Family Research Council’s Peter Sprigg Testifies In Favor Of Ex Gay Therapy Torture On Children

Peter Sprigg sucks cock


Family Research Council vice douchebag president Peter Sprigg, testified before the Washington DC City Council Committee on Health Friday in opposition to Bill 20-501,  the “Conversion Therapy for Minors Prohibition Amendment Act of 2013” that would stop the torture of ex-gay therapy quackery on LGBT children in the District.   Testified Sprigg:

“At the heart of the attacks on sexual reorientation therapy are two claims– that such therapies are ineffective, and that they are harmful. However, there is abundant anecdotal evidence that such therapies work — that is, people who say that they were helped by such therapies to change from predominantly homosexual to predominantly heterosexual. There is also scientific evidence. The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality has cited ‘600 reports of clinicians, researchers, and former clients — primarily from professional and peer-reviewed scientific journals’ which show that ‘reorientation treatment has been helpful to many.’ The American Psychological Association (APA), under the sway of a small but influential pro-homosexual lobby, has criticized and discouraged (but never banned) reorientation therapy. Yet even the APA acknowledges that ‘participants reporting beneficial effects in some studies perceived changes to their sexuality, such as in their sexual orientation, gender identity, sexual behavior, [and/or] sexual orientation identity.” [snip]

But what does the empirical evidence show? Not only did those who were exclusively homosexual not all remain so, but only 11% did. Some measure of change in sexual orientation—which many homosexual activists say is impossible, and never happens to anyone—is not only possible, but it is the norm for adolescents with same-sex attractions, having been experienced by 89% of the respondents only one year later.”

While some pro-homosexual activists will concede that some measure of fluidity exists, they say that complete transformation—from exclusively homosexual to exclusively heterosexual—is not possible. Yet this kind of complete reversal of sexual orientation is exactly what was reported by almost half (48%) of the adolescent boys in this survey and again, after only one year. The last refuge of the homosexual activists in the face of this kind of evidence is to concede, “Well, yes, a person’s sexual orientation can change—but only by accident, not by trying to change it!” This is somewhat like saying, “Well, yes, obese people can lose weight—but not by trying to, and certainly not with anyone else’s help!

“There is abundant anecdotal evidence that such therapies work”?

The plural of anecdote is not data. Data is supported by evident, anecdotes are by definition subjective.

Just one of these hearings or when they have Sprigg on television as an “expert”  I would like for someone to play the clip of Spriggs saying he would like to see homosexuals forcibly exported out of the U.S. or where he said he would like to see homosexuality made a criminal offense. And THEN ask him why he thinks he has ANY credibility on issues like this and smack the shit out of him.

What do you think?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.