{EDIT BY MATA: The full article in The Guardian displays sympathy for the intention of the people involved with this organisation but in no way supports the actual intent of the group. The article concludes with a question to one of the people who has been brought to the meeting by his family, when he is asked by the journalist whether he feels differently after the weekend 'he replies quietly 'No, nothing has changed at all.' The article is reporting, not condoning!}

Have a link

It's pretty wordy, but what do you expect from the Guardian?

EDIT: Before someone tears my head off, personally I think it's somthing that can notbe 'cured' (if I was gay, I would want to stay that way), just posing it as a discussion point. I thought my topic title was potentially misleading.

"Reorientation" or "reparative" therapy is built on a faulty premise: the child's supposed early rejection by the same-sex parent and develops "defensive detachment" - he rejects his father in retaliation. But, in doing so, the boy rejects masculinity, and this leads to a gender identity disorder. The little boy, having spurned masculinity, finds he cannot be a real boy.

This is flawed based on two counts: 1) if this were true, we would have a huge boom of homosexuals following the Second World War, due to all the absent fathers, which simply hasn't happened, and 2) it assumes homosexuality is due to gender identity issues, which simply isn't true. Most gay men associate themselves as male.

The only people who can be "cured" are those who were bisexual to start with and choose to have opposite-sex relationships rather than same-sex relationships.

The ex-gay ministry is a overly-conservative religiously bigotted portion of society that is flawed and simply doesn't work. Attempting to "cure" homosexuals usually just leads to depression and possible suicide.

Homosexuality is not a disease. It is not something that needs to be cured. I will not go off on an angry tangent, because it will no better the situation. Anyone who thinks homosexuality is a disease is probably either a. prejudiced, b. ignorant or c. both. You might as well try to cure heterosexuality - there'd probably be less unwanted kids if more people were homosexuals.

I hate these programs with a passion. A good friend of mine, life long devout Catholic, came out his Senior year in High School. In talking with him, he told me he'd realised he was gay five years prior. He was then, and still is terrified of what his orientation means in terms of his religious views.

He told his parents, who wept for days, and kept talking to him like he was dying of cancer or something. His pastor basically said, "You have to face this demon in your life, this is not the road Jesus intended for you."

I, to my great shame, didn't take it very well. It wasn't the fact that he was gay, as I had several gay friends at the time. Its just, I was his best friend, I thought I knew him through and through. If I didn't see this in him, how well did I really know him? It took me a good few weeks to speak with him again, but things weren't the same between us.

---

I partially blame myself, in not being supportive enough, but the summer before he left for college he went to a program like the one described(I looked it up online). I have no clue what happened there, what they did to him. But when I saw him before school, he was a shell of his former self.

I could see it in his eyes, he was ashamed of himself.

Last I heard of him, he was doing well at school. He was in a healthy same-sex relationship with a great guy. But it took him a good year to shake off the burden of guilt that the program dumped on him.

--

This things, in short, shame you into acting straight.

In this sense, homosexuality can be "cured". If the person is willing to believe that homosexuality is a disorder. The human mind is capable of believing anything, if the human allows it.

If someone is homosexual, chances are they choose to be that way, so why on earth would they want to "cure" it? Its only people that do not approve of homosexuality that want to cure it. They should stop forcing their beliefs on others.

I think homosexuals trying to cure heterosexuality is equally as valid.

I imagine being heterosexual would make life easier for a great many people.

I personally doubt the efficacy of reorientation therapy, but I try not to form a set opinion as I know very little about psychology or psychiatry.

There is a very useful resource here, the OCRT are very reliable. A quote, since there's a lot of information there:



From Reparative therapy: estimates of success on that site.

At least on a physical attraction level this goes back to my secual contructs view, in my opinion with enough effort people can change to a certain extent what they find sexually arousing. With enough effort you can become attracted to say, chairs and tables, pretty much anything.

In theory I guess you might be able to change a homosexual into a heterosexual but I'm not sure if the person might become more bisexually inclined, one might have to adopt a paralel procedure of making the same sex become physcially repulsive.

