Outlaw gay conversion therapy?

[Pwns]

I heard on the radio that Obama was talking about this and that some states are looking at it.

I'm skeptical of both psychotherapy and willfully changing your sexuality, so you don't have to explain to me that these people crackpots.

But I do wonder if you can ban this kind of practice and is it a good idea?

Can you ban the use of things like homeopathy and alternative medicine even it's not a life and death situation just because it doesn't work?

[CID1990]

If you're a man and you want to be a woman, you are allowed to have all kinds of therapies up to and including surgery to change your gender.

There are some subtle differences in this example and the psychotherapy, but the principle is the same- it isn't the government's business to get involved in this at all.

But that isn't what's going on here- this is just a pander and nothing more. Get used to it- we have another 20 months of this kind of silly nonsense (including pardons for people like Mumia) before the adults are in charge again

[JohnStOnge]

I don't think we know that the people espousing this therapy are crackpots. I think the nature of the situation is that it's virtually impossible to test the effectiveness.

But the real underlying problem is related to the American Psychiatric Association's decision to, for what I think were political/philosophical rather than "scientific" reasons, to define psychiatric disorder in order to exclude homosexuality then remove homosexuality from its list of disorders. The idea now is to say that homosexuality is not a disorder so we should not be looking to cure it.

Whether the particular therapy involved works or not, it's obviously questionable to say that there's no way we can ever find a cure to homosexuality. It might not be possible to say that we're 100% certain that it CAN be cured. But it's also not possible to say that it can't be. Everything that happens with what we think and feel if ultimately tied to physical processes. And what's going on here is consistent with creating a situation where there is no effort to find a cure.

It is a disorder. If you've got a scintilla of common sense you know that. Look at the location of the clitoris and what its function is. Look at what male climax is associated with. The female has a clitoris located just anterior to her vagina so that a male penis being inserted stimulates an organ that has no function other than to introduce pleasure. The male experiences orgasim in association with the ejaculation of sex cells. So on and so forth.

To say that sexually motivated behavior is not tied to reproduction is absolutely ridiculous. Certain people are good at focusing on trees in the forest. But the forest is that heterosexuality dominates behavior among dioecious species. Sex exists because it results in reproduction through genetic recombination. That's the bottom line.

[Skjellyfetti]

Look at the location of the clitoris and what its function is. Look at what male climax is associated with. The female has a clitoris located just anterior to her vagina so that a male penis being inserted stimulates an organ that has no function other than to introduce pleasure. The male experiences orgasim in association with the ejaculation of sex cells. So on and so forth.

Prostate orgasm?

[travelinman67]

Look at the location of the clitoris and what its function is. Look at what male climax is associated with. The female has a clitoris located just anterior to her vagina so that a male penis being inserted stimulates an organ that has no function other than to introduce pleasure. The male experiences orgasim in association with the ejaculation of sex cells. So on and so forth.

Prostate orgasm?

Tell us more about this "prostate orgasm", Sksmellypinky.

[Ivytalk]

The larger question is eugenics. If people could genetically "breed out" a trait like homosexuality in order to avoid having gay kids (or mentally handicapped, or deformed, etc.), would they do it? Should they do it? This gay conversion stuff seems like quackery to me.

[JohnStOnge]

The larger question is eugenics. If people could genetically "breed out" a trait like homosexuality in order to avoid having gay kids (or mentally handicapped, or deformed, etc.), would they do it? Should they do it?

Why not? I never have understood the big problem with eugenics so long as it doesn't mean forcing anybody to do or not do anything or mean abortions, etc.

This gay conversion stuff seems like quackery to me.

I really don't know. I will admit that I don't trust what the American Psychiatric Association has to say about this in particular or the issue of homosexuality in general at all. Same with the American Psychological Association. So I'm sure as heck not going to take those Associations' word for it when they criticize it.

It's not hard to find testimonials by people who claim that they have overcome same sex attraction. It's also not hard to find account of people who made that claim then were caught acting on same sex attraction. But the fact that some people claimed to have overome it then were caught acting on it does not prove that all people who claim to have overcome it are making a false claim.

