Treating Gay People

[Chinahand]

Yet the reasons why people with homosexual desires would choose to change can in my mind only come from prejudiced beliefs.

So you are ignoring everything I've written then - ok!

 

... But what are the reasons why changing orientation from gay to straight is psychologically healthy in any instances? Why the requirement? I cannot but think that prejudice and negative attitudes are where the issue lies.

I'll say again - someone experiments - feels that they are homosexual. Later realizes it was just a phase, but they are currently in a homosexual milleu.

 

They're in the closet - but its a straight closet in a gay world - they want to get out of this closet.

 

In this situation - changing orientation from gay to straight will in this case be psychologically healthy.

 

Just as the opposite happens when a gay comes out.

 

Actually to talk about coming out is wrong - they don't have to come out - they have to acknowledge it in themselves - come out to themselves. That is a process - I imagine that it can take years and years, it will involve multiple point decisions to change behaviour etc and those point decions can go in either direction.

 

I don't think the process is inevitable - people experiment - try going down a route and may then decide its not for them. At what point does their sexual preference change - its too complex to talk about in such black and white terms.

 

Its about people finding a sexuality that they are happy with, which by definition allows people to move between them if they feel there is a need.

 

Various posters here seem to deny that can happen - that sexuality is totally fixed. Sure SOME people always feel straight, or always feel gay, but I don't think that is necessarily true for all people - its a spectrum, but the extremes seem to be setting the definitional structure - its more complex than that.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

China, I think people can have traits that they don't like and they want to change. I think it's perfectly feasible for someone to be an unwilling homosexual. They have a sexual preference, but they don't want to be that way for whatever reason. I don't see anything wrong with that personally.

 

Yes can have traits they don't like. It is feasible that there are people who see themselves as unwilling homosexuals. It isn't that uncommon for homosexuals to wish they were heterosexuals. But why is this? Considering that homosexuality is basically attraction to members of the same sex why should there be any desire to change this? Like I was saying, why is it not undesirable to be straight?

 

I would also that many who wish to be straight do not recognise how fundamental sexuality is to their personality and the essence of their being. I mean, for example, that if I was born straight I would be a completely different person.

 

I'm just having a dig really on your daft anarchy views. If you have sex with a 13 year old in the IOM, you're a pedophile, if you do it in Japan, you aren't. That's a legal issue, right? I'm saying you obviously respect that law, but you don't others.

 

How do I obviously respect the law? I haven't brought up the law and don't see how it is relevant.

 

Not necessarily, see my post above. The assumption that someone who wants to change is prejudiced seems prejudiced the other way to me.

If someone doesn't want to be gay, isn't that up to them?

 

I someone doesn't want to be gay then YES it is up to them. I am not saying that they should be stopped. The issue for me is why they would want this, why people think they can be changed, and what this shows about how homosexuality is perceived in society.

[Chinahand]

immoral unnatural homosexual perversion

These are troll words - pure and simple.

 

Homosexuality is not unnatural - that is total and utter bollox - it is a well recognized phenomenon throughout the animal world.

 

Some people may say that it is immoral or a perversion - but that is a cultural point of view and far far from a normative one in todays society.

 

Anyone coming on to a board like MF and saying Blacks were damned by God and were inferior to whites would be accussed of being a troll.

 

Exactly the same arguement applies to saying homosexuality is immoral or unnatural.

 

Rog, as homosexuality exists throughout nature what exactly is it a perversion of?

 

All you've got left is your relgious book - good for you - your book means diddly to me.

[Rog]

Of course you're not.

 

 

No, I'm not.

 

There's far too much pandering to what is wrong in the world, far too little being judgmental based on simple right and wrong, and far too much wrong as a result.

[Lonan3]

No, I'm not.

 

There's far too much pandering to what is wrong in the world, far too little being judgmental based on simple right and wrong, and far too much wrong as a result.

No. There's still too much ingrained bigotry.

[Rog]

immoral unnatural homosexual perversion

These are troll words - pure and simple.

 

Homosexuality is not unnatural - that is total and utter bollox - it is a well recognized phenomenon throughout the animal world.

 

Some people may say that it is immoral or a perversion - but that is a cultural point of view and far far from a normative one in todays society.

