Homosexuality!

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Or I just don't discuss things using the same deranged, emotive terms that you do.

Or discuss very much of anything at all outside of the Muslim Topic, fortunately.

Lack of free time but glad you appreciate it. Interesting that you would join a discussion forum but advocate less discussion. Are you just on here to grandstand or to showcase your phraseology then?

On the plus side, I think you've made it clear you're not very good at logic.

You will be pointing out any logical problems with anything I've said, won't you?

Your conclusion that I have made clear my feelings about homosexuality simply because I don't express myself in a way that meets with your approval is an illogical conclusion. I haven't made anything clear but feel free to infer what you like.

I am not repulsed by views expressed by anti theists either. By the way , it would be illogical to conclude From this that I have made clear my views on anti-theists.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Not seeing the subtle difference in that in terms of the debate of the issue in the OP - he said he tends to disagree with the view that homosexuality is not a disease and it therefore doesn't need curing - I took that to mean his key point was if there is a potential for a treatment or "cure"  that he thinks it should be investigated and developed further.

So his stance that homosexuality is even something in need of "treatment" isn't sufficiently repulsive to you?

Well, I think you've both made it clear exactly where you two stand on the subject of homosexuality.

Or I just don't discuss things using the same deranged, emotive terms that you do.

On the plus side, I think you've made it clear you're not very good at logic.

'Deranged, emotive' hmmm the irony

Shaker and I aren't discussing the issue of whether a treatment for homosexuality is ethical now - we are discussing each other's use of words. My words are risible, mealy-mouthed and washy-washy while his are deranged and emotive, since apparently he expects me to feel too repulsed to discuss whether a treatment is ethical or not.

But if that's somehow ironic for you - ok.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Hi Gabriella,

Anyway, thanks for your mature defense of my posts, Gabriella. I am off now for some more cricket and then... hit the bed.

Goodnight!

Sriram

Ha,ha - I am not defending your posts Sriram - you knew you would get a verbal kicking when you chose the words you did, which was pretty infantile of you, but there you go. So enjoy the consequences.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Not seeing the subtle difference in that in terms of the debate of the issue in the OP - he said he tends to disagree with the view that homosexuality is not a disease and it therefore doesn't need curing - I took that to mean his key point was if there is a potential for a treatment or "cure"  that he thinks it should be investigated and developed further.

So his stance that homosexuality is even something in need of "treatment" isn't sufficiently repulsive to you?

Would you feel better if he used the term "procedure"?

I think it should be up to the individual to decide if they want a procedure to change their sexuality, after assessing any associated health risks - much like the way decisions are made about plastic surgery. Especially as there is a statistically higher risk of certain disease, especially for the person being penetrated. So some men might have a procedure to change their sexuality to reduce their statistical risk of exposure to HIV.

[Maeght]

What?!  I talked about a cure..yes. Who said anything about homosexuals not having normal lives...?! You're just lying Maeght.

From: General Discussion / Re: Homosexuality!
« Message by Sriram on April 29, 2015, 08:33:38 AM »

I think its an abnormality that occurs now and then in some people. No big deal.  If it can be cured and people can live normal lives....why not?!   

So from this - people with the abnormality are not living normal lives. Was I lying?

Sriram, you have been posting on this site a number of times since this post of mine but have not responded. So, was I lying?

[Shaker]

Would you feel better if he used the term "procedure"?

No, I would not.

I think it should be up to the individual to decide if they want a procedure to change their sexuality, after assessing any associated health risks - much like the way decisions are made about plastic surgery. Especially as there is a statistically higher risk of certain disease, especially for the person being penetrated. So some men might have a procedure to change their sexuality to reduce their statistical risk of exposure to HIV.

This makes the assumption, common amongst the prurient, that gay men inevitably and inherently practice penetration. This is mistaken. Some do, some don't.