The thing is, if you find even ONE person who has been "cured" of homosexuality the assertion that homosexuality cannot be "cured" or eliminated in an individual is debunked.

My belief is that the current overwhelming majority of psychiatric and/or psychological professionals do not want to believe it is a condition that can be eliminated. I believe they have a strong philosophical bias.

[Chizzang]

My belief is that the current overwhelming majority of psychiatric and/or psychological professionals do not want to believe it is a condition that can be eliminated. I believe they have a strong philosophical bias.

I found this part ^ hilarious...
John YOU have a strong philosophical bias
which makes YOU think that anybody who doesn't "think like YOU think"
then must (by default) have a strong philosophical bias

Watching you spin your wheels about "gay" anything
is like watching fundamentalists debate the word of GOD



Remember this one John:
When you said (hilariously) that any time somebody said the word "Gay" instead of "homosexaul" that was because they had been programmed - inferring that "programming is bad" of course

And then watch you defend the "programmed" Fundamentalists just a few threads over
as "free to think however they want" and Honorable" as they are stalwart in their beliefs



You're so full of sh1t it's almost comical

[JohnStOnge]

Remember this one John:
When you said (hilariously) that any time somebody said the word "Gay" instead of "homosexaul" that was because they had been programmed - inferring that "programming is bad" of course

And then watch you defend the "programmed" Fundamentalists just a few threads over
as "free to think however they want" and Honorable" as they are stalwart in their beliefs

I think the conversation about programming came up before and I agreed that Fundamentalist Christians are programed. That does not mean they should not be free to think however they want. Anybody should be free to think however they want.

[Chizzang]

Remember this one John:
When you said (hilariously) that any time somebody said the word "Gay" instead of "homosexaul" that was because they had been programmed - inferring that "programming is bad" of course

And then watch you defend the "programmed" Fundamentalists just a few threads over
as "free to think however they want" and Honorable" as they are stalwart in their beliefs

I think the conversation about programming came up before and I agreed that Fundamentalist Christians are programed. That does not mean they should not be free to think however they want. Anybody should be free to think however they want.

John,
We all construct a prison (of sorts) for our own mind

Example:
Confirmation bias is so visible here it has become almost a running joke
and the list of logical fallacies trotted out daily on this forum (and then defended)
is a staggering display of common errors in basic reasoning

All that aside:
I have joyfully focused on you
because you used to have this fancy quote in your signature about "The Truth"
and then you proceeded to construct a truth so deranged and illogical that I became fascinated by you

A tortured closet Fundamentalist homosexual was my original guess
But I've drifted off from that to other things...
Anyway more on that later


As you were ...

[BDKJMU]

If you're a man and you want to be a woman, you are allowed to have all kinds of therapies up to and including surgery to change your gender.

There are some subtle differences in this example and the psychotherapy, but the principle is the same- it isn't the government's business to get involved in this at all.

But that isn't what's going on here- this is just a pander and nothing more. Get used to it- we have another 20 months of this kind of silly nonsense (including pardons for people like Mumia) before the adults are in charge again

Wait, the adults were recently in charge? I must have missed that...

[JohnStOnge]

John YOU have a strong philosophical bias
which makes YOU think that anybody who doesn't "think like YOU think"
then must (by default) have a strong philosophical bias

I thought about that comment for a while before responding. And my response is this:

Yes, I have bias with respect to certain premises that can never be established as objectively true or false. Like I don't believe the point should be managing society so that individual physical well being is maximized. I believe, instead, that the emphasis should be placed on individual liberty. In the final analysis where one falls with respect to questions like that is a matter of philosophy and opinion. But when it comes to application of the scientific method I do not. I am VERY conservative in that regard in that I believe in maintaining strict discipline.

I thought about whether I would ever, if put in the position to do so, use other peoples' perception of me as an expert to do something like members of the American Psychiatric Association have done. By that I mean use the trust people have in me as an expert in a field to create the impression that something is based on the application of science when it is not and is instead based on philosophy. And I absolutely would not.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

The way it was in the 30-60s worked pretty damn good then people started acting against our biological wiring.

Deal with it