Ignoring gay urges?

dan719

Recently a thread was locked discussing the possibility of 'stopping being gay'. Personally I think that it should be acknowledged that some gay people will genuinely not want to be gay. At all. Whether this is due to percieved barriers their sexuality would cause, or a case of catholic guilt or so on. My question is, should services within organisations such as Belong-to offer services to such people, which instead of aiming to let them come to terms with their sexuality(which may be impossible) rather aim to help them 'park' it so to speak, and ignore it as (what they see as) a charachter flaw?

LGB supposedly contains a silent s, how about for some people a silent lgb too?

Reflector

Why would an organisation whose ethos is to encourage people to have confidence in who they are and who promotes acceptance of homosexuality in general society also help people hide who they are and be ashamed.

If you want to live a life of celibacy that is your choice but there is nothing wrong with being gay and no organisation should promote that. If you are genuinely unhappy there are many councellors who are trained to help people in any situation.

dan719

Reflector wrote: »

Why would an organisation whose ethos is to encourage people to have confidence in who they are and who promotes acceptance of homosexuality in general society also help people hide who they are and be ashamed.

If you want to live a life of celibacy that is your choice but there is nothing wrong with being gay and no organisation should promote that. If you are genuinely unhappy there are many councellors who are trained to help people in any situation.

Surely an organisation which wishes to help the LBG community has to help all of them, even those who don't wish to be a part of it. I am not suggesting there is anything wrong with being gay, but surely if something genuinely doesnt want to be homosexual, the sole response of LGBers should not be 'take some pride in it' or whatever.

P.S I am certainly not celibate, and this thread in no way relates to me.

shay_562

dan 719 wrote:

Surely an organisation which wishes to help the LBG community has to help all of them, even those who don't wish to be a part of it. I am not suggesting there is anything wrong with being gay, but surely if something genuinely doesnt want to be homosexual, the sole response of LGBers should not be 'take some pride in it' or whatever.

The question is whether it's healthy to completely repress sexual urges. Can you ever feel truly fulfilled if you remain entirely celibate, never look for or accept love and ignore any biological or psychological desires that run contrary to that? My (admittedly entirely uninformed) view would be that (a) that sounds like a terrible way to live and (b) that it really and truly can't be psychologically healthy. With that in mind, no, I don't think there should be services to assist people who want to live a life of blanket repression, because I don't think we have a responsibility to help people to live mentally unhealthy lives. Furthermore, the very existence of such services suggests to young questioning people that (a) living such a life isn't mentally damaging and (b) that if just wish hard enough, the gay will go away, neither of which are true, but both of which will make that young person's struggle harder.

As a vaguely analagous situation, anorexic people really want to not eat. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't decry those pro-anorexia websites that encourage girls to live as skeletons and give them useful tips on how to do it. Equally, repressed people really want not to be gay. Sometimes, giving people what they want isn't what's best for them in the long run.

cotwold

dan719 wrote: »

but surely if something genuinely doesnt want to be homosexual, the sole response of LGBers should not be 'take some pride in it' or whatever.

I dont think any thinking 'LGBers' response to someone who 'genuinely doesnt want to be homosexual' would be that simple. Do you? If they have such a great problem with an unchangeable aspect of themselves they need to come around to it if they want to live a happy life.

hot2def

cotwold wrote: »

If they have such a great problem with an unchangeable aspect of themselves they need to come around to it if they want to live a happy life.

I know this is probably not a popular point - but all the arguments against helping people attempt to supress/change their homosexual urges featured in this thread make the assumption that these urges are fundamental/genetic/unchangeable. Anyone have any scientific proof of that?

and before everyone comes running in with "well I've been like this since birth and never wavered", that merely pertains to you. What if some of these people could change?

I think maybe some people are terrified of the wider implications of that possiblity, and THAT is why LGBT organisations are not likely to offer advice/help in this area...

Goodshape

hot2def wrote: »

the assumption that these urges are fundamental/genetic/unchangeable. Anyone have any scientific proof of that?

No proof (would be interested in hearing about any scientific trials though), only personal trial and failure, and anecdotal evidence of the same.

