Homosexuality!

[ippy]

Why can we not just accept that people, just as they vary in how they look, their interests and talents etc, will vary in sexual orientation?  Homosexuals are quite 'normal' people though their sexual orientation is a minority one. We live in more enlightened times than our predecessors, I for one am glad about that.  I never felt comfortable in the past about homosexual people being marginalised.

Why not have places where people like Sriram can be sent to be cured of their delusional beliefs, the beliefs that they supposedly chose for themselves.

As far as I know, not having been there, at least homosexual people don't choose their sexual orientation.   

ippy

[Synonym]

Yes, we know you agree with people who have nothing wrong with them being allowed to think and to persist in thinking that they have something wrong with them such that they need "treatment" for it, we get the message by now.

But who is the arbitrator on whether someone has something 'wrong' with them?

[Shaker]

But who is the arbitrator on whether someone has something 'wrong' with them?

Medical science - psychology/psychiatry included - has a great deal of authority in this regard. If you have a cancerous bowel, you have something wrong with you. If you have angina, you have something wrong with you. If you have such a phobia of contamination that you wash your hands so many times a day that you start to bleed, you have something wrong with you. And so forth. This much is uncontroversial, I trust.

To return to an earlier example of mine: if someone genuinely feels that their right leg is an abnormality, an obscene and unwanted aberration that they have to dispense with, something odd that simply shouldn't be there, there are basically two ways of dealing with such a belief. On the one hand a surgeon can say, "Yes, fine. The leg can come off. We'll book you in" or a psychiatrist can say "You do realise, don't you, that such a belief is deeply abnormal - as aberrant as you feel your perfectly normal and healthy limb to be, in fact. Why do you hold such a belief? What has led you to this point? I suggest we look long, hard and deep at what your beliefs are about your own body, how you've come to hold those beliefs and how we can challenge them to make you feel better." Those who support sexuality-changing "therapy" are, as far as I'm concerned, in the position of the irresponsible surgeon in the first example: they simply take it as read that the customer is always right and that anybody who is unhappy with their homosexuality should get the "treatment" they want. This may on its face sound admirably liberal and tolerant and right-on but in my view it capitulates to those - not exclusively but usually religious - types who see homosexuality as a disease in need of a cure. It's actually the other way around: people who tout this sort of twaddle are actually peddling a "cure" in search of a "disease."

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yes and we know you are prone to moralising and dictating to people about what they can and can't do with their own bodies.

Based on your use of the word "treatment", do you feel all these "misguided", "mentally fragile" women are properly questioned about the seed that was planted in their mind that caused them to seek out a permanent hair removal laser "treatment"?  Maybe such "treatments" should be outlawed and anyone offering them should be struck off by their regulatory body because any reputable therapist, based on your premise, would advise the woman that she should accept hair as a natural part of her identity rather than seeking to eliminate it. Or are you just arbitrarily deciding on these matters based on your particular cultural whims? Makes you sound very much like the religious.

Is it just homosexual people that you fixate on in terms of your saviour complex? Actually you seem more fixated on the word "treatment". Maybe you just need to expand your knowledge of the English language.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But who is the arbitrator on whether someone has something 'wrong' with them?

Medical science - psychology/psychiatry included - has a great deal of authority in this regard.

To return to an earlier example of mine: if someone genuinely feels that their right leg is an abnormality, an obscene and unwanted aberration that they have to dispense with, there are basically two ways of dealing with such a belief. On the one hand a surgeon can say, "Yes, fine. The leg can come off. We'll book you in" or a psychiatrist can say "You do realise, don't you, that such a belief is deeply abnormal - as aberrant as you feel your perfectly normal and healthy limb to be, in fact. Why do you hold such a belief? What has led you to this point? I suggest we look long, hard and deep at what your beliefs are about your own body." Those who support sexuality-changing "therapy" are, as far as I'm concerned, in the position of the irresponsible surgeon in the first example.

Two legs is the normal state. Two is the usual distribution vis-a-vis legs. People have legs amputated for valid medical reasons, of course (gangrene, etc.), but that's life-saving medical necessity, not an expression of deluded beliefs about the nature of reality.

Logic still not your strong point. Losing a leg can have a detrimental effect on a person's mobility. How does that compare to changing sexuality if they still get to have sex? If changing sexuality works ,and doesn't cause mental health issues or other detrimental effects for the individual where is the comparison with losing a leg?

