Foe of ‘Ex-Gay’ Ministries Launches New Group

Concerned Women for America ^ | 6/16/06 | Sarah Kuziomko

[DBeers]

What you have posted makes sense. Assuming a normal distribution describes the homosexual population then it would make sense that there may be a potentially incurable or quite difficult to cure minority on one end of the spectrum with deep-seated homosexual tendencies comprising the full spectrum of causes (biological or behavioral and combinations thereof).

Biological would necessarily require medication and or hormone therapy etcetera while behavioral would require psychotherapy and behavior modification...

Determining the best most effective treatments(s) would require comprehensive testing and diagnosis. I do not think methods of comprehensive testing and diagnosis are being meaningfully pursued by science and or academia?

[mikeyc]

I am sure that you are right.
With the social ethos being that of 'acceptance' and 'rights', it's hard to imagine that methods of testing or diagnosis are being developed. I doubt that accademics would wish to face the uproar if they chose to go down that path.... even though, as has been frequently pointed out here, the knowledge of whether an individual is homosexual is only known by actions or acceptance of an honest answer to the question.

I think that the most important point is that a cure could only be administered to those who would really want it.

Most homosexuals, in the current social climate, will be encouraged by the portion of the population that will embrace, accept and encourage their behavior.
I suspect that there are also ones like me who are not interested in a cure, but are content to live with it and 'contain' the disorder.

[Lucky Dog]

This is such a complex issue, far more complicated that being 'born' homosexual, or it being a 'choice'.

Disagree. Behavior is the issue. How one “feels or thinks,” or why, is a private issue to the individual experiencing those “thoughts” and/or “feelings.” Only if, and when, the individual “acts” on “feelings” or “thoughts,” is there any reason for someone beyond the individual experiencing aberrant “feelings” to be concerned or involved.

My own opinion is that 'homosexual orientation' manifests from numerous circumstances, which would enable some to be cured through therapy, and others not.

Unless individual compassion and concern for others dictate that a “cure” be pursued, all that is societally required is to dissuade homosexual practitioners from engaging in their activity.

1. 'homosexual orientation' is formed while in the womb - in this case it isn't genetic, but would be unlikely to be curable through therapy (these might be cases where physical features and manerisms attributed to homosexuals are present).

This argument makes homosexuality a non-genetic “birth defect.” As such, just like genetic defects, it is still subject to research and cure. However, such research is actively opposed by homosexual activists. As there is no mentally healthy person who would not choose to forego a birth defect, the only conclusion is that, either, it is not a birth defect or it is a mental illness. Which is it?

2. 'homosexual orientation' is 'learned' because of sexual abuse during childhood - therapy might work, since this isn't necesarily a 'chemical' formation as in the womb, but it has been imposed during vulnerable formative years.

This argument is a variant of the “deterministic” argument that a human is a prisoner of his or her past environment and is helpless to alter the impacts of such. Experience and history logically defeat this assertion. If it were not so, humanity would still be living in caves. Consequently, it is safe to assert that which is “learned” can be countered, or, “unlearned,” if you will. The appropriate solution is psycho-therapy.

3. a homosexual practitioner who is simply prone to sexual addiction, and does it because it's 'interestingly perverted'

This is confirmation of the assertion that homosexual activity is a “behavioral choice.” As such it is subject to the same behavioral regulation as all human behavior.

4. 'homosexual practitioners' who have been encouraged into it during teen years, and decided they like it

As with the previous assertion, this is confirmation of the assertion that homosexual activity is a “behavioral choice.” As such it is subject to the same behavioral regulation as all human behavior.

This provides a real variety of 'types' of homosexual.

(More in my profile.)

I believe it to be blinkered to say that every homosexual can be cured of homosexual desires -- just as saying that homosexuality cannot be cured is also equally as blinkered.

No argument. However, it is fair to say: “Who cares?” If the homosexual practitioner does not engage in the activity, what constitutes his or her “desires” privately is irrelevant to everyone but the homosexual.

It really isn't so simple.

Again, it is fair to ask: “Who cares?”