Surely most gay people have at some point tried not to be so gay. I think the terror at the thought of such 'services' comes from a fear of being put back in that box of shame and self loathing. It seems to be encouraging what a lot of us fought for a long time to get over.

cotwold

Theres no proof that it cant be changed but theres also no proof that anyone has changed it. Scientists haven't discovered what dictates sexual orientation and claim to be pretty far off as it is. Untill they actually know what dictates sexual orientation there wont be a 'cure' or way to change it and theres no saying there will be even after they discover the cause.


Yes a lot of people are terrified of a 'cure' or way of changing there orientation. Thats because the community has used its unchangeablity to legitimise it agaisnt a society which rejected it. People shouldn't have to legitmise their sexuality by explaining they cant change it but sometimes they just have to.

LGBT organisations help people come to terms with reality and for now sexual orientation is fixed so theres no point in filling there heads with some science fiction promise.

hot2def

cotwold wrote: »

LGBT organisations help people come to terms with reality and for now sexual orientation is fixed so theres no point in filling there heads with some science fiction promise.

do we really want to lower ourselves to this argument-by-assertion, like the religious right?


I don't see how saying "its wrong and you can change it" is really any different to "Its not wrong and you can't change it". One shouldn't allow ones point of view to become polarized by fear or the desire to prove the otherside wrong. That's how you become a fundamentalist, and as it happens, is one of the reasons bisexuals are often met with such venom and spite by some gay men and women.

hot2def

edit - sorry, I posted twice

cotwold

hot2def wrote: »

do we really want to lower ourselves to this argument-by-assertion, like the religious right?

Well what is it i'm asserting?

Better yet what are you asserting? That there is no proof that sexual orientation cant be changed and that the possibility that they might be changeable scares people.

I've agreed with you in both instances so argument by assertion is out the window if we don't disagree.

hot2def wrote: »

I don't see how saying "its wrong and you can change it" is really any different to "Its not wrong and you can't change it".

That's not an argument i referred to at all. What i was referring to is the defence of homosexuality not being choice/uncahngelable therefor being 'natural' and not wrong.

hot2def wrote: »

One shouldn't allow ones point of view to become polarized by fear or the desire to prove the otherside wrong. That's how you become a fundamentalist, and as it happens, is one of the reasons bisexuals are often met with such venom and spite by some gay men and women.

I dont know who you're directing this at but i hope its not me.

DubArk

hot2def wrote: »

do we really want to lower ourselves to this argument-by-assertion, like the religious right?


I don't see how saying "its wrong and you can change it" is really any different to "Its not wrong and you can't change it". One shouldn't allow ones point of view to become polarized by fear or the desire to prove the otherside wrong. That's how you become a fundamentalist, and as it happens, is one of the reasons bisexuals are often met with such venom and spite by some gay men and women.

Lots of SH&T stirring in that statement!!

Is it that you’re just out to argue the unarguable; as stated we can only answer from a personal point of view. People who went through the desire to change, to be different (straight) at an early age but realising this was futile to go against our nature, instead to grasp the nettle and face up to the TRUTH. Be positive and move on!

Your argument that somehow an organisation set up to protect Gay/Bi people from discrimination, would then promote some lab experiment in trying to convince people they can change their sexual orientation, is absurd and holds no water.

The bi thing is a very childish attempt to go of topic. Cease! :rolleyes:

cotwold

Agreed

hot2def

DubArk wrote: »

Lots of SH&T stirring in that statement!!

Is it that you’re just out to argue the unarguable; as stated we can only answer from a personal point of view. People who went through the desire to change, to be different (straight) at an early age but realising this was futile to go against our nature, instead to grasp the nettle and face up to the TRUTH. Be positive and move on!

Your argument that somehow an organisation set up to protect Gay/Bi people from discrimination, would then promote some lab experiment in trying to convince people they can change their sexual orientation, is absurd and holds no water.

The bi thing is a very childish attempt to go of topic. Cease! :rolleyes:

I don't know, its seems everyone is getting plenty defensive on this.


I am not suggesting that lgbt associations must/should privide info on counseling/therapy that attempts to change or prevent homosexual urges. I'm merely pointing out that its is not in their interest to do so.