If, as you claim, you are concerned about the alleged risks thereof, your concerns would be better directed at the millions upon millions of heterosexual couples who practice it (many of them regularly, I'm sure), given their vastly greater numbers as compared to gay men.

Instead of simply giving in to a person's desire to change their sexual orientation (assuming that such a thing is even possible in the first place), all that time and all that effort would be better expended in supportive counselling (a) to find out exactly why they feel the need to make such a change and on what basis and (b) to encourage them to affirm their sexuality as positive, healthy and natural.

There is a psychological condition called Body Identity Integrity Disorder in which people have a persistent and overwhelming desire to have perfectly healthy and fully-functional limbs - especially legs - amputated. They view their own limb as an alien object, a foreign thing, only the removal of which - due to the disorder - will make them feel whole and complete. People have been known to self-amputate a leg by allowing a train to run over it or otherwise mangle their limb so badly that amputation becomes a medical necessity, so enduring and all-pervasive is the disorder.

The point here is that this is an obviously serious psychological issue to be treated by psychotherapy and medication, not by simply saying "Sure, fine, no problem, we'll remove that perfectly healthy leg for you." Likewise, people who feel alienated from their own sexual orientation need supportive psychotherapeutic help to determine why they feel that way and how the purely emotional issues can be addressed to make their homosexuality ego-syntonic, in the professional lingo. The medical profession should not be giving in to some half-arsed attempt at "corrective" "therapy" should such a thing even exist. Only things which are wrong can be corrected, and homosexuality isn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integrity_identity_disorder

[OH MY WORLD!]

But if a person wants to change their sexuality and some claim to have done so, what's it to you Shaker? It's their life not yours. Has your little libertarian gone into hiding or died?

[Shaker]

But if a person wants to change their sexuality and some claim to have done so, what's it to you Shaker? It's their life not yours. Has your little libertarian gone into hiding or died?

It seems self-evident to me that somebody would only wish to change their sexuality because they believe - which is to say, have been led to believe, because such ideas come from external influences (in this case principally religious ones) - that there is something wrong with their sexuality as it is. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality as it is: to believe so you must pick up on the idea that somebody else thinks it is.

It is better that people are counselled how to see these pernicious influences and to see them for what they are rather than embark on what is almost certain to be a damaging and ultimately pointless attempt to alter a fundamental part of their nature when there's no need to do so.

The evidence of the carnage caused by so-called "reparative therapies," in the US especially - psychological and emotional damage to the person themselves and to those close to them - is easily found. No reputable professional body or association - you know, those organisations that rely on evidenced-based thinking - supports it. The state of Oregon announced only a few days ago that it is to be banned there. Illinois is doing the same. California, New Jersey and Washington D.C. have already done so. A bill to ban it in Ontario passed its second reading a few weeks back. And so on and do forth - the same story is being repeated in all the civilised parts of the world.

As for those who have claimed to have changed their sexuality ... yeah, right  Ever heard of Haggard's Law?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Haggard%27s_Law

Just for shits and giggles, as they say - though with a deadly serious purpose at the back of it - this site is also well worth a careful look:

http://gayhomophobe.com/

[Synonym]

It seems self-evident to me that somebody would only wish to change their sexuality because they believe - which is to say, have been led to believe, because such ideas come from external influences (in this case principally religious ones) - that there is something wrong with their sexuality as it is.

I think that goes without saying. They believe that the acting upon of their sexuality would in some way be wrong or undesirable, and so wish to change it. For some sexual orientations, the acting upon it would even be illegal, as well as considered immoral. Another incentive for a "sexuality reassignment".

But I can't image anyone wishing to change theirs if they judged what they wanted to do to be not wrong.

[Shaker]

I think that goes without saying. They believe that the acting upon of their sexuality would in some way be wrong or undesirable, and so wish to change it.

So far so good. What should happen at this point is that the individual is helped to recognise where such feelings come from, what influences she is subject to and so forth.

For some sexual orientations, the acting upon it would even be illegal, as well as considered immoral. Another incentive for a "sexuality reassignment".