[Shaker]

Is it just homosexual people that you fixate on in terms of your saviour complex?

This thread is about homosexuality. It started as such and has remained as such. Miraculous as it may seem to you I'm staying on-topic by discussing that very subject, not laser-based depilation or whatever footling and fatuous irrelevances you want to drag into it.

Actually you seem more fixated on the word "treatment". Maybe you just need to expand your knowledge of the English language.

No, my knowledge and use of the English language are pretty damned excellent already, thanks. My "fixation" (which isn't) is with the likes of Sriram who thinks that homosexuality is something in need of "treatment." It's his attitudes I'm attacking, mocking, belittling and deriding because that's precisely what such opinions need.

[Aruntraveller]

I can see there is still a big push for a monchrome and uniform world on this thread - and in more ways than one.

[Shaker]

Losing a leg can have a detrimental effect on a person's mobility.

People with BIID know this; not only do they not care, it's positively embraced because that's an inherent feature of the disorder itself. Wikipedia states:

Some people suffer from the desire to become paralyzed, blind, deaf, use orthopedic appliances such as leg-braces, etc. Some people spend time pretending they are an amputee by using crutches and wheelchairs at home or in public

*

How does that compare to changing sexuality if they still get to have sex? If changing sexuality works ,and doesn't cause mental health issues or other detrimental effects for the individual where is the comparison with losing a leg?

I can explain it for you (indeed, I've done so several times now); I can't understand it for you.

[Sriram]

Yes, we know you agree with people who have nothing wrong with them being allowed to think and to persist in thinking that they have something wrong with them such that they need "treatment" for it, we get the message by now.

There was nothing wrong with Michael Jackson either. In fact, he looked quite nice in his younger days. Yet, he chose to undergo surgery. That's his business.

Would you want to ban his treatments as 'racist'? Would you say that further research on such treatments are unnecessary... and uncalled for?

What exactly is your vested interest in wanting to keep homosexuals as homosexuals even against their own wishes? What is this if not homophilia gone mad?

This thread was about science...about epigenetics and a possible therapy for homosexuals. Leonard's reply no 1 at the beginning of the thread addresses the issue almost completely and in the most balanced way. This thread could very well have stopped there.....but for the unbalanced homophilia of you and your coterie.   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I can see there is still a big push for a monchrome and uniform world on this thread - and in more ways than one.

There certainly seems to be a push from some quarters to limit individual autonomy even if the individual's choice has no detrimental impact on the individual concerned.

You make it seem as though individuals have some duty to a higher purpose such as diversity and technicolor, and  individuals should therefore have their freedom of choice restricted as an act of worship and submission to this higher purpose. Starting to sound like a religion - we could call it Shakerism.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Is it just homosexual people that you fixate on in terms of your saviour complex?

This thread is about homosexuality. It started as such and has remained as such. Miraculous as it may seem to you I'm staying on-topic by discussing that very subject, not laser-based depilation or whatever footling and fatuous irrelevances you want to drag into it.

OIC - so you can drag in racism and leg amputations into this discussion to support your opinions and somehow miraculously be on topic but it only becomes a problem when other people introduce comparisons in support of their own differing opinions. Trent was right - you seem to be pushing for uniformity of thought.

Actually you seem more fixated on the word "treatment". Maybe you just need to expand your knowledge of the English language.

No, my knowledge and use of the English language are pretty damned excellent already, thanks. My "fixation" (which isn't) is with the likes of Sriram who thinks that homosexuality is something in need of "treatment." It's his attitudes I'm attacking, mocking, belittling and deriding because that's precisely what such opinions need.

Ok. But now that you've done that, why don't we discuss the more interesting question of autonomy of choice and personal identity.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

How does that compare to changing sexuality if they still get to have sex? If changing sexuality works ,and doesn't cause mental health issues or other detrimental effects for the individual where is the comparison with losing a leg?

I can explain it for you (indeed, I've done so several times now); I can't understand it for you.

How can you explain the detrimental effect of changing sexuality through a gene- based therapy if these effects have not yet been observed? You're just guessing.

