1690s. Although they began as a trial of one or several self-avowed witches who admitted to practicing voodoo-type rituals with malicious intent, the trials got out of hand and ended with a number of innocent people being falsely accused, found guilty, and executed by Puritan leaders. Although most of the magistrates never admitted fault in the matter, at least one publicly apologized in later life. Many other witch trials wrongly accused others of supernatural crimes elsewhere in New England and in various parts of Europe of the time. Because most people of that era believed in the existence and efficacy of witchcraft, the witch trials can be seen as a very unfortunate miscarriage of justice in the face of public hysteria, and less as the result of a prejudice specific to the Puritan leaders.
In addition to rival Christian clergy members and suspected witches, the Puritan leaders' strict governing of their own people - as depicted in Nathaniel Hawthorne's fictional novel The Scarlet Letter - led to their ouster from direct political control in Massachusetts by 1700 and their decline influence of Puritanism as a religious sect in many areas by the mid-1700s."
But they didn't just die off. Instead, Puritans evolved.
"Some modern Presbyterian denominations are descended, at least in part, from the Puritans, for example the Presbyterian Church (USA), though others pre-date the English influence.
Congregational Churches also trace their lineage back to the Puritans. One example is the Congregational Christian Churches (CCC) denomination in the United States (which merged with the Evangelical and Reformed Church in 1957 to form the United Church of Christ.) The CCC is the direct descendant of New England Puritan congregations, although in the early 19th century a few of these old congregations adopted Unitarianism. Another example is the United Reformed Church in England and Wales.
A number of contemporary Unitarian congregations such as The First Parish in Cambridge also trace their roots back to English and New England Puritan congregations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritan
Survey Reveals Why Some 'Same Sex Attracted' Men Seek Change
Contact: Richard Wyler, 434-985-8551
MEDIA ADVISORY, July 13 / -- Why would anyone with homosexual attractions try to “go straight”? According to conventional wisdom, the answer is inevitably “internalized homophobia” or societal pressure.
But a new survey of almost 200 same-sex-attracted men who are pursuing change paints a very different picture: Out of 18 possible motivations listed in the survey, outside pressure was the least frequently cited motivating factor reported by the 189 survey respondents.
The most frequently cited motivation was a desire to heal emotional hurts that respondents believe contributed to their same-sex attractions (SSA) to begin with.
The desire to heal emotional pain was cited as a major motivator by 77% of respondents, compared to 22% who identified “outside pressure” as a major motivator. In fact, just 3% identified outside pressure as one of the three main reasons they were seeking change.
The survey was conducted by People Can Change, a non-profit, non-religious self-help organization of men who have overcome unwanted homosexual attractions and who now support others who seek similar change.
On average, each respondent identified 14 of the 18 factors as contributing to their desire to change. Other factors identified as major motivators include:
--personal spirituality – 68%
--desire for wife and children – 66%
--religious teachings – 63%
--desire for nonsexual male friendships – 63%
--conscience – 63%
--expectation of unhappiness in gay life – 63%.
Richard Wyler, a professional life coach who is the founder and executive director of People Can Change, summarized, “This survey indicates that same-sex-attracted men who seek change may be less influenced by outside pressure or shame than is generally assumed. Rather, they are more often motivated by their personal spirituality, deeply held values and beliefs, a desire to have a family, and a desire to heal emotional pain.”
The current survey didn’t explore perceived “root causes,” but a 2004 survey by People Can Change found that men seeking to overcome SSA most frequently perceived the root causes of their own attractions to be:
--a history of father-son relationship problems,
--a history of problems relating with male peers,
--unhealthy mother-son relationships,
--a history of sexual abuse, and
--individual personality traits.
"One of the reasons the founders intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state"
Only one founding father used this phrase. The intent was to prevent governmental endorsement of particular denominations and doctrines. General religious belief was not seperated from governmental actions by them as is clearly seen by their frequent reference to the Creator in the founding documents.
Additionally, the founding father did not conceive that education would be a governmental function. They did not intend to institutionalize atheist or humanist of the nation's children.
"One of the reasons the founders intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state"
Only one founding father used this phrase. The intent was to prevent governmental endorsement of particular denominations and doctrines. General religious belief was not seperated from governmental actions by them as is clearly seen by their frequent reference to the Creator in the founding documents.
Additionally, the founding father did not conceive that education would be a governmental function. They did not intend to institutionalize atheist or humanist of the nation's children. he nation's children.
Anonymous, People Can "Change" is not non-religious. It says at the top of one of their websites "A Publication of Hope
for Christians Struggling with Homosexuality". They are a religiously motivated group like all anti-gay organizations promoting the lie that same sex attractions can be changed into opposite sex attractions.