I assume you're referring a sexual orientation such as paedophilia? Well, there's a rather large and obvious difference between homosexuality and paedophilia: I'm sure I needn't spell it out.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Would you feel better if he used the term "procedure"?

No, I would not.

How irrational of you.

I think it should be up to the individual to decide if they want a procedure to change their sexuality, after assessing any associated health risks - much like the way decisions are made about plastic surgery. Especially as there is a statistically higher risk of certain disease, especially for the person being penetrated. So some men might have a procedure to change their sexuality to reduce their statistical risk of exposure to HIV.

This makes the assumption, common amongst the prurient, that gay men inevitably and inherently practice penetration. This is mistaken. Some do, some don't.

No it doesn't - but we already established that logic is not your strong point.

If a man does happen to enjoy penetration and would prefer that he didn't enjoy this impulse, he can choose to control his sexual impulses by having treatment to alter his sexual preferences - that's his business. Given it has been established that gay men are statistically at a higher risk of getting HIV through this type of sex, which is why the NHS ask men who have sex with men to not donate blood for 12 months after sex, I think it is perfectly reasonable to want to control this impulse. If that means changing your sexuality - that's for the individual to weigh the risks of treatment and decide accordingly. Last time I checked, being gay didn't suddenly turn you into a weak and feeble individual, incapable of making competent decisions related to your health.

If, as you claim, you are concerned about the alleged risks thereof, your concerns would be better directed at the millions upon millions of heterosexual couples who practice it (many of them regularly, I'm sure), given their vastly greater numbers as compared to gay men.

No thanks - probably better to rely on the stats rather than your unevidenced emotion for the focus of my concern.

Instead of simply giving in to a person's desire to change their sexual orientation (assuming that such a thing is even possible in the first place), all that time and all that effort would be better expended in supportive counselling (a) to find out exactly why they feel the need to make such a change and on what basis and (b) to encourage them to affirm their sexuality as positive, healthy and natural.

What a load of patronising condescending nonsense. You seem to be assuming that all gay people need you to save them from themsleves - now who does that remind me of? Oh yes, the religious lot.

Except you have no evidence that a gene-based treatment will involve a lot of time and effort. It could be relatively simple - or at least as simple as plastic surgery or an abortion - which people have the freedom to choose without you worrying about the extent of their psychological problems. If people can relatively freely choose to change their physical appearance, including lightening or darkening their skin colour, there is no logical reason to stop them altering their sexuality.

It's their sexuality, it should be up to them to decide if they want to be gay or straight or bi or somewhere in between, rather than have people like you moralising and dictating to them what they do with their bodies.

There is a psychological condition called Body Identity Integrity Disorder in which people have a persistent and overwhelming desire to have perfectly healthy and fully-functional limbs - especially legs - amputated. They view their own limb as an alien object, a foreign thing, only the removal of which - due to the disorder - will make them feel whole and complete. People have been known to self-amputate a leg by allowing a train to run over it or otherwise mangle their limb so badly that amputation becomes a medical necessity, so enduring and all-pervasive is the disorder.

The point here is that this is an obviously serious psychological issue to be treated by psychotherapy and medication, not by simply saying "Sure, fine, no problem, we'll remove that perfectly healthy leg for you." Likewise, people who feel alienated from their own sexual orientation need supportive psychotherapeutic help to determine why they feel that way and how the purely emotional issues can be addressed to make their homosexuality ego-syntonic, in the professional lingo. The medical profession should not be giving in to some half-arsed attempt at "corrective" "therapy" should such a thing even exist. Only things which are wrong can be corrected, and homosexuality isn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integrity_identity_disorder

Or they just need you to mind your own business and let them have the freedom to choose their sexuality as easily as they might choose to "correct" a perfectly nice nose or breasts, simply because it pleases them to do it.

[BashfulAnthony]

Would you feel better if he used the term "procedure"?

