Treatment for Gay

[Kanastrous]

Wow. Your definition of the word "preference" becomes more convoluted by the minute. Why can't you just admit you fucked up on this one?

I prefer not to.

[Darth Wong]

Wow. Your definition of the word "preference" becomes more convoluted by the minute. Why can't you just admit you fucked up on this one?

I prefer not to.

You are treading dangerously close to "troll" territory, pal. You ignore parts of the dictionary definition of "preference" which don't suit your argument, you ignore the fact that your argument defines the concept of "natural preference" out of existence, you invent arbitrary new conditions for the word "preference" out of thin air, and when challenged, you come back with smart-ass remarks.

[Kanastrous]

Okay, I'll admit that it's a dictionary-accurate term which gives undeserved ammunition to homophobes because 'preference' is entangled with 'choice' and so long as we use terms that suggest choice in matters of sexual nature, we're coddling people who extrapolate a 'choice' as to whether or not one is gay, and therefore find license to try and pressure people into undoing that 'choice' or punishing them for 'having made' it. 'Preference' suggests alternatives, and I don't believe that heterosexual sex is a reasonable or rational alternative for a gay person, any more than gay sex is a reasonable or rational choice, for a straight person.

But then again I'm bi and therefore don't entirely comprehend what any of you single-polarity types are up to. There, I've admitted it.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

While there may be some weird connotations to choice when using the term "preference", it is an accurate term. But more importantly, Kanastrous, I don't think any of these people you're talking to think that sexual orientation is a choice. They are probably one of the most ardent supporters of LGBT civil rights with a fairly clear understanding of issues regarding sexual orientation. You're shooting at an imaginary boogie-man.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

It should also be noted that some members who are admitted to such programs did not do so willingly. I know at least one person who was coerced by his parents to undergo such treatment when he came out as gay during his teenage years. His experience was ultimately nothing short of traumatizing. The ex-gay treatments are ineffective at best and horrendously damaging at worst. I don't understand how these institutions can remain legal. Can you imagine the kind of public response it would garner if the said institution provided treatments that would "cure" patients of sexual attraction to members of a specific race?

[Kanastrous]

While there may be some weird connotations to choice when using the term "preference", it is an accurate term. But more importantly, Kanastrous, I don't think any of these people you're talking to think that sexual orientation is a choice. They are probably one of the most ardent supporters of LGBT civil rights with a fairly clear understanding of issues regarding sexual orientation. You're shooting at an imaginary boogie-man.

I didn't mean to suggest that that's the thinking prevalent around here. I believe it promotes that kind of thinking among a very large swath of the general public, though.

[Ilya Muromets]

I say go for it, then can all the licenses of the shrinks doing it under ethics violations. Suppressing basic human natures will cause MORE harm than a continuation of percieved cultural taboo and they fucking know it as professionals. They are treating a disease not recognized as a disease by their own Association, so let that Association tank their careers.

Not that simple. Psychological associations are often bereft of any real power of enforcement. Often they can only recommend guidelines for ethics and treatment procedures, but only the law itself can enforce any punishment for violations. It hardy needs to be said that at times the law as written in any certain area may not reflect exactly the recommendation of said psychological associations.

That, and such associations hardly have a truly united voice. They are composed of a group of people with vastly differing views. While the publications and recommendations may reflect the views of the majority or the influential, not every one in the group will be for it. Often, even the "minority" view may be only a hair less influential than the "majority." This also entails that the association's publications and recommendations may change depending on what the influential view is.

It hardly needs to be stated that external groups who don't agree with the current recommendations of the association based on the currently dominant view usually jump on the "but there are still a number of professionals in your association who say otherwise!" wagon. For example, many of the proponents of the conversion treatment discussed in this article love to cite Robert Perloff, the American Psychological Association's president during a chunk of the 80s. He is infamous for disagreeing with the APA's current view that conversion treatment is unethical.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Code: Select all

I agree that the idea that homosexuality is not wrong at all should be promoted, but people still have the right to make informed choices regarding their lifestyle, no matter what their motivation is.

Except that there is no choice anywhere in the equation, Moron. To say anything about informed choices. Fuck, I can go on at length about how patients oftentimes are incapable of actually making an informed rational choice about treatment, and that is for real medical problems.

Homosexuality cannot be changed through therapy, we have learned this over and over again. No therapist who is competent can offer such treatments for such under the ethical rules of their profession. Now, not to compare being gay with having syphilus, but it would be like a doctor saying "Well, we can inject you with Penicillin, or we can rub you down with Mercury. Now, the Mercury doesnt work and will kill you faster than the Pox, but if you really want me to..."

It does not matter how you slice it, the therapists were being unethical.