Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

JimiTime

philologos wrote: »

For the record I don't think there is a cure.

From the testimony of some, in terms of feeling that its how they were born, but then not wanting it. Some saying that they hated the fact that their 'faulty sexuality' prevented them from enjoying having their love fulfilled in having their natural children with their partner. The fact that such people have all the physiology to make a child, but their attractions are for people with who they cannot fulfil this promise, would maybe suggest that MAYBE, scientifically, such a thing could be changed. Of course, politically, you'd be run out of town for suggesting such a thing. However, there are people who feel this way, and they want to change.

All in all, I don't know if there is or ever will be a cure for such people, but I don't think seeking one should be banned or vilified on account of politics or even current scientific understanding.

From a Christian perspective there is an internal battle with sin until Christ returns. There was an interesting article in an evangelical Christian paper I was reading about a pastor who describes his struggles with same-sex attraction and how he lives as a Christian in the midst of it. On the face of it ut looks like any battle I or any other Christian has with other temptations:
http://e-n.org.uk/6028-A-battle-I-face.htm

I agree that a Christian has such a battle with sin, but I'm sure someone with an intrinsic desire to engage in a sexual act that is counter to Gods standard has such a battle very much intensified. I don't believe such a battle is the same sort of battle in terms of intensity. At the end of the day, they can put no acceptable context on their desire. I would be reluctant to say its on the same level tbh.

Bannasidhe

JimiTime wrote: »

All in all, I don't know if there is or ever will be a cure for such people, but I don't think seeking one should be banned or vilified on account of politics or even current scientific understanding.


.

As one of 'such people' I do not accept the premise that I need to be 'cured' of anything related to my sexual orientation. It is not an illness. It is not a disease. It is not a mental health issue.

IMHO - those who require therapy are the people who do use terms such as 'cure' in this context.


As for 'sin' - well... one needs to accept the premise that there is a God who can be offended in order to believe in the concept of 'sin'.

coffee_cake

Do you suppose there is a cure for such people? Religious fundamentalists, I mean.

Hey look, it goes both ways.

King Mob

JimiTime wrote: »

All in all, I don't know if there is or ever will be a cure for such people, but I don't think seeking one should be banned or vilified on account of politics or even current scientific understanding.

Again, would you extend the same attitude to people who wish to be cured of their straightness?

I agree with what you say you want, but I think everyone here can see through your faux concern.

JimiTime

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As one of 'such people' I do not accept the premise that I need to be 'cured' of anything related to my sexual orientation. It is not an illness. It is not a disease. It is not a mental health issue.

IMHO - those who require therapy are the people who do use terms such as 'cure' in this context.


As for 'sin' - well... one needs to accept the premise that there is a God who can be offended in order to believe in the concept of 'sin'.

you are not one of 'such people'. The 'such people' I talked about, and I quote

From the testimony of some, in terms of feeling that its how they were born, but then not wanting it. Some saying that they hated the fact that their 'faulty sexuality' prevented them from enjoying having their love fulfilled in having their natural children with their partner.

I'm assuming you are happy with your sexuality etc, so you would not be who I've referred to. As i said, and I reiterate, some people are NOT happy with such sexuality, and would, if they could, change it. THEY are the people I'm referring to.

Momento Mori

EQUALITY

JimiTime

bluewolf wrote: »

Do you suppose there is a cure for such people? Religious fundamentalists, I mean.

Hey look, it goes both ways.

King Mob wrote: »

Again, would you extend the same attitude to people who wish to be cured of their straightness?

I agree with what you say you want, but I think everyone here can see through your faux concern.

I'd just like to highlight to the mods here, before I'M the one accused of bringing us down all the nonsense again. I'M once again not the one who started the snidey remarks, but I will until banned, and if I so desire, have some fun with them if they are allowed slide.

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

I'd just like to highlight to the mods here, before I'M the one accused of bringing us down all the nonsense again. I'M once again not the one who started the snidey remarks, but I will until banned, and if I so desire, have some fun with them if they are allowed slide.