No, I would not.

How irrational of you.

I think it should be up to the individual to decide if they want a procedure to change their sexuality, after assessing any associated health risks - much like the way decisions are made about plastic surgery. Especially as there is a statistically higher risk of certain disease, especially for the person being penetrated. So some men might have a procedure to change their sexuality to reduce their statistical risk of exposure to HIV.

This makes the assumption, common amongst the prurient, that gay men inevitably and inherently practice penetration. This is mistaken. Some do, some don't.

No it doesn't - but we already established that logic is not your strong point.

If a man does happen to enjoy penetration and would prefer that he didn't enjoy this impulse, he can choose to control his sexual impulses by having treatment to alter his sexual preferences - that's his business. Given it has been established that gay men are statistically at a higher risk of getting HIV through this type of sex, which is why the NHS ask men who have sex with men to not donate blood for 12 months after sex, I think it is perfectly reasonable to want to control this impulse. If that means changing your sexuality - that's for the individual to weigh the risks of treatment and decide accordingly. Last time I checked, being gay didn't suddenly turn you into a weak and feeble individual, incapable of making competent decisions related to your health.

If, as you claim, you are concerned about the alleged risks thereof, your concerns would be better directed at the millions upon millions of heterosexual couples who practice it (many of them regularly, I'm sure), given their vastly greater numbers as compared to gay men.

No thanks - probably better to rely on the stats rather than your unevidenced emotion for the focus of my concern.

Instead of simply giving in to a person's desire to change their sexual orientation (assuming that such a thing is even possible in the first place), all that time and all that effort would be better expended in supportive counselling (a) to find out exactly why they feel the need to make such a change and on what basis and (b) to encourage them to affirm their sexuality as positive, healthy and natural.

What a load of patronising condescending nonsense. You seem to be assuming that all gay people need you to save them from themsleves - now who does that remind me of? Oh yes, the religious lot.

Except you have no evidence that a gene-based treatment will involve a lot of time and effort. It could be relatively simple - or at least as simple as plastic surgery or an abortion - which people have the freedom to choose without you worrying about the extent of their psychological problems. If people can relatively freely choose to change their physical appearance, including lightening or darkening their skin colour, there is no logical reason to stop them altering their sexuality.

It's their sexuality, it should be up to them to decide if they want to be gay or straight or bi or somewhere in between, rather than have people like you moralising and dictating to them what they do with their bodies.

There is a psychological condition called Body Identity Integrity Disorder in which people have a persistent and overwhelming desire to have perfectly healthy and fully-functional limbs - especially legs - amputated. They view their own limb as an alien object, a foreign thing, only the removal of which - due to the disorder - will make them feel whole and complete. People have been known to self-amputate a leg by allowing a train to run over it or otherwise mangle their limb so badly that amputation becomes a medical necessity, so enduring and all-pervasive is the disorder.

The point here is that this is an obviously serious psychological issue to be treated by psychotherapy and medication, not by simply saying "Sure, fine, no problem, we'll remove that perfectly healthy leg for you." Likewise, people who feel alienated from their own sexual orientation need supportive psychotherapeutic help to determine why they feel that way and how the purely emotional issues can be addressed to make their homosexuality ego-syntonic, in the professional lingo. The medical profession should not be giving in to some half-arsed attempt at "corrective" "therapy" should such a thing even exist. Only things which are wrong can be corrected, and homosexuality isn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integrity_identity_disorder

Or they just need you to mind your own business and let them have the freedom to choose their sexuality as easily as they might choose to "correct" a perfectly nice nose or breasts, simply because it pleases them to do it.

That, of course, is the trouble with this forum  (one of them, anyway!), people cannot mind their own business over what are essentially personal matters.

[Shaker]

No it doesn't - but we already established that logic is not your strong point.

No,"we" didn't establish it, you merely asserted it.