[Synonym]

To return to an earlier example of mine: if someone genuinely feels that their right leg is an abnormality, an obscene and unwanted aberration that they have to dispense with, something odd that simply shouldn't be there, there are basically two ways of dealing with such a belief. On the one hand a surgeon can say, "Yes, fine. The leg can come off. We'll book you in" or a psychiatrist can say "You do realise, don't you, that such a belief is deeply abnormal - as aberrant as you feel your perfectly normal and healthy limb to be, in fact. Why do you hold such a belief? What has led you to this point? I suggest we look long, hard and deep at what your beliefs are about your own body, how you've come to hold those beliefs and how we can challenge them to make you feel better." Those who support sexuality-changing "therapy" are, as far as I'm concerned, in the position of the irresponsible surgeon in the first example

So what if a person is sexually orientated towards animals, minors, the dead, fridge magnets, but doesn't want to be? What is the correct response?

It is reasonably straightforward to say that there is a problem when something in the body isn't working physically as it should, or is causing physical detriment, and possibly also when a person believes untrue facts (as far as the rest of us can tell). But this is different.

[Aruntraveller]

I can see there is still a big push for a monchrome and uniform world on this thread - and in more ways than one.

There certainly seems to be a push from some quarters to limit individual autonomy even if the individual's choice has no detrimental impact on the individual concerned.

You make it seem as though individuals have some duty to a higher purpose such as diversity and technicolor, and  individuals should therefore have their freedom of choice restricted as an act of worship and submission to this higher purpose. Starting to sound like a religion - we could call it Shakerism.

Call it what you fucking like - its a better alternative than the need to make people conform which is all this is about. New science maybe - but old, nasty thinking.

You might want to read this:

http://www.bullyingstatistics.org/content/gay-bullying-statistics.html

Then wonder about how someone in that position is going to be able to make a sensible "choice" about their sexuality. A fair and balanced choice. OF course they would choose heterosexuality. But you let the bullies win. In fact you become allied with the bullies.

As I said - old, nasty thinking. Nothing new here.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I can see there is still a big push for a monchrome and uniform world on this thread - and in more ways than one.

There certainly seems to be a push from some quarters to limit individual autonomy even if the individual's choice has no detrimental impact on the individual concerned.

You make it seem as though individuals have some duty to a higher purpose such as diversity and technicolor, and  individuals should therefore have their freedom of choice restricted as an act of worship and submission to this higher purpose. Starting to sound like a religion - we could call it Shakerism.

Call it what you fucking like - its a better alternative than the need to make people conform which is all this is about. New science maybe - but old, nasty thinking.

Yes - I agree -  it' is better to give individuals an alternative to your need and Shaker's need to make them conform to your restricted agenda.

[Aruntraveller]

I can see there is still a big push for a monchrome and uniform world on this thread - and in more ways than one.

There certainly seems to be a push from some quarters to limit individual autonomy even if the individual's choice has no detrimental impact on the individual concerned.

You make it seem as though individuals have some duty to a higher purpose such as diversity and technicolor, and  individuals should therefore have their freedom of choice restricted as an act of worship and submission to this higher purpose. Starting to sound like a religion - we could call it Shakerism.

Call it what you fucking like - its a better alternative than the need to make people conform which is all this is about. New science maybe - but old, nasty thinking.

Yes - I agree -  it' is better to give individuals an alternative to your need and Shaker's need to make them conform to your restricted agenda.

Restricted - Jesus H fucking Christ. I have been restricted, one way and another, all my life by background homophobia. The need to hold hands occasionally in public with my partner subdued by the fact - FACT - that we risk being beaten up. You talk of conformity - you appear not to know the meaning of the word.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I can see there is still a big push for a monchrome and uniform world on this thread - and in more ways than one.

There certainly seems to be a push from some quarters to limit individual autonomy even if the individual's choice has no detrimental impact on the individual concerned.

You make it seem as though individuals have some duty to a higher purpose such as diversity and technicolor, and  individuals should therefore have their freedom of choice restricted as an act of worship and submission to this higher purpose. Starting to sound like a religion - we could call it Shakerism.

Call it what you fucking like - its a better alternative than the need to make people conform which is all this is about. New science maybe - but old, nasty thinking.

Yes - I agree -  it' is better to give individuals an alternative to your need and Shaker's need to make them conform to your restricted agenda.