I've heard this same spiel before from a "professor" (bloody fraud) of mine from several years ago. It stemmed from a lecture of his about how the aids epidemic was because of two gay men in Denmark, homosexuals' use of aids as a weapon for recognition by the government, and how 'They' deliberately spread it among heterosexuals on a mission of Satanic hatred and jealousy...it goes on and on. So, if a child starts to show signs of being gay (this, of course, is the parents' fault) at an early age by, say, playing with a kitchen set (oh terrifying kitchen sets!), then immediately put them back on the Right Path by giving them a toy gun.

Why do people not see how utterly insane these arguements are? Just judging by the first couple statements, shouldn't it be easy for everyone to see how completely irrational this all is? Above all it's demeaning and dispicable bigotbabble. And if anything, fundies negate their arguement that homosexuality is 'unnatural' by throwing in so many outrageously unbelievable and intolerant views in with...I mean, I stopped listening to my professor back around 'Denmark'. Like hell he'd convince me of anything else after that.

End rant. I'm sorry. Latent anger. Bitterness? noooo...not I, said the spoon.

cure homosexuality?

now how does that work?


thats some editing crazy edit

i believe you dont need much imagination to guess what i would be saying if i felt like totally flying off the handle..

condensed version:who the edit do those editing edits think they editing are?

long live the word edit!! or else you would have read some profane edit!!

lol

That's just as ridiculous a thing to say as curing homosexuals. Just because a bi person is in an opposite-sex relationship doesn't make them straight, any more than being in an same-sex relationship makes them gay. What you're suggesting is that once you're in a relationship, you cease to be attracted to any other person ever again. Which is frankly madness. Madness, I tells ya.

Two of my best friends are bi, and both are in a same sex relationship. One is Mata, and he's pretty damn sure he's still bi, and the other one's my wife, and I'm damn sure she's still bi, 'cos she keeps pointing out cute girls to me.

No, sorry, that's not what I'm suggesting at all. I understand that a bisexual person will always be attracted to people of both genders, being bisexual myself. What I was saying is it's theoretically possible for a person who was previously involved in only same-sex relationships to choose to only have opposite-sex relationships -- not to stop being attracted to them. This is where people who get "cured" of homosexuality come from -- they were bisexual, not just homosexual, to begin with, and absolutely nothing has changed except their choice to be in one type of relationship exclusively.

Hope that clears it up.

this is as silly as saying that you 'made' someone gay. you cant help who you are attracted to, thats the bottom line. its not a disease, and its definatly not wrong. i have noticed that most religons that say that they can "cure" these men/women look at a homosexual relationships like the people in them are only out to for sexual purposes.
and personally (i could be way out on this) but i do not believe its a choice to be gay. i, personally, am bi and many of my friends are gay or bi. and i know of their backgrounds, basically parents who would disown or even inflict harm upon them if their parent ever knew. so why would someone make a choice that sometimes has a very this painful effect. attraction is in the eye of the beholder, and why the beholder feels that way cant be determined.

Ha, but we can fight back!

http://www.theonion.com/onion3326/homosexualrecruit.html



I've read the whole article and it's certainly interesting. The definition used by these groups of 'cured' is that the person is no longer actively seeking same-sex relationships, they make no effort to replace any loss of companionship with opposite-sex attraction, they just presume that this will come 'naturally' as a result of making same-sex feelings shameful. Sick brain-washing fuckers. (It's my forum and I think that this term is justified here.)

And yes, I'm still happily bi after four years with a woman

It's that kind of sick stuff that really damages people. It makes me so angry as well.

As I've mentioned before, my Dad is gay. It's that type of backward thinking that's made his entire life so difficult. For the best part of forty years of his life, he's been brain washed into thinking that he's had an illness, that what he desires is wrong, that it's something he has to suppress and hide. The funny thing is, now that he's in a gay relationship, he's the happiest I've ever seen him. How can this be a bad thing?

The problem is - people always concentrate on the sex side of it, when there is so much more. It's not about man or woman. It's about people. It's about falling in love with a soul. Dad has always maintained that it wouldn't have mattered to him whether his partner was male or female - he would still be in love with him, as a person.

That doesn't sound like a disease to me. That sounds wonderful. In fact, I'd even hazard to say that Bi and Homosexuals have it better than us mere Heterosexuals in that respect. I suspect that they are far less preoccupied by appearances and concentrate on the attributes that really matter in a person.