Further, I am stating that none of us can say how someone else feels about themselves is wrong, or that the way they feel is fixed. I don't see how asserting that there is no hope of changing (with no scientific proof to back it) is really any different to asserting that it can be changed (with no scientific proof to back it up).


my point with the bisexual thing is that this defensive reaction to the possibility of change is mirrored frequently in some gay people's reaction to bisexuals - that somehow they are undermining gay rights by giving fuel to the religious rights assertion that its a choice.



I don't think I said anything that was shlt stirring, thank you, I merely don't agree with you.

Reflector

hot2def wrote: »

I don't know, its seems everyone is getting plenty defensive on this.


I am not suggesting that lgbt associations must/should privide info on counseling/therapy that attempts to change or prevent homosexual urges. I'm merely pointing out that its is not in their interest to do so.

Further, I am stating that none of us can say how someone else feels about themselves is wrong, or that the way they feel is fixed. I don't see how asserting that there is no hope of changing (with no scientific proof to back it) is really any different to asserting that it can be changed (with no scientific proof to back it up).


my point with the bisexual thing is that this defensive reaction to the possibility of change is mirrored frequently in some gay people's reaction to bisexuals - that somehow they are undermining gay rights by giving fuel to the religious rights assertion that its a choice.



I don't think I said anything that was shlt stirring, thank you, I merely don't agree with you.

Really have to disagree with you here, People mostly do not accept being gay as a product of societal bullying or religious guilt. I know I have been through it and I have also tried to "change" which only made me feel worse. An Lgbt society does not provide this info as they along with most accepting gay people deem it a very damaging thing to do to yourself.

Also I think that the scientific proof you require is there in the sense that societies have been trying to cure gays for decades to no effect and these negative results to me conclude that it is almost impossible to change someones orientation into what is deemed to be a normal one.

Also these therapies seem to be universally panned by many psycologists and also they all seem to be tied in with religion. I have yet to read about an organisation that is trying to cure the gay and not trying to get you to love jesus as well.

In parting I have to say that if someone is really unhappy with homosexual urges than why not go and try and fight them but I really feel that it is a losing battle.

LegacyUser

erm

I'm in a relationship for 3 years, happy in it as much as a person can make me happy, but I've often considered opting not to live my life as a "gay" person, not in some dismissive way but in a long reflective evaluation of what I want in life, what is possible, and how they are more easily achievable by "stopping being gay" to use the terms of the original post

So I see the OP point as making perfect sense

Nor is being "gay" a reality, or a fixed orientation , its a little bit naive at best, and reactionary

I am not talking about individual posts but the thoughts expressed can easily lead to being prejudiced against a person because they are not comfortable in there gay identity

Just facing the fact you are gay is not the answer to all the conflicts in the human mind and heart, and leaving aside societal pressures etc some people would still just want thigns that don't fit if they lived life as a gay person ( here I mean day to day activities , i don't mean that some one could be deprogrammed)

hot2def

Reflector wrote: »

Really have to disagree with you here, People mostly do not accept being gay as a product of societal bullying or religious guilt. I know I have been through it and I have also tried to "change" which only made me feel worse. An Lgbt society does not provide this info as they along with most accepting gay people deem it a very damaging thing to do to yourself.

Also I think that the scientific proof you require is there in the sense that societies have been trying to cure gays for decades to no effect and these negative results to me conclude that it is almost impossible to change someones orientation into what is deemed to be a normal one.

Also these therapies seem to be universally panned by many psycologists and also they all seem to be tied in with religion. I have yet to read about an organisation that is trying to cure the gay and not trying to get you to love jesus as well.

In parting I have to say that if someone is really unhappy with homosexual urges than why not go and try and fight them but I really feel that it is a losing battle.

I'm not saying it is do-able, nor am I throwing my lot in with the religious nutcases, I'm not saying its a good idea, or that it is healthy. But I do think its peculiar to see people asserting that it is impossible with no proof other than anecdotal/personal experience, and denying that anyone could feel other than they do.