Restricted - Jesus H fucking Christ. I have been restricted, one way and another, all my life by background homophobia. The need to hold hands occasionally in public with my partner subdued by the fact - FACT - that we risk being beaten up. You talk of conformity - you appear not to know the meaning of the word.

And I had kids spit in my face and call me a Paki in public. Apart from that there were the usual daily pressures to speak a certain way, to eradicate my accent, to fit in etc. - pressure to conform is part of life - as a woman I am also under pressure to conform to gender stereotypes and risking being assaulted goes with the territory.

I still think individuals should be free to choose their individual personal identity - and not be forced to conform to the pressure to follow someone else's diversity agenda.

[Aruntraveller]

And I had kids spit in my face and call me a Paki in public. Apart from that there were the usual daily pressures to speak a certain way, to eradicate my accent, to fit in etc. - pressure to conform is part of life - as a woman I am also under pressure to conform to gender stereotypes and risking being assaulted goes with the territory.

I still think individuals should be free to choose their individual personal identity - and not be forced to conform to the pressure to follow someone else's diversity agenda.

So if there were a process available to change you from your Asian appearance to a White European appearance you would approve of the freedom of choice for others to take that option?

[Aruntraveller]

I still think individuals should be free to choose their individual personal identity - and not be forced to conform to the pressure to follow someone else's diversity agenda.

Where is the agenda being driven from?

Why is it necessary to think that people should change their sexuality?

I repeat my previous comments:

You might have a point IF (and that's an IF in capitals a mile high) we get to a point in our society where young gay adults aren't laughed at by their peers, aren't thrown out of their homes by their parents, and aren't subjected to the myriad small put downs and discrimination that affect each and every gay person still today. Until that point is reached - you don't have a point.

[Shaker]

There was nothing wrong with Michael Jackson either. In fact, he looked quite nice in his younger days. Yet, he chose to undergo surgery. That's his business.

Would you want to ban his treatments as 'racist'? Would you say that further research on such treatments are unnecessary... and uncalled for?

Yes.

What exactly is your vested interest in wanting to keep homosexuals as homosexuals even against their own wishes? What is this if not homophilia gone mad?

My vested interest is in seeing that individuals such as yourself don't infect anybody who has nothing wrong with them (i.e. people who happen to be gay) with the belief that there is something wrong with them for which they need to seek "treatment." My vested interest is in stopping the disease-ification, so to speak, of a minority but permanent and perfectly normal variation in human sexuality. There are too many real diseases in the world - real conditions that hurt, damage and kill people - that stand in need of real medication and real cures for us to waste time and effort on non-diseases such as homosexuality.

This thread was about science...about epigenetics and a possible therapy for homosexuals. Leonard's reply no 1 at the beginning of the thread addresses the issue almost completely and in the most balanced way.

No, it was never about science, since science doesn't say what you want it to say. It was only ever about a platform for you to promulgate your view that homosexuality is an "illness" which you think stands in need of a "cure." People seek therapy for a negative, troublesome condition, whether it's for being overweight or for stopping smoking or for schizophrenia or for cancer. Wikipedia defines therapy as "the attempted remediation of a health problem." Homosexuality isn't a health problem, but people can be made to think that it is if the idea is implanted from outside by the likes of you.

This thread could very well have stopped there.....

With an OP that talked of "disease"? "Cure"? No, it was never going to stop there, not while there are decent people on this forum.

but for the unbalanced homophilia of you and your coterie.

I'm astonished that you didn't say "gay coterie" and have done with it, Sriram.

[Aruntraveller]

Oooh - can I be part of your "gay coterie".

Me and Len together, matching pink shorts, twirling batons to the tune of 9 to 5 by Dolly Parton.

[Shaker]

With a couple of notable exceptions I don't like musicals ... I'm not allowed 

[Aruntraveller]

With a couple of notable exceptions I don't like musicals ... I'm not allowed 

You're not allowed to like musicals?

How does that work then?

Have you been treated with an epigenetic cure for musicals?

[Shaker]

You're not allowed to like musicals?

No, I'm allowed, but if I don't I can't apply to join the gay coterie 

[Gordon]

Oooh - can I be part of your "gay coterie".

Me and Len together, matching pink shorts, twirling batons to the tune of 9 to 5 by Dolly Parton.

I'd pay to see that