 

Anyone coming on to a board like MF and saying Blacks were damned by God and were inferior to whites would be accussed of being a troll.

 

Exactly the same arguement applies to saying homosexuality is immoral or unnatural.

 

Rog, as homosexuality exists throughout nature what exactly is it a perversion of?

 

All you've got left is your relgious book - good for you - your book means diddly to me.

 

In nature homosexual behaviour in most species only exists where there is a shortage of female animals or where one creature is in some way debased or abnormal.

 

But in any case, are we not better than animals in that we can make moral judgments?

 

This is not a religious thing in its own right though the morality behind the prohibition of abnormal behaviour is captured in a number of religions The basic fact is that sex is intended for procreation.

 

The perversion facet is that an act, a process, that is primarily intended for procreation and for cementing the relationship of a couple, is being perverted into something selfish and associated with self gratification by abnormal people.

 

Interesting that you seem to think that my abhorrence for homosexuality is based simply on religion. Well it isn’t. It’s based on right and wrong.

 

Just because the law or society decides that a thing should be permitted doesn’t make it right, wholesome, or equal to what naturally IS right and proper.

 

Sorry, not ‘Trolling’, genuine and deeply ingrained personal values that have nothing to do with religion.

[bluemonday]

[Shill]

Luckily Rog your opinions are becoming less and less the norm in life. You sound a bit like Victorian Dad from Viz.

[Rog]

Luckily Rog your opinions are becoming less and less the norm in life. You sound a bit like Victorian Dad from Viz.

 

There’s a lot to be said in favour of some Victorian morality. Not all granted, but some.

[Chinahand]

In nature homosexual behaviour in most species only exists where there is a shortage of female animals or where one creature is in some way debased or abnormal.

 

Complete rot, homosexuality is a perfectly normal part of the behaviour of dolphins, sperm whales and bonobo chimpanzees etc etc. It has nothing to do with shortages of females - in bonobos lesbianism is a perfectly normal part of their social behaviour, which obviously has nothing to do with any shortages of females (or even males)! All three animals exhibit large amounts of male homosexual behaviour irrespective of female availability.

 

There are over 450 species of vertibrate which would be beheaded in Saudi - homosexuality is not rare or unusual in the animal world, and the behaviour is not limited to extreme events or circumstances.

 

 

The basic fact is that sex is intended for procreation.

 

The perversion facet is that an act, a process, that is primarily intended for procreation and for cementing the relationship of a couple, is being perverted into something selfish and associated with self gratification by abnormal people.

 

See the segways in the argument - first - sex is intended for procreation.

 

Second - sex is primarily intended for procreation and for cementing the relationship of a couple.

 

I agree with that the primary objective of sexual reproduction is reproduction - but that is simply talking about sperms, eggs and gametes etc.

 

Sexual reproduction is a very different thing than sexual intercourse. What the primary objective of sexual intercourse? Well sexual intercourse - especially in humans, bonobos and dolphins is NOT reproduction. It is social bonding.

 

People and bonobos will have sex multiple times more times to bond than to procreate - this isn't just down to contraceptives - humans females are only fertile for limited periods of time, but sexual intercourse carries on regardless.

 

Now you have a further segway - you admit that the sexual act does have a bonding purpose, but now that becomes "a selfish act associated with self gratification by abnormal people" when applied to homosexuals.

 

Erm - why is homosexual sex selfish gratification?

 

When two bonobos have lesbian sex, is the purpose of that act "selfish gratification" or is its primary aim social bonding. How about when two homosexual humans do it?

 

Lets leave the animal world - as you say we are better than animals and can make moral judgements.

 

A monogamous homosexual couple - who otherwise live perfectly conservative lives - working hard in their careers, saving their money, conscientious in keeping to societies norms of public behaviour, paying taxes etc etc. They have a loving, intimate, sharing sexual relationship.

 

Why in your moral judgement has this become a selfish act associated with selfish gratification by abnormal people.

 

Rog, you seem fixated on the act - heterosexual sex - procreation or "appropriate social bonding". Homosexual sex - selfish gratification.

 

I believe both homosexual and heterosexual sex can in certain circumstances be selfish gratification - ignoring the feelings and emotions of the partner.