If a man does happen to enjoy penetration and would prefer that he didn't enjoy this impulse, he can choose to control his sexual impulses by having treatment to alter his sexual preferences - that's his business.

Or he can presumably simply alter his choices from the menu of sexual expression, can he not?

Given it has been established that gay men are statistically at a higher risk of getting HIV through this type of sex, which is why the NHS ask men who have sex with men to not donate blood for 12 months after sex

... a ban which I assume you may know has been and is widely criticised and faces constant calls for its overturn ...

Moreover, you don't seem to be too clear about exactly what it is you're trying to say here, flip-flopping as you are back and forth between A man might prefer that he didn't enjoy penetration and Gay men are statistically higher risk of HIV blah blah blah. 

I think it is perfectly reasonable to want to control this impulse.

Doubtless; but I've seen examples of what you consider to be "perfectly reasonable" so I'll not be setting great store by this.

If that means changing your sexuality - that's for the individual to weigh the risks of treatment and decide accordingly. Last time I checked, being gay didn't suddenly turn you into a weak and feeble individual, incapable of making competent decisions related to your health.

No, but it some cases it can make you prey to manipulative and unscrupulous individuals and groups who seek to persuade you that you should be other than you are on the basis of their (the individuals' and groups') ideologies, frequently though not exclusively religious ones.

Except you have no evidence that a gene-based treatment will involve a lot of time and effort. It could be relatively simple - or at least as simple as plastic surgery or an abortion - which people have the freedom to choose without you worrying about the extent of their psychological problems. If people can relatively freely choose to change their physical appearance, including lightening or darkening their skin colour, there is no logical reason to stop them altering their sexuality.

Save that there are abundant cases where the pursuit of plastic surgery is clearly indicative of psychological issues which merit supportive psychotherapy, not yet another two hours under the knife. There is a continuous spectrum between wanting to do something about your sticky-outy ears because you're embarrassed by them and feeling that your leg is so alien to you that you'll drape it across a railway line while the 1832 to Stamford is approaching. The former is deemed to be innocuous and in fact is widespread; the latter is deemed to be indicative of serious mental disturbance which merits intervention, even if that intervention consists of psychotherapy and medication. But there is a continuum between the two and we draw the line at different stages, that's all.

It's their sexuality, it should be up to them to decide if they want to be gay or straight or bi or somewhere in between, rather than have people like you moralising and dictating to them what they do with their bodies.

On the contrary, moralising and dictating is the very opposite of what I'm about. That's what the religios are for, if they're "for" anything that is.

Or they just need you to mind your own business and let them have the freedom to choose their sexuality as easily as they might choose to "correct" a perfectly nice nose or breasts, simply because it pleases them to do it.

Clearly what passes in what you think of as your mind for your branch of libertarianism extends to allowing absolutely anybody to do absolutely anything to themselves without any kind of let or hindrance or even questioning.

Well, says much.

[Synonym]

I think that goes without saying. They believe that the acting upon of their sexuality would in some way be wrong or undesirable, and so wish to change it.

So far so good. What should happen at this point is that the individual is helped to recognise where such feelings come from, what influences she is subject to and so forth.

For some sexual orientations, the acting upon it would even be illegal, as well as considered immoral. Another incentive for a "sexuality reassignment".

I assume you're referring a sexual orientation such as paedophilia? Well, there's a rather large and obvious difference between homosexuality and paedophilia: I'm sure I needn't spell it out.

That would be one example yes. Yes there are many factual differences between them. Not sure what point you are making.

Some people believe some actions are wrong or immoral. Unless if you are going to start saying to one person "but what you want to do IS wrong" and to the next "but what you want to do ISN'T wrong", then ultimately that's up to the individual. And if there was some theoretical pill they could take, that's up to them.

Though of course you would be free to say to them first that in your opinion whatever it is isn't wrong and so you think they shouldn't.