I read half way through and couldn't read any more. I decided that it was either a joke or, if it was serious, it should be a joke! Stupid bloody idiots (I hesitate to blame the Church as it isn't the Church or Christianity as a whole but this particular branch) preaching making it bad to be homosexual. Exactly why is it bad in the first place? Who are homo or bisexual people hurting by fancing the same sex? I mean come on!! If you want to help people give money to the homeless, help old people across the street, campaign against senseless wars, etc., etc.

Why change something just because you don't like it! I don't like peas but you don't see me walking around with banners trying to stop people eating them or holding seminars to convince them that pea eating is wrong! No one is hurt by people liking peas so leave the peas be!!! Random I know but so is trying to 'cure' homosexuality!

Bah!

*walks off in disgust*

You forget in your analogy that, from the point of view of these people, they're helping homosexuals. Homosexuality, as far as they believe, is a deadly sin, and those who practice it will be condemned to Hell for all eternity. Would you stand by and watch a sizeable portion of the population condemn themselves to an infinity of horrific torment? Neither would they.

No she doesn't. How many Moslems do you see running around snatching bacon sandwiches out of the hands of God'fearin' Christians? Very few, I'd warrant.

Just 'cos their faith proscribes it don't give them the right or duty to make sure that the same rule applies to EVERYONE.

They're not grabbing homosexuals off the street and strapping them down onto couches, you know. They're not forcing anybody to do anything.

People are people. Just let them be themselves. If they happen to like people of the same sex, then don't send them on guilt-trips for being who they are. Jebus...

Precisely what I was trying to say, but so much more eloquently put.



I must say, this abuse of power made me giggle madly. Go Mata. j/k

No I see what you're saying but they are blackmailing them into believing that they are going to burn in hell. That's not very nice is it. It upsets me once when Mum said that I am going to burn in hell as I'm not a Christian. However she doesn't force me to believe what she believes though. She understands that we all have our own paths. These people don't seem to be doing that. You're right they aren't forcing them but the very fact that they put the idea out there will upset people into thinking they are devil spawn if they only fancy the same sex.

*wags finger and tuts at Mata*

Naughty!

If you thought somebody was going to hell and didn't know it, wouldn't you try to convince them of the truth?

No. I would recognise that it was my belief that they were going to hell and possibly tell them that that is what I thought put point out that they were entitled to their beliefs too (as I used to do when I was a Christian). Just my opinion though. Now I'm a Pagan I don't go around telling people that they are going to get what's coming to them if they are horrid (karma) and forcing them to see it from my point of view. I might tell people what I believe but that's as far as it goes. But then I am from a non converting faith and Christianity tends to convert.

That Onion thing Mata pointed out seems almost as sick as The Guardian issue.



This is basically a lie they are teaching them. I'm gay and in a same-sex relationship, but I can't do whatever I want. I can't have sex whenever I want, I can't run around in the streets naked. You shouldn't try to convert people into gays. You can promote being the idea of being gay as normal, so that people who know they are gay don't force themselves into a straight lifestyle, but I think that those people are brain-washing fucks

I'm not going to even bother posting about The Guardian, people have already done a better job on it.

Erm.... by the way, The Onion is a satirical newspaper. Don't take it seriously. It was probably parodying that article (or another on that subject in another newspaper) in the Guardian.

The fact is you *don't* believe in hell. Or at least, when you were a Christian, you probably had doubts about it, or you were a liberal Christian, or were troubled by the church (or you probably wouldn't be a pagan now ). Although I could be wrong here, I am assuming a few things. But...

The fact is, to many Christians, Hell is a real thing. It's eternal torment. It's not just "hell" it's... Torture, and Pain, and Suffering, and Crying, and Gnashing of Teeth (oh, how I love that phrase), and Eternal Death. Think of the worst place you've ever been in your life. Now multiply that a thousand-fold. Think of being burned alive, the skin of your body, the fat dripping out. Now think of doing that Forever. Think of being whipped -- the human body can only hold out so long. Now think of being whipped Forever. Think of being tormented by insects, by having your eyes poked out, by being forced to eat human waste, and being made to do it forever. (Okay, I'll stop... someone's been reading too much of Dante's inferno...)

Now, if you truely cared about your friends, wouldn't you try and do everything in your power to save them from that?