There is no scientific basis (that I aware of, if there is I would be quite interested in reading it) for the assertion that these people are fooling themselves. And asserting that they will come inevitably to the same conclusion that you did is patronizing.

L1011

I believe that some churches already offer these services... don't see why BelongTo or the like should as its entirely against their ethos - same I don't expect to see the Catholic Church CYC providing services like BelongTo does!

Boston

I haven't time to reply to all the comments, but; Every organisation has its own ideologies and either you subscribe to them or you don't. Most LGBT support groups believe that repressing sexuality is healthy. There is no onus on them to "be all things to all people". I personally don't agree with some of the more political ideologies of belong to, that doesn't somehow make their work any less valid.

Reflector

hot2def wrote: »

I'm not saying it is do-able, nor am I throwing my lot in with the religious nutcases, I'm not saying its a good idea, or that it is healthy. But I do think its peculiar to see people asserting that it is impossible with no proof other than anecdotal/personal experience, and denying that anyone could feel other than they do.

There is no scientific basis (that I aware of, if there is I would be quite interested in reading it) for the assertion that these people are fooling themselves. And asserting that they will come inevitably to the same conclusion that you did is patronizing.

Well the fact that it has been tried and tried and deemed not to succeed is scientific proof for me.Negative results are still results but people really don't like to publish failure. You can read many many psychological reports on the subject if you know where to look.

If someone wants to change or be celibate because of unhappiness than that is fine with me, I am all for the promotion of happiness and mental well being as long as it is by choice and not enforced against someones will.

Otaku Girl

dan719 wrote: »

Recently a thread was locked discussing the possibility of 'stopping being gay'. Personally I think that it should be acknowledged that some gay people will genuinely not want to be gay. At all. Whether this is due to percieved barriers their sexuality would cause, or a case of catholic guilt or so on. My question is, should services within organisations such as Belong-to offer services to such people, which instead of aiming to let them come to terms with their sexuality(which may be impossible) rather aim to help them 'park' it so to speak, and ignore it as (what they see as) a charachter flaw?

LGB supposedly contains a silent s, how about for some people a silent lgb too?

Repression is never healthy,unless a person is a paedophile of course.And all this "repairitive" therapy for people with gay urges or gender dysphoria have proven to be more harmful than anything else. People follow they're nature,it's pointless and harmful to deny it.But I personally don't care if gay people wish to be asexual anymore than I would care if straight people wanted to be asexual. I would'nt expect any LGBT group to advocate such a policy though,it would be akin to a Jewish rights organisation encouraging self loathing Jews to continue as such.

jady88

What you are talking about is institutionalized self hate, repression of ones sexuality whether gay or straight and viewing it as a "bad" thing is not healthy for anyone.

smileykey

The majority of evidence on "cures for homosexuality and transgenderism" is that they don't work and if anything are damaging to those who avail of them so why would any organisation who works for LGBT people contemplate putting the people they work for through that.

If someone doesn't want to be gay I'd imagine the cause of that doesn't lie within the person but within society and fear of it's reaction. If that's the case then it would make more sense to educate people that being gay/trans is not wrong and is not something to feel ashamed of. Who better to start preaching that message to than gays/bis/trans themsleves?

There are enough forces out there preaching the opposite, our own groups don't need to start it too.

dan719

Otaku Girl wrote: »

Repression is never healthy,unless a person is a paedophile of course.And all this "repairitive" therapy for people with gay urges or gender dysphoria have proven to be more harmful than anything else. People follow they're nature,it's pointless and harmful to deny it.But I personally don't care if gay people wish to be asexual anymore than I would care if straight people wanted to be asexual. I would'nt expect any LGBT group to advocate such a policy though,it would be akin to a Jewish rights organisation encouraging self loathing Jews to continue as such.

First I was confused by the multiple strands in this post. Upon rereading it, I realised it was because you simply have no idea what your talking about.

Repression isn't healthy? Unless someone is a peado? But really people will follow their nature anyway?

Then you talk about self-loathing Jews for a while?