[Shaker]

Some people believe some actions are wrong or immoral. Unless if you are going to start saying to one person "but what you want to do IS wrong" and to the next "but what you want to do ISN'T wrong", then ultimately that's up to the individual. And if there was some theoretical pill they could take, that's up to them.

Though of course you would be free to say to them first that in your opinion whatever it is isn't wrong and so you think they shouldn't.

This is essentially my thesis here. I find it extremely hard to believe that anybody comes to the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong on their own; there must be some external influence which implants that seed. Typically it would be a religious influence, though not always. My point is that it's better for the individual to examine such influences, to identify them and to see them for what they are than submit to what is to me never anything other than a deeply sinister, poisonously ideologically driven, agenda-laden attempt to "cure" what some perceive to be a "disease."

Simple question: if, by some magical wand-waving miracle, all and any anti-gay sentiment in society could be eradicated in toto overnight, do you think there would be more, less or about the same number of gay people unhappy with their sexuality and seeking to change it?

Attempts to change the course of one's sexuality are not only generally useless, they not only cause untold misery and heartache; they tend to be propped up on some exceptionally unsavoury agenda-led ideas. As I said earlier, every reputable professional body/organisation condemns such "reparative therapies." There are good reasons for that state of affairs.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

No it doesn't - but we already established that logic is not your strong point.

No,"we" didn't establish it, you merely asserted it.

Pretty much like your assertions running through this thread.

If a man does happen to enjoy penetration and would prefer that he didn't enjoy this impulse, he can choose to control his sexual impulses by having treatment to alter his sexual preferences - that's his business.

Or he can presumably simply alter his choices from the menu of sexual expression, can he not?

Glad you think it's that simple. Well, you might be right - let's see - out of the two of us, who has the greater experience of the pleasure of being penetrated by a penis and how hard it would be to give that up, despite all the other available avenues of sexual expression? 

Given it has been established that gay men are statistically at a higher risk of getting HIV through this type of sex, which is why the NHS ask men who have sex with men to not donate blood for 12 months after sex

... a ban which I assume you may know has been and is widely criticised and faces constant calls for its overturn ...

Well, I'm sure when the statistical evidence changes or testing blood becomes more accurate and instantaneous, the ban of 12 months for all categories will be lifted. Until then, the trust in the safety of donated blood for millions of sick people is a more important policy consideration than a few people feeling offended or singled out.

Moreover, you don't seem to be too clear about exactly what it is you're trying to say here, flip-slopping as you are back and forth between A man might prefer that he didn't enjoy penetration and Gay men are statistically higher risk of HIV blah blah blah.

You don't seem to be too clear about what exactly it is you're trying to say here. Suggest you try again.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to want to control this impulse.

Doubtless; but I've seen examples of what you consider to be "perfectly reasonable" so I'll not be setting great store by this.

Nobody asked you to. I certainly don't set great store by your opinions either, for the same reason.

If that means changing your sexuality - that's for the individual to weigh the risks of treatment and decide accordingly. Last time I checked, being gay didn't suddenly turn you into a weak and feeble individual, incapable of making competent decisions related to your health.

No, but it some cases it can make you prey to manipulative and unscrupulous individuals and groups who seek to persuade them that they should be other than they are on the basis of their (the individuals' and groups') ideologies, frequently though not exclusiviely religious ones.

Or they could fall prey to your ideology that anyone who wants to change their sexuality is psychologically more disturbed than someone who wants to change some other aspect of themselves.

Except you have no evidence that a gene-based treatment will involve a lot of time and effort. It could be relatively simple - or at least as simple as plastic surgery or an abortion - which people have the freedom to choose without you worrying about the extent of their psychological problems. If people can relatively freely choose to change their physical appearance, including lightening or darkening their skin colour, there is no logical reason to stop them altering their sexuality.

Save that there are abundant cases where the pursuit of plastic surgery is clearly indicative of psychological issues which merit supportive psychotherapy, not yet another two hours under the knife.