Internalized homophobia means just that, the hate is internalized so that people don't recognize that their hatred of being gay comes from outside pressure. Its no coincidence that the reasons the people give in that survey for wanting to change are exactly the same reasons religious groups like this teach are responsible for people being gay. These gay people are just parroting what they've been told and want to believe in order to believe they can change - which the Spitzer study and the Shidlo and Shroeder study show they can't
"The founding of the United States of America took place in 1787 with the signing of the Constitution, which is a purely secular document. In relation to religion the Constitution states:
Article VI: Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
In relation to taking the Oath of Office the Constitution simply states:
Article II Section I: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/history_of_the_separation_of_chu.htm
What does the previous comment have to do with freedom of religion being denied by public schools?
Obviously, the constitution doesn't and shouldn't require any particular belief. Never should anyone twist this to mean public schools should censor religious ideas. Indeed, quite to the contrary.
"Internalized homophobia means just that, the hate is internalized so that people don't recognize that their hatred of being gay comes from outside pressure. Its no coincidence that the reasons the people give in that survey for wanting to change are exactly the same reasons religious groups like this teach are responsible for people being gay. These gay people are just parroting what they've been told and want to believe in order to believe they can change - which the Spitzer study and the Shidlo and Shroeder study show they can't"
Randi
You must consider the logical consistency of the positions you hold. You insist that homosexuality is innate based on the testimony of gays but then deny their testimony when it comes to motivation for change.
Meanwhile, though you say there are no examples of people who have changed, the website you mention has many such testimonies.
"many such testimonies."
Do you mean "testimonials?"
"The intent was to prevent governmental endorsement of particular denominations and doctrines. General religious belief was not seperated from governmental actions...What does the previous comment have to do with freedom of religion being denied by public schools?"
The radical religious right constantly twists the intent of the framers. The US Constitution gives us an indication of the framers intent, which was to keep religious belief and government service separate.
The twisting is all yours, my friend. Any brief knowledge of history will confirm this.
"Do you mean "testimonials?""
No
"Do you mean "testimonials?""
No
Anonymous at December 11, 2006 12:49 PM
Anonymous, the idea that sexuality is innate comes not just from the testimonials of gays, but from the testimonials of straights as well. I have never heard any straight or gay give a step by step description of a decision making process in which they chose their sexuality. You know you never chose your sexuality just as gays know they never chose theirs.
The people on sites like People Can Change, when pressed, almost always admit that by change they mean they have changed their behavior not that they have changed same sex attractions into opposite sex attractions. Or they mean that they've changed in that they now consider their religion more important than their sexuality, and they've sacrificed sexuality in favour of religion.
If any of these people had truly changed sexual orientation they wouldn't be afraid to prove it by submitting to objective testing - penis volume measurement when being shown sexual images of men and women. That none are willing to demonstrate a change in sexual orientation by taking the test is a pretty solid indication that they have not changed.
Randi
When these guys start performing heteroally- and they have erections and orgasms- it is absurd to think they're not enjoying. The more they do so, the more they're conditioned to. It's purely Pavlovian.
They have their past memories, obviously, so a remnant of temptation will persist but change has also happened.
They stick it out.
So Anon, what do you think about guys in prison who perform "homoally?" You think they're gay?
You want me to tell Big Louie what you said about him?
Merle
Merlot
I think they prove you can change if motivated.
If Big Louie is still hanging around with you, I'm worried the prison life didn't rehabilitate him.
Say hello to Pinot.
Anonamous, many gay men say they've been able to perform sexually with women by fantasizing about a man during sex. The same thing happens in prison sex. The perpetrator fantasizes that he's raping a woman and is able to perform. Despite that many of these men still fail to perform. "Exgay" for pay Alan Chambers said it took him over a year before he was able to have sex with his wife. Exodus recommends that "exgays" don't even attempt to consumate heterosexual marriages for the first year. Many heterosexually married "exgays" cop out by saying sex is simply unimportant to them. For many the entire relationship is about external appearances and they simply lie about their ability to perform.
Many of these men you're talking about were bisexual to begin with. It's no surprise that they can perform with both women and men. If there were any truth to the idea that same sex attractions can be changed into opposite sex attractions this would have been put to an objective test decades ago - testing with penis volume measurement prior to "therapy" to establish sexual orientation and testing after "therapy" to verify if there is any change. Researchers have been eager to put these people's claims to the test for a long time and none have been willing to do so - logically because they know they haven't changed.
"Researchers have been eager to put these people's claims to the test for a long time and none have been willing to do so - logically because they know they haven't changed."
What's your source for this?
Anonymous said "I think they prove you can change if motivated.".
Anonymous, huge numbers of highly motivated gays have failed to change after years and years of trying. Peterson Toscano spent, I believe it was, 15 years doing everything in his power to change and failed. His story is common place. Robert Spitzer took 2 years to come up with 200 people merely claiming to have changed out of an estimated 250,000 that could have been selected. He said himself that it would be a mistake to think that any highly motivated gay could change. The numbers show that efforts to change are almost always a failure.
"The more they do so, the more they're conditioned to. It's purely Pavlovian."
What's your source for this?
Post a Comment
<< Home