 

But at other times, not - the moral question is in the context of the act not the act itself.

 

So Rog where is the immorality in my example of a conservative monogamous homosexual couple - I believe you are twisting your heterosexual yuck factor into moral outrage where none actually exists.

 

Go on justify your outrage against someone like Sir Ian McKellen - in what way is this immoral, unnatural or perverse.

 

Oh and saying its rare has nothing to do with perversion unless you are using a very non-normative meaning for perverse.

[Rog]

You say Go on justify your outrage against someone like Sir Ian McKellen - in what way is this immoral, unnatural or perverse.

 

Simple. He claims to be a homosexual. If he is then that is the justification since being homosexual IS immoral, unnatural and perverse.

 

Homosexuality hase a massive 'yuck' factor

 

It is the nature of the thing, or rather the un-nature of it.

 

People who can be cured of such an unnatural personal disorder should be given every opportunity to be cured.

 

End of story.

[Shill]

Brilliant! You're more Troll than Trolly McTroll who lived under Troll Bridge in Trollshire.

[Rog]

Brilliant! You're more Troll than Trolly McTroll who lived under Troll Bridge in Trollshire.

 

Think what you will, the opinions that I have expressed are absolutely 100% genuine and very heartfelt.

 

Although I don't believe that people who engage in the sexual perversion of homosexuality should be prosecuted for it I do find the idea that it is in some way equal to a proper sexual relationship abhorrent and wrong.

[Pat Ayres]

Half term coming up, where's your folks taking you this year Rog?

[John Wright]

Back to the question. Well almost. Surely the question has to be can a person of one sexuality, through treatment, migrate to another sexuality?

 

I suppose it depends on what is the cause of heterosexual, gay or lesbian sexuality. Is it genetic, in which case no amount of counselling will "cure" it or is it learned, in which case change might be possible.

 

No one would suggest that a teenager experimenting with their heterosexual sexuality ought to be counselled or cured. Maybe told to be more discrete or careful and advised about safer sex and contraception or encouraged to wait until marriage. To suggest that a teenager experimenting as gay or lesbian is any different need is clearly wrong if the cause is genetically pre determined.

 

The difficulty with suggesting that it is learned behaviour or through social exposure or environment is that the world still is heavily homo and lesbi phobic. No one who is brought up in todays society would choose to be gay or lesbian when the pressure is on all the time to conform and to be heterosexual. Much less so the gays and lesbians of the past.

 

From what I have seen of the programmes used to " treat" gays and lesbians to "make them heterosexual" they conist of brain washing techniques which eventually destroy their abiliy to function as a gay man or lesbian woman but virtually non of the ex gays are able to function satifactorily in a heterosexual role. In effect they are rendered emotionally impotent. Not a result and not a happy situation.

 

I suspect that there are multi layering of the perceived problems and the perceived help and what is more that the diagnoses and the sexuality issues are them selves multifaceted as well.

 

I am gay. I am happy with my orientation. It took time to work it out and to come to terms wth myself. I am self confident, outgoing and would not wish to change but I do not rule out the chance of a hetereosexual encounter or relationship. I see sexuality as a continuum from wholly gay to wholly hetero. You may be placed on that continuum by birth at one place and that may be changed or modified by environment and experience and opportunity, you may move, one way or the other. You may even do that by choice. Possibly the continuum is a loop with a twist in it, a mobius strip, which will have no end but two sides as well as the continuum. In that case we may be able to position asexuals, celibates and the like on the continuum.

 

That may be deeply distressing and confusing for some people. I am saying maybe there is no norm. maybe sexuality is a variable. Why should you treat something which is within accepted tolerances. surely if a teenager is uncertain you support them as they work it out for themselves, especialy if you don't actually know what is the cause and how to put it right. You ceratinly shouldn't be going for aversion therapy.

 

If homosexuality and heterosexuality are acceptable variants on the continuum why look for causes. There is no need. All you will end up with is genocide of gay foetuses if it is genetic and detectable in the womb. Would that be acceptable?

 

To my way of thinking it is no more acceptable than fundamentalist christians and ex gayts alleging they can cure. If it was cancer they were pretending to treat they would be breaking the law.