I don't suppose you want to actually address the points raised? No, you'll just stick to your standard of dismissing them as nonsense without any thought or attempt at logical reasoning

King Mob

JimiTime wrote: »

I'd just like to highlight to the mods here, before I'M the one accused of bringing us down all the nonsense again. I'M once again not the one who started the snidey remarks, but I will until banned, and if I so desire, have some fun with them if they are allowed slide.

I suppose that means answering the question honestly and directly is out of the question then?

And do you actually think that any one buys for a second you are actually concerned about gay people being vilified and persecuted?

Penn

JimiTime wrote: »

From the testimony of some, in terms of feeling that its how they were born, but then not wanting it. Some saying that they hated the fact that their 'faulty sexuality' prevented them from enjoying having their love fulfilled in having their natural children with their partner.

Desire to have children =/= Sexuality. Nor are they mutually exclusive. They are two very different things.

The reason many people don't want to be gay, is because of how they are viewed by large portions of society. Maybe if that stopped, they wouldn't view their sexuality as being "faulty" and instead could find a way to have children, while also being true to their sexuality.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As one of 'such people' I do not accept the premise that I need to be 'cured' of anything related to my sexual orientation. It is not an illness. It is not a disease. It is not a mental health issue.

IMHO - those who require therapy are the people who do use terms such as 'cure' in this context.


As for 'sin' - well... one needs to accept the premise that there is a God who can be offended in order to believe in the concept of 'sin'.

I don't think he meant to put an emphasis on being "cured" or whatever, rather the point that he seems to get at in this thread, beyond his ignorant assertions, is that the state shouldn't be allowed to regulate in these areas, i.e., banning alternate, albeit pseudo-scientific, therapies regardless if they've been proven to be invalid or not.

I don't think there's going to be any popular movement, for instance, to ban alternate health therapies, such as homeopathy or psychic healing, even though they've been shown to be pseudo-scientific and invalid.

I do think though, however, that the state/government should be obliged to adhere to the truth and provide scientifically valid information in relation to healthcare and science, which should absolutely rule out promoting and providing information about alternate medicines and therapies that have been proven to be invalid.

This is more about the role of government than anything else.

28064212

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

I don't think there's going to be any popular movement, for instance, to ban alternate health therapies, such as homeopathy, even though they've been shown to be pseudo-scientific and invalid.

There are laws against treating minors with homeopathy instead of recognised treatments, which is what this bill is the equivalent of

Delirium

JimiTime wrote: »

you are not one of 'such people'. The 'such people' I talked about, and I quote

From the testimony of some, in terms of feeling that its how they were born, but then not wanting it. Some saying that they hated the fact that their 'faulty sexuality' prevented them from enjoying having their love fulfilled in having their natural children with their partner.

I'm assuming you are happy with your sexuality etc, so you would not be who I've referred to. As i said, and I reiterate, some people are NOT happy with such sexuality, and would, if they could, change it. THEY are the people I'm referring to.

It's biology that prevents them from having children with their partner. If the person changes their sexual preference then they will no longer be attracted to the person they love. The person needs to figure out why they only value love that results in biological offspring.

They could change their sexuality but fall in love with someone who is sterile/infertile. The problem rears its head again, albeit with heterosexual couple instead of a same-sex couple.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

28064212 wrote: »

There are laws against treating minors with homeopathy instead of recognised treatments, which is what this bill is the equivalent of

Okay I didn't know that, but the thing I was really trying to get at is should those laws really be there in the first place or do those laws go beyond the desired role of government. I can understand about banning these therapies for those under the age of consent, but outright banning them is a different thing altogether.

28064212

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

Okay, but the topic really is, should those laws really be there in the first place or do those laws go beyond desired role of government. I can understand about banning these therapies for those under the age of consent, but outright banning them is different.

Has anyone outright banned them?

robindch

28064212 wrote: »

There are laws against treating minors with homeopathy instead of recognised treatments, which is what this bill is the equivalent of

Can you let me know exactly what these are? There's a minor issue with homeopathy at a primary school I known down the country...

Sir Pompous Righteousness

28064212 wrote: »

Has anyone outright banned them?

Okay, I seem to have read the whole story wrong. I thought that California was banning "gay reparative" therapies outright for everyone. Soz.

