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.
As someone else said, extremely simplistic view. Why does the entire animal kingdom have homosexuals in it?
that's because it is simple, there is not one piece of concrete proof anyone is born homosexual. As far as animals go they don't reason when they come into heat they will hump anything. It's all simple really.
i respect the fact that you disagree, but you don't sound as if you're up to date on sexual orientation studies, you're drawing a conclusion from a perceived expression of college students... sexuality is not black and white and indeed most people are some form of bisexual.. just because someone is acting upon those desires doesn't make them gay.. and just because someone is married to someone of the opposite sex with kids makes them straight... college is an age of experimentation.. so it's realistic to see experimentation sexually. The problem with right wing religious studies on this issue is that so long as it is socially taboo to have sexual or emotional desires towards the same sex.. it remains something hidden where the true scope of it's actual manifestation in society is unknown.. you just cannot say there's gay and straight people.. there certainly is a choice on whether to act on it or not.. but there is no choice in the feelings.. and that's the issue at hand with homosexuality..
That's entirely possible. I'll admit that it's not something I've spent a lot of time studying as it doesn't affect me, personally.
About the only thing I'm sure of is that we haven't yet proved a particular causative effect for homosexuality in humans.
I'm not even sure if we should. CS Lewis once wrote that if we were ever to perfectly be able to control the tendencies of the next generation, through either a perfect psychology model or some form of physical tampering, that free will would become a lie and all future generations would be the slaves of the dead hand of the one who forged them.
I respect the wishes of adults who wish these sorts of therapies, and those who don't. The problem with outlawing them and saying they don't work when some people have said they did work for them, especially when we don't have a causative relationship between orientation and either genetic or environmental conditions. Perhaps in the future, we'll look at these sorts of therapies as being as barbaric and primitive as we do electroshock therapy now, but we simply don't have the data to make an intelligent assessment rather than an emotional and/or political assessment.
.That's entirely possible. I'll admit that it's not something I've spent a lot of time studying as it doesn't affect me, personally.
/snip
Perhaps in the future, we'll look at these sorts of therapies as being as barbaric and primitive as we do electroshock therapy now, but we simply don't have the data to make an intelligent assessment rather than an emotional and/or political assessment.
Well you personally might not have the "data to make an intelligent assessment rather than an emotional and/or political assessment" but the scientific community and health professionals do.
You've just said you haven't spent a lot of time studying it. Do you know of Savic's studies? Mustanski's? Do you know of Swaab's work?
For example, do you know that the Royal College of Psychiatrists now states:
"Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment."
The above statement reflects the current consensus view of most health professionals/scientists in this field.
For people who have unwanted same sex attraction, that therapy can be helpful. Gays constantly try to claim that change therapy is harmful, but even the APA says there's no research to support those claims.
Do you even know what is done in aversion therapy? They use shock or some form of negative influence to induce an aversion to gay thoughts or actions. Same therapy was used to try and alter the thoughts and actions of pedophiles and it failed there too. Something that is base in a person cannot be changed that easy. Same principle is used in nicotene aversion therapy, if you think of smoking a cigarette, you snap this rubber band that is on your wrist and the thought of smoking is supposed to be associated with the pain of the snapped rubberband. Now how would you get the gay person who is in aversion therapy attracted to the opposite sex instead? I have never heard of one for that.
Do you even know what is done in aversion therapy? They use shock or some form of negative influence to induce an aversion to gay thoughts or actions. Same therapy was used to try and alter the thoughts and actions of pedophiles and it failed there too. Something that is base in a person cannot be changed that easy. Same principle is used in nicotene aversion therapy, if you think of smoking a cigarette, you snap this rubber band that is on your wrist and the thought of smoking is supposed to be associated with the pain of the snapped rubberband. Now how would you get the gay person who is in aversion therapy attracted to the opposite sex instead? I have never heard of one for that.
That NARTH article she posted has been well and truly debunked:
Does anybody realize the mental challenges and trauma that can come from being disowned by your family and thrown out of the house for being gay, or being that way and wishing you didn't have to be? Or if somebody is a devout Christian and can't reconcile practicing anal sodomy with their faith? It's far worse than any failed attempt at gay therapy can be. I'm sorry, but finding a "daddy" at your local gay bar isn't going to adequately replace the family that disowned you. Just because most of you on this board probably had parents that accepted your sexuality with open arms doesn't mean its that way for every young person. Just because most of you are atheist and therefore have nothing forbidding same sex anal sodomy doesn't mean its that way for every one; one can't just abandon their religious beliefs overnight if they are genuine, sincere beliefs.
MOST people who have attempted gay conversion have failed but there has been some success stories. These success stories offer hope for those who are desperate. I have a friend who is ex-gay and is now engaged to a woman. Yes, he may have been bi-sexual as most of you would say but he identified as gay and hooked up with guys before coming out of the lifestyle. Sexual orientation is a state of mind and different people fall in different places on the Kinsey scale. If someone has unwanted same sex attractions, its just as much their right to want to change it as it is your right to prance up and down the street in a thong screaming gay pride.
You sure are obsessed with anal sex, aren't you? You do know that many straight married and unmarried couples practice anal sex and that many gay men do not practice it and never have, and of course, lesbians are gay too and they do not practice anal sex. If sexuality is a state of mind, then it is the same for straight or gays, yet I have not heard of a straight person being turned gay, coming out late in life, yes, but being turned gay, NO. All your words scream anti gay and appear to be bigotted. Should read back what you write sometime, it shows a lot of hate.
You have asked the same question repeatedly in this thread and in the thread on the Parenting forum. People keep on answering you, and you just ignore them and ask again . This is not just therapy, a fact that you keep on willfully ignoring.
Yes I read this already. I get that they basically humiliate the individual, but again if they ban it in one state because the lawmakers in that state feel there is an inherent DANGERto children, then why has this not been banned across the board? I mean did all 50 states take their time to ban lead paint once they knew the dangers of lead paint? My point is that if this therapy is so "dangerous" then where are the parents who have been arrested and prosecuted for sending their children to said therapists? It appears California is the only state (soon followed by NJ) to ban this. What I have challenged here is that is this really dangerous? Because if it was I would think that this would not be allowed ANYWHERE, and not just California. And yes I did read about the 1997 U.S. case, in which the Ninth Circuit addressed conversion therapy in the context of an asylum application. If the court is saying this is a human rights violation, then why was it made available, and since it is available in 49 other states then don't the parent's have the ultimate say so? Until that can be answered I will continue to ask this question.
Yes I read this already. I get that they basically humiliate the individual, but again if they ban it in one state because the lawmakers in that state feel there is an inherent DANGERto children, then why has this not been banned across the board? I mean did all 50 states take their time to ban lead paint once they knew the dangers of lead paint? My point is that if this therapy is so "dangerous" then where are the parents who have been arrested and prosecuted for sending their children to said therapists? It appears California is the only state (soon followed by NJ) to ban this. What I have challenged here is that is this really dangerous? Because if it was I would think that this would not be allowed ANYWHERE, and not just California. And yes I did read about the 1997 U.S. case, in which the Ninth Circuit addressed conversion therapy in the context of an asylum application. If the court is saying this is a human rights violation, then why was it made available, and since it is available in 49 other states then don't the parent's have the ultimate say so? Until that can be answered I will continue to ask this question.
It should be banned in all states - at least for children.
I hope a big stink is caused by anti-gay religious conservatives who won't want it banned. That way the facts about this type of malpractice will be publicized more quickly - which will hopefully lead to it being banned in other states.
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.
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.
. This is not just therapy, a fact that you keep on willfully ignoring.