Posted: Apr 19, 2012 11:34 am
Imagination Theory wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:Imagination Theory wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:
I stand corrected, however he could have been far more active in rebutting the far right movements that abused his study so much.
How active is he suppose to be at 70-80?
When Dr. Robert Spitzer’s study of 200 gay men and women who reported a change in their sexual orientation appeared in the Archives of Sexual Behavior in 2003, anti-gay lobbyist seized on it as proof that homosexuality was, at its core, a choice that could be changed. ....
Dr. Spitzer consistently warned that his study should not be used as a part of political efforts to denying gays and lesbians, a warning which Focus on the Family, NARTH and Exodus have ignored with abandon. Now Truth Wins Out has released a video in which Dr. Spitzer registers his disappointment in no uncertain terms:
… of course, they [Focus on the Family] were delighted with that study. What they fail to mention — and it’s not, I guess, a big surprise — is that in the discussion I noted that it was so hard for me to find 200 subjects to participate in the study that I have to conclude that, although change is possible and does occur, it’s probably quite rare. And of course, they don’t want to mention that.”
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/02/15/227
I don't think it is his reasonability to constantly rebuke everyone who misunderstands his study.
Ok, ok I apologize, I spoke to soon. I should have done me research!
Don't! So he protested a few times, your opinions is still right. He could have done more.
I just don't think he needed to. He did a study, explained how he conducted it and I think that is all he had to be responsible for. It isn't his fault people misrepresented him/it. I don't think it is his job to go about correcting everyone every single time. It was an interesting study, his fault lies with it hardly being reliable. It was 200 people who the Dr. had telephone calls with and it was their opinions about themselves (or their delusions about themselves or just lies, a large percentage of the "ex-gays" he talked to belonged to "ex-gay" groups), but I do believe that was well known.
I know. I find it strange that he did not say something of the sort in his conclusion; that his research was based on a group of people from the infamous Exodus program and therefore not reliable subjects.
It's just that it gets under my skin when homophobes keep abusing studies and names to propagate their unfounded hatred.