This post is soooo PC it hurts.:rolleyes:

Boston

I don't agree with the idea that one must embrace all their basic urges to be happy. Generally someone with violent tendencies with have a better life if they do not embrace that characteristic of themselves, The same can be said for people who may feel compelled to sexual assault others, or those who are prone to substance abuse. However the alcoholic who doesn't drink is still an alcoholic, the violent person who has never lost control, has still a violent personality, and the gay male who has never had homosexual relations is a gay male. Its important to recognise this, because denying it only creates a dangerous delusion.

Another point is this; The more you try to fight what you naturally are, the more it will define your life.

rsynnott

dan719 wrote: »

Recently a thread was locked discussing the possibility of 'stopping being gay'. Personally I think that it should be acknowledged that some gay people will genuinely not want to be gay. At all. Whether this is due to percieved barriers their sexuality would cause, or a case of catholic guilt or so on. My question is, should services within organisations such as Belong-to offer services to such people, which instead of aiming to let them come to terms with their sexuality(which may be impossible) rather aim to help them 'park' it so to speak, and ignore it as (what they see as) a charachter flaw?

LGB supposedly contains a silent s, how about for some people a silent lgb too?

Well, people who are anorexic want to just not eat. This doesn't mean that there should be support groups set up to encourage them not to.

Basically, such a support group would be trying to encourage people to do something unhealthy and impractical, and would thus be socially irresponsible.

Bottle_of_Smoke

In the case of a bisexual man or woman who has a family, I think it would be best to do anything to suppress urges.

Much like a heterosexual man should suppress urges to cheat on his wife with other women.

Otaku Girl

dan719 wrote: »

First I was confused by the multiple strands in this post. Upon rereading it, I realised it was because you simply have no idea what your talking about.

Repression isn't healthy? Unless someone is a peado? But really people will follow their nature anyway?

Then you talk about self-loathing Jews for a while?

This post is soooo PC it hurts.:rolleyes:

........

It's not hard to understand really. Repressing ones urges is harmful from a psychological perspective. However in the case of a paedophile this is necessary due to the nature of the urges.

The self loathing Jew reference was an analogy. Now,was that really all that hard for you to comprehend?

Boston

Otaku Girl wrote: »

........

It's not hard to understand really. Repressing ones urges is harmful from a psychological perspective. However in the case of a paedophile this is necessary due to the nature of the urges.

The self loathing Jew reference was an analogy. Now,was that really all that hard for you to comprehend?

Dan would argue that repressing gays urges is also necessary due to "the nature of the urges". You haven't addressed that at all.

Sir Ophiuchus

In relation to the original post, if you can convince a therapist that denying your "gay urges" is what you really want, and that you're mentally healthy and stable, then they'll help you do it. Or at least try.

Otaku Girl

Boston wrote: »

Dan would argue that repressing gays urges is also necessary due to "the nature of the urges". You haven't addressed that at all.

O.K.I didn't address it as I would have thought it was obvious. I don't believe it's necessary to repress gay urges in the same way it's neceesary to repress paedophillic urges for the following reasons;

Gay sex involves adults who are capable of giving legal and psychological consent due to obvious reasons.

No party is damaged during gay sex. With paedophillic sex the child is mentally traumatised.

Finally, the physical body of a child could be greatly damaged during paedophillic sex.

Boston

Sir Ophiuchus wrote: »

In relation to the original post, if you can convince a therapist that denying your "gay urges" is what you really want, and that you're mentally healthy and stable, then they'll help you do it. Or at least try.

Therapists or councillors often aren't all their cracked up to be.

Otaku Girl wrote: »

O.K.I didn't address it as I would have thought it was obvious. I don't believe it's necessary to repress gay urges in the same way it's neceesary to repress paedophillic urges for the following reasons;

Gay sex involves adults who are capable of giving legal and psychological consent due to obvious reasons.

No party is damaged during gay sex. With paedophillic sex the child is mentally traumatised.

Finally, the physical body of a child could be greatly damaged during paedophillic sex.

Yes, no one disagrees that paedophilia is wrong, that much is obvious. The original poster is asserting that homosexuality is also wrong, and you haven't as yet made an proper argument to the contrary.