This said... all of these cases are disorders and deviant perversions of nature. Even if cases were proved to be incurable, or individuals chose not to accept therapy, it doesn't make acting on their sexual desires with others a right or good thing.

My point exactly…

There is such a thing as abstainance, or private mastabation, where society isn't 'polluted' by the disorder. The offer of cure is a very positive thing, for those who might benefit from it. For others, they need educating to accept that they have a disorder, and that indulging it with others is a dangerous and destructive path.

Again, my point exactly…

[mikeyc]

I'm getting to grips with how you approach posts.

I think we agree on most points, the main one being... 'who cares?'

It seems that a lot of people care if an individual has same-sex attraction, even if they don't act on it.

This is because they approach it from a religious viewpoint.

[Lucky Dog]

I think we agree on most points, the main one being... 'who cares?'

It seems that a lot of people care if an individual has same-sex attraction, even if they don't act on it.

Actually, I think you are mistaken in general. That homosexual practitioners have existed through out history is not arguable. However, what is arguable is the insistence of such individuals that the rest of whatever society in which they existed must accept, condone, and even encourage their activities. If homosexual practitioners discretely “stayed in the closet” with no recruiting among young people, no ill effects such as AIDS and rampant STDs, then there could conceivably be a libertarian case for leaving them alone to their abnormalities.

However, such is not the case. It seems that homosexual practitioners are generally not content to lead a quiet life, discretely engaging in their activities without harming society. Rather, there are lewd, Gay Rights Parades, insistence on degrading the institution of marriage, in-your-face activism with ludicrous lawsuits, skyrocketing STD rates and AIDS infections with insistence on public funding of treatment and care, etc. In short, homosexual practitioners, with some small number of exceptions, make it impossible for society to ignore their activities.

Therefore, homosexual practitioners make it out of the question for, even those libertarians who would do so, to overlook them and their activities.

This is because they approach it from a religious viewpoint.

Those who would choose not to ignore homosexual practitioners from a religious standpoint are no different from those religious adherents who choose not to ignore abortion or other such issues. In our society, these religiously motivated people must attain their goals through persuasion rather than force, both on an individual level, and a societal level.

Individually, if they are able to persuade a homosexual practitioner to cease his or her activity and seek reformation, there can be no objection from a personal liberty basis. An individual merely has to refuse to be persuaded and he or she retains whatever psycho-social worldview and justification for their actions that they previously possessed.

Consequently, there are absolutely no grounds for the outrage and venom displayed by homosexual activists in the subject article that started this thread. To wit:

“He [Besan, one of the homosexual activists in the article] said he thought that Americans ought to be able to seek any counseling they want…

No problem up to this point… However, Besan continues:

but that he would require reparative therapists to inform potential clients that 1) they have no chance of actual change…

Big problem, now! Besan wants to restrict the free speech rights of others. Unfortunately, this attitude and inclination is all too typical of homosexual practitioners and activists. Not content with just trying to persuade others, he and his ilk want to force something on everyone else.

…and 2) this kind of counseling could damage them somehow.

Another big problem! Homosexual activists are apparently fond of half-truths and lies. Beyond the so-called genetic link “forcing” someone to engage in homosexual activity, we now have the “damage of counseling someone against homosexuality.” How counseling can conceivably “damage” someone is obviously an exercise left to the imagination as there is absolutely no scientific evidence of such.

This article’s statement, in, and of, itself, demonstrates the problem discussed above with homosexual practitioners and activists demanding that others change to accommodate their behavior.

[mikeyc]

My own opinion is that in the case in the thread, it was totally wrong to tell anyone of that age that it is how they are and always will be.
Of course that is wrong.

I also agree with your points about homosexual activists, that they deal in half-truths. They clearly have their own agenda, and anything that threatens that is attacked.

The damage they talk of is probably relating to religious groups insisting on changes in sexual orientation for all homosexuals. i agree that that isn't a good approach for all, simply because it's not achievable.

However, to use that as an excuse to prevent all treatment is clearly wrong, and is directly due to their agenda.

I'm sorry my reply is brief. I am short on time today.