And I am sure that the medical profession ad the legislators can take the same approach as they currently take to plastic surgery to deal with cases where exceptionally vulnerable people might be exploited. They haven't completely banned all plastic surgery have they, simply because some people might have psychological issues.

It's their sexuality, it should be up to them to decide if they want to be gay or straight or bi or somewhere in between, rather than have people like you moralising and dictating to them what they do with their bodies.

On the contrary, moralising and dictating is the very opposite of what I'm about.

Or you are just very deluded about yourself and your motivations.

Or they just need you to mind your own business and let them have the freedom to choose their sexuality as easily as they might choose to "correct" a perfectly nice nose or breasts, simply because it pleases them to do it.

Clearly what passes in what you think of as your mind for your branch of libertarianism extends to allowing absolutely anybody to do absolutely anything to themselves without any kind of let or hindrance or even questioning.

Actually it doesn't but don't let that stop you from pretending it does. We could have the usual safeguards - e.g. such as those that currently exist for abortion or plastic surgery.

[Synonym]

Some people believe some actions are wrong or immoral. Unless if you are going to start saying to one person "but what you want to do IS wrong" and to the next "but what you want to do ISN'T wrong", then ultimately that's up to the individual. And if there was some theoretical pill they could take, that's up to them.

Though of course you would be free to say to them first that in your opinion whatever it is isn't wrong and so you think they shouldn't.

This is essentially my thesis here. I find it extremely hard to believe that anybody comes to the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong on their own; there must be some external influence which implants that seed. Typically it would be a religious influence, though not always.

Just like with anything else. Someone might feel that the death penalty is wrong or not wrong because they've thought about it a lot and came to that conclusion. Or it may just be because this is the predominant feeling of the bubble of society they have been immersed in, and they have not thought about it too much. Or you could swap the death penalty for sheep-shagging there.

Certainly worth asking people why they want the change before giving it, and if it turns out to be "because of the anti-feeling I get in my society" then you might ask them to think of some other reasons, but if they already have or do, well as I say that's ultimately up to them in my view.

Simple question: if, by some magical wand-waving miracle, all and any anti-gay sentiment in society could be eradicated in toto overnight, do you think there would be more, less or about the same number of gay people unhappy with their sexuality and seeking to change it?

There would be fewer unhappy homosexuals. Same goes for anything really. Eradicate all anti-sheep shagging sentiment or anti-adultery sentiment, and there will be fewer guilty aduterers and sheep shaggers. Well actually there would be none, by definition.

[Shaker]

There would be fewer unhappy homosexuals.

... which indicates to me that the fundamental problem at work in all this, the real issue, is that it's the anti-gay sentiment abroad in sections of society which is the issue that really needs to be addressed, not effecting some sort of "reparative therapy" which is predicated entirely on the idea of somebody who has nothing wrong with them being made to think that they have something wrong with them, typically on the basis of very, very, very silly ideas indeed.

Every snake oil salesman, woo merchant, con artist and religious proselytiser there has ever been knows full well that you can't literally or figuratively flog somebody a cure (imaginary) until and unless you can really convince the gullible that they have the very disease the cure is designed to remove (also imaginary). 

[Leonard James]

It's things like this that show how horrible prejudice can be.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2937217/Killed-gay-Man-blindfolded-thrown-tower-block-Syria-stoned-death-SURVIVED-fall.html

That is just horrible!

Some parts of the world are just so horrible, and what is worse children are encouraged to watch it.

 

Yes, Rose, and the civilised world just stands by and watches instead of getting in there and obliterating this foul regime.

[Leonard James]

Trouble is, we are damned if we do and damned if we don't 

Better to be damned by the wicked, than stand by and let innocent people be murdered.

[Leonard James]

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/05/09/isis-using-honeytraps-to-find-gay-men-and-execute-them/

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

There would be fewer unhappy homosexuals.