JimiTime

Penn wrote: »

Desire to have children =/= Sexuality.

I know. Its not completely detached from it neither though.

The reason many people don't want to be gay, is because of how they are viewed by large portions of society.

I don't think you can accurately speak for everyone who is homosexual tbh. No doubt, the above is relevant to many.

Maybe if that stopped, they wouldn't view their sexuality as being "faulty" and instead could find a way to have children, while also being true to their sexuality.

I never said they couldn't have children, I said they felt that they would never have the opportunity to have a child with their partner. Their sexuality would not fulfil its promise with their partner. Some have testified to feeling this way. Now you can counsel that person to feel comfortable about the fact, just like an infertile person can be counselled about the fact. However, it doesn't deal with the fact that they'd prefer it not to be.

28064212

robindch wrote: »

Can you let me know exactly what these are? There's a minor issue with homeopathy at a primary school I known down the country...

I don't know off-hand. However, my take on it is: it's unlikely that the provision of a homeopathic cure to a child is illegal if it's done with the consent of the parent. It's no different to giving them a drink of water. However, if they're not providing treatment that should be provided (whether they're using homeopathy as a replacement or not) it would fall under child neglect

Penn

JimiTime wrote: »

I know. Its not completely detached from it neither though.

Not completely, but mostly.

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't think you can accurately speak for everyone who is homosexual tbh. No doubt, the above is relevant to many.

But do you agree with the point in general? That maybe if large groups (including religious groups) did not condemn homosexuality as often, more homosexuals would be comfortable with their own sexuality and not feel the need to change?

JimiTime wrote: »

I never said they couldn't have children, I said they felt that they would never have the opportunity to have a child with their partner. Their sexuality would not fulfil its promise with their partner. Some have testified to feeling this way. Now you can counsel that person to feel comfortable about the fact, just like an infertile person can be counselled about the fact. However, it doesn't deal with the fact that they'd prefer it not to be.

Now see, this is bordering back into your view being based on religious factors rather than studies and evidence. Sexuality has no promise to fulfill other than who you are physically, sexually and emotionally attracted to. Sexuality does not equal a desire to have children, even though it may exclude you from being biologically able to have children with that person. It is religion (Christianity) which teaches that the purpose of sex is to attempt to pro-create.

And yes, you can counsel a homosexual to feel comfortable with their sexuality, as you can do about an infertile person to feel comfortable about being infertile. They may not like it that way, but it's about accepting things which cannot be changed, because that's who they are. What you cannot do, is counsel an infertile person and tell them you can make them fertile, which is the equivalent to telling a homosexual person you can make them straight. It has not been proven to work, and the potential risk to that persons mental health is too great to try until it can be proven.

Hotblack Desiato

28064212 wrote: »

I don't know off-hand. However, my take on it is: it's unlikely that the provision of a homeopathic cure to a child is illegal if it's done with the consent of the parent. It's no different to giving them a drink of water. However, if they're not providing treatment that should be provided (whether they're using homeopathy as a replacement or not) it would fall under child neglect

Similar to how the HSE can get court orders for essential medical treatment for a child where the parents are refusing consent e.g. JWs. Whether the parents are offering as an alternative homeopathy, or crystals, or prayer, or nothing, doesn't matter - it's not a law against homeopathy etc. but against withholding essential treatment for a minor who cannot consent to this decision.

efb

Can scented candles cure the ghey???

Jellicoe

Depends where you put them

Hotblack Desiato

I thought they caused it.

Bannasidhe

ninja900 wrote: »

I thought they caused it.

Yup - it was a spicy berry scented candle wot done for me

efb

I'm sure it was the Halle Berry one for a few of our female Friends...

Sir Pompous Righteousness

28064212 wrote: »

There are laws against treating minors with homeopathy instead of recognised treatments, which is what this bill is the equivalent of

28064212 wrote: »

I don't know off-hand. However, my take on it is: it's unlikely that the provision of a homeopathic cure to a child is illegal if it's done with the consent of the parent. It's no different to giving them a drink of water. However, if they're not providing treatment that should be provided (whether they're using homeopathy as a replacement or not) it would fall under child neglect

Well, it either is or it isn't illegal, what is it? It's not relevant just to say that it's illegal to administer homeopathic treatments to minors regardless of parent/guardian consent just because that's your interpretation of the law is. Is there any actually legislation in any country in the world that specifically states this?

