One of the justifications for outlawing “Gay conversation therapy” that seeks to help those with an unwanted physical/romantic attraction to those of the same sex is that such therapies are harmful and even cause people to kill themselves, as has been declared to be holy writ according to the American Psychological Association (APA). That this doesn’t seem to bar a psychologist from helping a patient embrace their homosexual feels simply underscores that this policy position by the APA is based on the assumption that homosexual attraction is set in stone and ought never be altered while it is perfectly acceptable to help people “come out of the closet”.
A recent peer-reviewed journal article questions the APA’s stance:
“The American Psychological Association and other organizations have formally claimed that sexual orientation change therapies should not be used because they are probably ineffective and may cause harm. A survey asking for negative and positive experiences of 125 men with active lay religious belief who went through sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) strongly conflicted with those claims. In our study, most of those who participated in group or professional help had heterosexual shifts in sexual attraction, sexual identity and behavior with large statistical effect sizes, similarly moderate-to-marked decreases in suicidality, depression, substance abuse, and increases in social functioning and self-esteem. Almost all harmful effects were none to slight. Prevalence of help or hindrance, and effect size, were comparable with those for conventional psychotherapy for unrelated mental health issues. Judged by this survey, these therapies are very beneficial for lay religious people, but no Catholic priests were in the sample, and this study makes no recommendations for them.”
While psychology peer-reviewed articles ought to always be held in skepticism, that there is any question of the “established truth” puts into question the “established conclusion” of the APA, and that maybe, juuust maybe, wanting to change to whom one is attracted is and ought to be left as a private matter between doctor and patient.
Funny then, how that right to privacy vis a vis a doctor and a patient that was used to justify giving the Constitutional right of Planned Parenthood to traffic in baby body parts is now null and void when the “privacy” being protected isn’t in accordance with the policy desires of the elites, as can be seen by California trying to outlaw the sale of anything that could be used to convince someone that maybe they are heterosexual after all.