That's what's going through the minds of most evangelical Christians who believe in this sort of thing.

Eh...Real to them, but not necessarily to anyone else. That may be their view, but it's not everyone's. I understand the need to save here, but they just need to realize that this person may not believe the same thing they do, and that all religion is pretty much opinions (don't kill me. I know that's a large generalization). Oh, and that they'll be homosexual or whatever if they want to...sure, telling them of your view a couple times is OK. But then you have to stop if they don't want to change.

I tend to think that one's sexual preferences are determined during development and can be changed as any kind of ego-behaviour can. However, when this is attempted it is usually called brainwashing. How come certain civilizations have a preponderence of male homosexual activity for cultural reasons (here I am thinking about ancient Greece and some arabic cultures)? I think all of us heterosexuals and homosexuals are limited by our egos and are actually closet bisexuals.

Also, as far as I am concerned, almost all "religions" are simply oranisations of social control and exploitation, hijacking people's spiritual feelings and fear of death/the unknown and using them to generate power/profit. I will now go and try to study Paganism (aye, I'm an infidel) and see if it fits the normal religious patterns.

No, I don't think everyone is a closet bisexual. People just don't have feelings for both sexes a lot of the time.

Nah okay, wrong choice of words. What I should have said is that I think when we are born we have the potential to be bi-, homo-, or heterosexual. As we grow, our ego (preferences) develop in ways depending on our environment and genetics. Seriously, it can't just be genetic - no way. I am heterosexual but there have been times in my childhood and youth when I have felt attracted towards males but it never went anywhere due to social pressures, conditioning etc. I realise this may not be a common occurence among hetero- males but it can't be unknown either. If nothing else, the social pressures stop you trying to discuss it with sympathic people made it almost impossible to do other than repress.

Or I may just be a closet bi-.

And don't be so quick to condemn the Guardian for supporting the likes of NARTH. It's a long way into the article, but it does get round to providing a more than enough factual ammunition to reduce NARTH, it's arguments and supportive researce to a laughing stock.

The science speaks against you. More and more, we are discovering that there *is* a very strong genetic (or at least congenital) component to sexual orientation. Even part of the brain (the sexual dimorphic nucleus) seems different in homosexual males (it is smaller in homosexual males than heterosexual). However, we also know that environment does play something of a role in development. But it's certainly not simply an environmental thing.

As for your feelings towards males, I can't really say. Recent research has suggested that only 10% of people are 100% straight, and 10% of people are 100% gay. That leaves 80% of the population somewhere in between. You could very easily be on the upper end of the spectrum, nearing 80-90% straight, but that doesn't mean that you don't find men attractive 10-20% of the time.

And if it were merely social pressures, then no one would be gay. Except a very small minority. Do you have any idea how much hatred is directed towards the homosexual community? No one in their right mind would *ever* choose to be gay, or to head towards that direction in their preferences.

Aso, the prevalence of gays has remained at nearly the same percentage over the history of humanity -- hardly something that would occur unless there were signifciant genetic factors at play here. (Greece may be a notable exception, but we're really not sure how much of that was true homosexuality and how much of it was bisexual men (fitting into that 80% above) occasionally having male dallinaces on the side).

Funny then that many people willingly follow a religion because it makes them feel more fufilled, spiritually and socially. Funny also that most churches are finding it more and more difficult to support themselves financially.

I agree, some churches these days are only using religion to generate power/profit. But it's few and far between. Indeed, the Catholic church in the Medieval period and before the Reformation was a power-profit organization. But then, it was also something of a secular empire, not at all following the precepts of the Christian religion.

Well, I dare say that's possible... but you wouldn't publish an article in the Grauniad* to warn your friends of their eternal damnation now, would you?

Thing is, according to the Christian faith, anyone who doesn't believe in God is going downstairs. If we break this down to a sectarian level, the Evangelists will believe that any non-Evangelist is going the same way. But do we see this sort of crapola being published about "curing" Roman Catholics, or Moslems, or Buddists, or Islamics, or Pagans, Wiccans, Mormons, or any of the other zillion different religions out there? No, we do not!

