Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's the problem with perpetuating the myth that sexual orientation is a choice.
I don't think that's necessarily true, though. Treatments/cures actually only imply the desire to seek a cure for something that is not a choice. If it was a choice, you would not need the cure. And treatments are almost never 100% so there is always the chance that a person could not be cured no matter what. It would also stand to reason that if it is possible for a person to be cured of homosexual tendencies than it would also be possible to be cured of heterosexual tendencies - if that is what a person *wants* to do.
I guess the dilemma that I see is that you have people who are struggling with deep emotional pain and they really can't turn to a professional for help because the professional cures don't square with their firm belief that a cure for them has to be possible.
I just find it hard to believe that there is zero, **ZERO** chance for these people to ever change their sexual orientations. Have you ever heard science talk about anything else in terms quite like that?
How about this - the reparative therapy written about in the OP has shown no significant benefits and has shown significant harm based on group studies? Therapists don't practice based on "what might be next week," they practice based on "what has been demonstrated up until right now." I find it highly unlikely that sexual orientation is a changeable construct (my opinion based on the evidence to date), but if the scientific evidence ever in the future indicates that it is changeable and there are empirically supported conversion therapies, then I would expect those to be part of the options open to a client from an entire array of empirically-supported treatments for various presenting problems.
I am really failing to get across that licensed therapists don't get to pick and choose what the data say based on what they want or what their clients want. They are ethically bound to present what is the known state of the art and to be upfront about any potential benefits or limitations of the treatment.
ETA: Upon reflection, another problem here is that said person would be seeking professional treatment for a "cure" for something that is not recognized as a disease or disorder by any medical or psychiatric body (due to the evolving evidence over time that it is not a disease or disorder; not a belief, but evidence). Respecting someone's religious beliefs (which is hugely important) does not mean altering the current diagnostic system to accommodate that belief, no matter how strongly held.
Last edited by eastwesteastagain; 10-04-2012 at 03:42 PM..
I am really failing to get across that therapists don't get to pick and choose what the data say based on what they want or what their clients want. They are ethically bound to present what is the known state of the art and to be upfront about any potential benefits or limitations of the treatment.
Nor should they! The medical field, nor any field of science, should not be influenced by people's religious beliefs.
I don't think that's necessarily true, though. Treatments/cures actually only imply the desire to seek a cure for something that is not a choice. If it was a choice, you would not need the cure. And treatments are almost never 100% so there is always the chance that a person could not be cured no matter what. It would also stand to reason that if it is possible for a person to be cured of homosexual tendencies than it would also be possible to be cured of heterosexual tendencies - if that is what a person *wants* to do.
Nor should they! The medical field, nor any field of science, should not be influenced by people's religious beliefs.
The medical field is influenced by treatment demands all of the time. You think there is a medical reason to give a woman DDD boobs? Why shouldn't religious people be able to demand treatments, too?
Nor should they! The medical field, nor any field of science, should not be influenced by people's religious beliefs.
Psychology, as taught in CATHOLIC schools, said sexuality is genetically or environmentally determined. The books used were secular. Science and religion don't mix, just like politics and religion don't mix.
Here's something to think about. The Popes hired Michelangelo to do work for them. He was a genius. I'll bet the fundies think he's in a "bad place." I think he's resting, and God gave him one heck of a pat on the back upon crossing the "Pearly Gates." Gianni Versace, the successful designer gunned down by a fanatic outside his second home in Miami Beach, was given a Catholic Mass of burial in Milan's cathedral.* Impressive place, I was there last July. Americans, with the importation of Victorian values, can be so effin' uptight.
It would also stand to reason that if it is possible for a person to be cured of homosexual tendencies than it would also be possible to be cured of heterosexual tendencies - if that is what a person *wants* to do.
I just re-read this part. But it's not, regardless of what the person wants.
The medical field is influenced by treatment demands all of the time. You think there is a medical reason to give a woman DDD boobs? Why shouldn't religious people be able to demand treatments, too?
If the treatment to give woman bigger breasts resulted in a bad outcome 99% of the time, doctors would not be allowed to perform the surgery.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.