Otaku Girl

Boston wrote: »

Yes, no one disagrees that paedophilia is wrong, that much is obvious. The original poster is asserting that homosexuality is also wrong, and you haven't as yet made an proper argument to the contrary.

I think,and Dan may correct me if I'm wrong,that he feels homosexual activity is wrong for him rather than inherently wrong.I did respond to that and Dan,somewhat rudely it has to be said, disagreed with me.I have already said why it's not wrong.I.E. no party is forced to do anything.As I see it,so long as one does not harm another than what the respective person does with their own bodies is their own business. Again,I have no issue with does who wish to practise celibacy. Just don't expect any pro gay organisation to encourage living in the closet,imo. Anyway,I the O.P. asked for opinions,I gave mine and he disagreed.

Boston

Otaku Girl wrote: »

I have already said why it's not wrong.I.E. no party is forced to do anything.

View people are forced to drink themselves into oblivion or to Gamble their life away or do a hundred other things which are still bad for them.

As I see it,so long as one does not harm another than what the respective person does with their own bodies is their own business.

True. Free will and all that.

hot2def

Boston wrote: »

The original poster is asserting that homosexuality is also wrong, and you haven't as yet made an proper argument to the contrary.

I went back and looked, and it doesn't seem to me that he did. He suggested that maybe some people might be happier to try and repress it.

Dudess

dan719 wrote: »

it should be acknowledged that some gay people will genuinely not want to be gay. At all.

That's their right, but what they shouldn't be is bitter about being gay, and resentful towards those who ARE comfortable with being gay. I guess that's difficult though, seeing as they all go hand in hand...

hot2def wrote: »

I don't know, its seems everyone is getting plenty defensive on this.

And you'd blame them?

dan719 wrote: »

this thread in no way relates to me.

Judging by other stuff you've written and the extremely venomous reception you've given people... that's hard to believe.

Boston

hot2def wrote: »

I went back and looked, and it doesn't seem to me that he did. He suggested that maybe some people might be happier to try and repress it.

0_o
denial, it aint just for sexuality.

hot2def

Boston wrote: »

0_o
denial, it aint just for sexuality.

says you. I've seen people assert that ar$es aren't for c0cks.

dan719

Dudess wrote: »

And you'd blame them?

Judging by other stuff you've written and the extremely venomous reception you've given people... that's hard to believe.

Why should people get defensive?

And also I don't give a flying f*ck what you think or believe. And who the hell wouldn't be venemous when rather than debating the issue all that happens is my mental health/stability is called into question. So quite frankly you can go f*ck yourself for all I care.

Boston

dan719 wrote: »

Why should people get defensive?

And also I don't give a flying f*ck what you think or believe. And who the hell wouldn't be venemous when rather than debating the issue all that happens is my mental health/stability is called into question. So quite frankly you can go f*ck yourself for all I care.

There's no need for that Dan. You've raised some good points and challenged people to re-evaluate afew things they've taken for granted but not ones going to debate with you if you're going to lower the tone to that level.

Dudess

dan719 wrote: »

Why should people get defensive?

Oh I don't know... the general vibe of "How dare you be comfortable with your homosexuality" off you maybe?

And also I don't give a flying f*ck what you think or believe.

Never said you should.

And who the hell wouldn't be venemous when rather than debating the issue all that happens is my mental health/stability is called into question.

Oh getting defensive (as opposed to venomous) about the above is one thing, but getting venomous towards people simply for being comfortable with being gay is what I was referring to. If you're gay and unhappy with it, fine, but no need to be so resentful and bitter towards those who are gay and happy with it.

So quite frankly you can go f*ck yourself for all I care.

Superb discussion tactic. You come across as very angry - best to work on that before finding out ways to "suppress" your gay urges...

oisindoyle

hot2def wrote: »

says you. I've seen people assert that ar$es aren't for c0cks.