... which indicates to me that the fundamental problem at work in all this, the real issue, is that it's the anti-gay sentiment abroad in sections of society which is the issue that really needs to be addressed, not effecting some sort of "reparative therapy" which is predicated entirely on the idea of somebody who has nothing wrong with them being made to think that they have something wrong with them, typically on the basis of very, very, very silly ideas indeed.

Every snake oil salesman, woo merchant, con artist and religious proselytiser there has ever been knows full well that you can't literally or figuratively flog somebody a cure (imaginary) until and unless you can really convince the gullible that they have the very disease the cure is designed to remove (also imaginary).

Sure. So what else is new. That's the consumer world we live in.

I went to an interesting talk held at my daughters' school about how to nurture  the self-esteem of girls and that's exactly what the talk was about. Except of course boys as well as girls are targeted by advertisers trying to convince them they have a need that they do not have, in order to sell them something to supposedly "fix" that need. And if it doesn't work as promised in the advert, then the problem is clearly you and by the way, here's another product we can sell you to "help" you.

The person who gave the talk writes for Cosmo and went undercover to a clinic in Harley Street pretending she was interested in liposuction on her stomach. She was told by the surgeon that she didn't need lipo on her stomach (he paid her a compliment to reel her in) but he then attempted to sell her a more expensive treatment and threw in a BOGOF offer.

She then played a Lynx advert featuring the 6 top super models in the world dropping from heaven as angels and throwing away their halos because some ordinary Joe had sprayed himself with Lynx body spray. The 6 top super-models had been digitally enhanced in the video to appear longer, leaner and more beautiful than they really were - a gap between their thighs appeared while they walked by the use digital trickery - even though this was anatomically impossible to achieve while walking in the manner that they were walking.

The take home message for us was that even the 6 top super-models in the world were not pretty enough for the advertisers of Lynx and needed to be digitally altered - and this is the standard that ordinary women are pressured to live up to from the time they are little girls being bombarded with these images through the media, bill-boards, magazines etc as they go about their daily lives.

As I said - that's the world we live in. Good luck addressing all of these "silly sentiments".

[Synonym]

There would be fewer unhappy homosexuals.

... which indicates to me that the fundamental problem at work in all this, the real issue, is that it's the anti-gay sentiment abroad in sections of society which is the issue that really needs to be addressed, not effecting some sort of "reparative therapy" which is predicated entirely on the idea of somebody who has nothing wrong with them being made to think that they have something wrong with them, typically on the basis of very, very, very silly ideas indeed.

Ultimately it all comes down to a value judgment.

If you think X is not wrong/undesirable then you will see nothing wrong with wanting to do it. You will then see the "problem" as being with other people censuring/disapproving of it, and with the use of medical treatments to eliminate the wanting.

If you agree X is wrong/undesirable then the "problem" is with the wanting to do it, and the people censuring/disapproving are correct, and/or you may also now be more open to the idea of medical treatments to eliminate the wanting.

As I have agreed, it is worth asking people to examine whether they really think a specific desire X they want to be rid of is something they would also judge as wrong/undesirable, or whether they are just going with the flow of other people's negativity, but if they would according to their morality consider it wrong/undesirable then I think that is ultimately up to them.

Your comments that for a specific X the "problem" is with other people's negative attitudes towards X, and it is them that need sorting out, not the person who wants rid of it, is of course based on your own moral judgment of X. As is your belief that alternative moralitys that say different are "silly".

But you will meet people who really have thought out what they believe and really do see X as wrong/undesirable and want rid. Should they be prevented?

[Shaker]

Yes, they should.

No question.

No discussion.

No "debate."

There isn't one.

Yes, they should.

[Sassy]

You cannot make something said to be wrong and you cannot make something right to be wrong because you want it to be so.

People can choose what they believe to be right or wrong.
Everyone has that right. What no one has the right to do is force the belief of one onto another...

If you cannot treat a person right regardless of their opinions then the truth is ignored that the sexuality, colour or creed is not the problem
but not living and let live...is.