Thing is, it's all down to acceptance. We, in our so-called "civilised society", are comfortable with people having differing religions, no matter how odd they may be (with the sole exception of Satanism, and the annoyance of chasing Jehovas Witnesses off the doorstep). The Waco tragedy was pretty awful and everyone was distraught to see how those poor people died as a result of an obscure sect. However, before that happened, nobody outside of the Branch Davidians bothered to tell them they were in eternal jeopardy until after that happened.

And look at the commandments. How many people can honestly hold up their hands and say they've never stolen anything (and bear in mind that copyright theft is stealing)? Or coveted something? This stuff goes on all the time! Even "Thou shalt not kill" is one we're all desensitised to; we see it in the news, we see it on TV and in the movies, classic theatre normally involves the death of the bad guy. As for worshipping false idols, well I covered that in the last paragraph. We should all burn in Hell, but nobody is that bothered.

The issue of homosexuality, however, is one that is alien to most people because they don't have the urge (please forgive my choice of word!) to have relations with someone of the same sex. Anyone can choose a religion, or steal something, or break a law, or even feel the desire to kill. But not everyone is gay, and it's this, I feel, that is the problem. It's because of people's ignorance that this sort of propaganda holds out. The homosexual community is beaten over the head repeatedly because of the bigotry of a few people in the position to push this bullshit to the masses, who follow blindly because it's easier to go with the flow than be branded a sympathiser and be ostracised. Until we see a gay version of Martin Luther King, we're never really going to make any progress towards affording the gay community the same rights as those given to any group we've seen in the past that were once condemned but are now (generally) accepted.

One day, everyone in the world will live to the one true credo, the one thing that will truly elevate us all to the level that will guarantee us safe passage into the afterlife: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Once people have this basic respect for other people, whatever their situation or life choice, then we would all be living in heaven on earth. Sadly, I don't expect to see this in my lifetime, or in that of my children, but I do hope it happens at some point.

I should point out that I'm an agnostic. Such religious fence-sitting is bound to get me condemned from all sides of the religious arena!

(* I read Private Eye too much!)

First off, let me get this out of the way; I'm straight. I couldn't possibly know anything on the subject right? Wrong. Seeing as I'm straight, I'd have to know why I'm that way right? I don't choose to be straight. I never sat down and wondered if I was attracted to men or women (not seriously anyway). I'm sure that everyone (meaning most) has wondered once or twice. For me, (like most males) I saw boobs within seconds and never thought of it again.

How you are attracted to someone is all based on genetics. I know many of you aren't going to like that i'm saying this but it's true. Every emotion that you feel is nothing more than the right mix of chemicals inside of your brain. You can't get any more emotion than raw, sexual attractiveness. Following this logic, what you're attracted to (not just which sex, but species,objects,body parts.....) is nothing more than the release of pleasing chemicals within your body. Like all of the good chemicals out there, we wish to have more. So we go to the path of not only least resistance, but of simple pleasures too.

Now I know there are more psychological aspects that I've ignored. Just as we have desires that can be repressed with outside interference. This plays a large part of who we become also.

"Choosing" your sexuality has just been a poor choice of words. Coming out of the closet is where the choice lies. The meaning behind the word suggests the exact point in your life when you admit to yourself that you are a homosexual. This wouldn't be a problem if we weren't conditioned to be straight. From a biological standpoint only, it does make sense. Homosexuality has the potential to destroy the species (I personally don't care who you like, all I need to know is you and your beliefs).

This is where bisexuality comes in. I'm sure many people agree that animals just don't care who they fornicate with, as long as it's done. Moreso, you don't limit yourself to half the species. Looking for love should (theorically) be twice as likely.

To wrap this up, I'll leave you with one last point on this whole "curing" homosexuality. Do I think that you can alter the DNA so that people aren't attracted to the same sex? Yes, I do; but the same could be said for straight people. Homosexuality is one of our natural rights. Freedom of choice should never be extinguished.

It's true, MiniRagnarok, that homosexuality could have dire implications for the continuity of the species were it widespread enough. But it simply will not become so widespread. Since it does appear to have at least some rooting in genetics, it is by nature self-limiting, as homosexuals rarely pass their genes on directly. The rise of artificial insemination and other forms of engineered conception may well lead to a higher preponderance of homosexuals, but society is too self-regulating, at least in my opinion, for it ever to become a significant problem.

my god that article made me mad!!!!!