I presume that your comment implies that just because someone is gay ,that they engage in anal sex ..How wrong of you ..Its just another stereotypical view you have of gay people..Just because a person is gay it doesnt automatically mean they have anal sex...Why not look at the gay man and woman as people who go about their daily work ,just like you rather than associate gay people with sex .........
Besides i know of many a hetro couple who have anal sex

Dudess

Yeah, my gay friend was saying just last night that he doesn't enjoy anal sex at all.

hot2def

oisindoyle wrote: »

I presume that your comment implies that just because someone is gay ,that they engage in anal sex ..How wrong of you ..Its just another stereotypical view you have of gay people..Just because a person is gay it doesnt automatically mean they have anal sex...Why not look at the gay man and woman as people who go about their daily work ,just like you rather than associate gay people with sex .........
Besides i know of many a hetro couple who have anal sex

I wasn't saying anything of the sort, actually. Most of my straight male friends think anal sex is great.

my point was that argument by assertion is weak, and that it is levelled at gay people all the time, often in pithy little statements like that.

Boston

I'm at little lost as to why you directed it at me though.

hot2def

Boston wrote: »

I'm at little lost as to why you directed it at me though.

perhaps I misread your post.

were you not sayng that denial isn't for sexuality? which would be argument by assertion... If not, what were you going for?


Anyway, I think maybe I am being unclear with everyone here. I am just saying that making sweeping declarations about what is good for people they have never met is a bad plan, and I feel its something that is done to lgbt people frequently, so maybe we should know better. I am not actually arguing for repressing sexuality. I am arguing for accepting that not everyone is like oneself.

Butterfly baby

being bi is wrong m'k
being gay is wrong m'k
being lesbian is wrong m'k
being transsexual is wrong m'k

Butterfly baby

dan719 wrote: »

Recently a thread was locked discussing the possibility of 'stopping being gay'. Personally I think that it should be acknowledged that some gay people will genuinely not want to be gay. At all. Whether this is due to percieved barriers their sexuality would cause, or a case of catholic guilt or so on. My question is, should services within organisations such as Belong-to offer services to such people, which instead of aiming to let them come to terms with their sexuality(which may be impossible) rather aim to help them 'park' it so to speak, and ignore it as (what they see as) a charachter flaw?

LGB supposedly contains a silent s, how about for some people a silent lgb too?

Look OP it's quite obvious you are either straight or sexually repressed and I'd assume the former if I was asked to make an opinion but at a stretch I'd probably say repressed, religious straight trying to stir the pot so lets stir back... I was christened Roman Catholic, most of my friends were to but not one of us believe in God and would consider ourselves athiests but since I was brought up in a Roman Catholic based system but don't believe it and yet still it was forced on me (I never wanted to make my communion or confirmation but still had to) should the church not pay then to compensate me for the fact that their laws dictatated my life at a time when I was not allowed make my own decisions? I chose to be atheist so by your definition then the Church (as a similar organisation to the LGB organisations) should pay for me to attend classes to learn how not to be Catholic and even better how not to believe in that mad, ridiclious entity everyone calls GOD

Otaku Girl

Butterfly baby wrote: »

...I was christened Roman Catholic, most of my friends were to but not one of us believe in God and would consider ourselves athiests but since I was brought up in a Roman Catholic based system but don't believe it and yet still it was forced on me (I never wanted to make my communion or confirmation but still had to) should the church not pay then to compensate me for the fact that their laws dictatated my life at a time when I was not allowed make my own decisions? I chose to be atheist so by your definition then the Church (as a similar organisation to the LGB organisations) should pay for me to attend classes to learn how not to be Catholic and even better how not to believe in that mad, ridiclious entity everyone calls GOD

Well said,your logic is impeccable.I was going to say something quite similiar myself but Dan seems to get abusive or sarcastic everytime someone disagrees with him.He seems quite intolerant of those who disagree with his world view or opinions.

ixoy

dan719 wrote: »

And also I don't give a flying f*ck what you think or believe. And who the hell wouldn't be venemous when rather than debating the issue all that happens is my mental health/stability is called into question. So quite frankly you can go f*ck yourself for all I care.

Tone it down five notches. Abusing other posters isn't on.

Reflector

hot2def wrote: »

. I am not actually arguing for repressing sexuality. I am arguing for accepting that not everyone is like oneself.

Cannot agree with this more. Everyone should just acknowledge that we are all different and stop trying to put labels on everything. They are so restricting anyway.