I think we need to be clear on this point as it gives context to the ban on "gay reparative" therapies for minors even with the consent of a parent/guardian.

Hotblack Desiato

ninja900 wrote: »

Similar to how the HSE can get court orders for essential medical treatment for a child where the parents are refusing consent e.g. JWs. Whether the parents are offering as an alternative homeopathy, or crystals, or prayer, or nothing, doesn't matter - it's not a law against homeopathy etc. but against withholding essential treatment for a minor who cannot consent to this decision.

.

JimiTime

Penn wrote: »

Not completely, but mostly.



But do you agree with the point in general? That maybe if large groups (including religious groups) did not condemn homosexuality as often, more homosexuals would be comfortable with their own sexuality and not feel the need to change?

Yes I would, but thats not actually relevant. The fact that homosexual people exist that don't want to be homosexual, for whatever reason, and religious conviction is as valid a reason as any, THAT is whats relevant in this context.

Now see, this is bordering back into your view being based on religious factors rather than studies and evidence. Sexuality has no promise to fulfill other than who you are physically, sexually and emotionally attracted to.
Sexuality does not equal a desire to have children, even though it may exclude you from being biologically able to have children with that person. It is religion (Christianity) which teaches that the purpose of sex is to attempt to pro-create.

I didn't say that the purpose of sex is to pro-create, but it is most certainly part of the 'process'. There are people who feel that they're intrinsically incapable of copulation with a person who possesses the complimentary biology that would fulfil fully the promise of their anatomy. This idea that you can simply detach sex and pro-creation doesn't seem very logical. That doesn't mean that we must say that sex is JUST about making babies. Neither does it mean however, that pro-creation is nothing to do with sex and sexuality.

And yes, you can counsel a homosexual to feel comfortable with their sexuality, as you can do about an infertile person to feel comfortable about being infertile. They may not like it that way, but it's about accepting things which cannot be changed, because that's who they are.

But that is a political statement. There are people that feel that they'd rather not have the feelings they do. The attitude you are displaying would IMO, be anti-science, for it starts at the premise, 'It cant be done, so deal with it'. I think thats the issue with this whole topic. The fact is, as much knowledge as we have on the human mind, there is still so much to be learned. There is such a push to say, 'No, sexuality is this. End of!' though. Think in terms of the infertile person, if the attitude was, 'Its just the way it is, deal with it'. Surely there would still be a will to seek a way of curing the infertility. Well, some homosexual people want to be 'cured' and its not just about social stigma. Can it be 'cured' etc, well I don't know, but it seems its more of a political will to say it can't and never will, than a scientific one. All in all, if someone wants to change, I certainly don't see any solid, conclusive science to say never. Maybe there is nothing around at present, but I don't think it should be a cause of offence that its sought.

What you cannot do, is counsel an infertile person and tell them you can make them fertile, which is the equivalent to telling a homosexual person you can make them straight. It has not been proven to work, and the potential risk to that persons mental health is too great to try until it can be proven.

What is the basis that you have claimed that a persons mental health is at such great risk, and what specific treatment are you referring to? My suspicion, is that its those coerced by parents or the more, 'Demon come out' kinds of 'treatments', or the horrendous stories of electric shock stuff and the like are the mental health risks.

At the end of the day, if a person doesn't want the attraction, they don't want it. They may accept it as the hand they were dealt, but THEY still WANT to change. They, IMO, should have the right to decide, and if there are specific treatments found to be dangerous, then they should be dealt with specifically.

Corkfeen

Jimi there is tons of evidence that shows the dangers of things such as conversion therapy. Suicides and depression tend to be far more likely amongst those who avail of it.

http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/the-lies-and-dangers-of-reparative-therapy

Psychological damage can easily occur through techniques that have no basis and are there to satisfy the ultra religious.