I just want to go and smack those people. It's interesting how they can't find that they have a disease themselves. They're afraid of things that are different and new. I mean, if homosexuality becomes SSAD then they should be diagonosed with something labeling them as afraid of things that are different. Oh wait, I know what they are. They're homophobic.



!!!!!!

As far as I can see the reorientation "therapists" in that article were just shaming people until they climbed back into the closet. I mean, I don't know if homosexuality is genetic or environmental (or a combination) or if it can be changed, but if theres one thing that won't change peoples sexual orientation it's attacking them and their feelings until they start hiding again. What is the point? If they'd found an actual way of changing sexual orientation, and they were using it to help people who were unhappy, I would be all in support of it; but making people think homosexuality is a disease and a problem, then making them think it's their fault they're not changing, is just sick and twisted and evil.

I completely agree with you. That's why I said it only "has the potential to destroy the species." I don't care what anyone else does, it's there business, not mine. In no way do I believe homosexuality will be the end of the human race, it's just that only from a biological perspective, it makes sense that people would reject the idea that people are able to love, even like someone of the same sex. They do have some logic to it, but they're also flawed. As far as we can tell, animals don't have disorders, their brain doesn't have the capacity to form a complex.So just based on this, (it's not a good arguement, just good enough to beat the article's logic) if animals don't seem to care who they sleep with, then how could it be a disorder? You can not get anymore natural than nature. Yes I realize the flaws of that arguement, yet again, I don't necessarily believe in that, but it is good enough to combat the article.

"'Homosexual' is simply a description of a psychological disorder, prompted by an inner sense of emptiness."

*laughs* But I could say the same thing about religion!! This is so stupid, I almost want to laugh.

Ever see the movie But I'm a Cheerleader? It's really great. You should all see it. This cheerleader who doesn't enjoy making out with her boyfriend has a friend and her family who suspect she is homosexual, so they send her to this place to be cured. It's really funny. It's got a really good message too.

Just to clarify, because I've read the whole thing in the newspaper I've added a bit more background to the first post, which is repeated here:

The full article in The Guardian displays sympathy for the intention of the people involved with this organisation but in no way supports the actual intent of the group. The article concludes with a question to one of the people who has been brought to the meeting by his family, when he is asked by the journalist whether he feels differently after the weekend 'he replies quietly 'No, nothing has changed at all.' The article is reporting, not condoning!

And yes, in reference to my previous post, the article about the homosexual recruitment drive is satire of the sort of thing the gay people get accused of by extremist groups, it's not real!! Funnily enough, the next page I clicked on after writing this post was this http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePr.../08/412787.html Spooky.

Interestingly, until (I believe) the 70s, homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association, and they only ceased to classify it as such due to public pressure rather than a scientific motivation.

And Psychiatrists are the people we are meant to believe and trust when it comes to mental health issues.

The same goes for masturbation. It was believed to cause insanity. Probably should have put that in the thead on masturbation, however I felt it had some relevance.

I agree with that. If you knew the bridge was out on a road, wouldn't you warn the people and try everything you could to get them to stop before doom? Although I don't believe in hell, these people obviously do. And though their tactics may be extreme, they think they're saving homosexuals from doom or hell in their eyes.


That is true. I study in abnormal psychology, and that is indeed how it was.


I would. When given the opportunity to express my opinions freely and without restraint I would and have proclaimed my feelings and would continue to do so if it meant saving a life. No matter who it is.

I have no problems with whether a person is gay or straight. I understand it's the individuals decision. I don't encourage people to be homosexual-meaning I don't wear buttons or wave banners saying 'Gay Forever', but I'm not going to rant and rave about how I feel about it either. Who cares what I think? You do what you do, and I do what I do. I'm open-minded and tolerant of what everyone does with their OWN life, but don't ask me to help you figure out your feelings. I'm not going to hold your hand while you discover yourself and the way you're going to be, but once you make your decision, that's cool. I won't criticize you for the decision you make, but that's what it is-a decision. It's like the end of a story. You say 'I'm gay' -the end or 'I'm straight' -the end. If you're having trouble figuring out your feelings, well don't come running to me, because I'm not telling you what I think. And I'm sure you don't want to know.