Should gay conversion therapy be banned in Ireland?

Deleted User wrote: »

Any number of reasons. Incidents of homosexual behaviour are found in prisons as far as I know. What is likely here - they they were gay or bi all along and just discovered it? That prison somehow turned them gay? Or there are factors above and beyond ones sexual orientation that lead people to choose who to be sexually active with?

Also what do we mean by "feel nothing for". Quite often - certainly it is the case with the two women I am in a relationship with - they feel very many things for each other. Enough things to cross a threshold of sexual and romantic interest that otherwise might not have been triggered due to the fact they identify as straight and not at all sexually interested in other women as a rule.

Thats the second extreme example you have used now. Sex work and prison are not good guidelines for what the general public get up too.

The two women you are in a relationship with are both sexually and romantically interested in each other. That is not heterosexual behaviour no matter what they decide to call themselves but I don't really mind tbh. If you are all happy then thats all that really matters.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Deleted User wrote: »

I am an alcohol drinker - and one of the drinks I drink happens to be a type of tequila.

Finally. But I get it, you're not a tequila drinker.

I can just picture the conversation now if you were to ask either of them.

So are you bi?
No.
But you are attracted to her?
Yes.
So you are attracted to women?
No.
But she is a woman?
Yes.
And you are attracted to her?
Yes.
So you are bi?
No.
But you are attracted to women?!?!?!?
No.

People can believe what they believe and claim whatever they claim more power to them, but the fact remains they are consistently sexually attracted to and sexually active with another woman and a man, ergo they're in a bisexual relationship.

Rory28 wrote: »

Can you elaborate on this? I mean if I sleep with a guy I usually assume he is at the very least bi. I don't think a straight lad ends up in bed with another bloke unless he isn't straight.

Apparently not R. Apparently "what sexuality you are has absolutely nothing to do with who you are actually having sex with". The underlined is the interesting part. Not something to do with it - as some of his examples like male prostitutes and other not by first choice examples - absolutely nothing to do with it. The fact is the vast majority of people who have the choice will have sex with those they are attracted to(of either gender), so it's got nigh on everything to do with it. As a gay fella(making an assumption there R), would you chose to go out and have sex with women? I doubt it and you'd likely have the same "ugh no" visceral reaction as myself at the suggestion I go off a have sex with a man. It wouldn't be a choice on our parts.

Though maybe that's it? Over the years with the bi folks I've known and had this kinda convo with I noticed very generally speaking here, that their attraction was initially more based around emotional connections, however brief, over sexual connections. More led by their heart and head than naughty parts to get even more simplistic. On the other hand I'd always lead with the latter. If my naughty bits aren't engaged first then nothing will happen beyond that. Might be friends or whatever, but no romantic/sexual stuff. A switch is thrown. A woman has never grown on me sexually, in the sense of going from a nope to a yep. That decision comes within seconds TBH.

So for someone wired like me I just don't get the bi angle at all(I do get the gay angle). That's another reason why the notion of "gay conversion" is WTF to me. Trying to force someone into a life that they would not want, to the degree among many of it being physically repellent. No way.

Rory28 wrote: »

Thats the second extreme example you have used now. Sex work and prison are not good guidelines for what the general public get up too.

I wish it was extreme but given the number of people in the prison population in many countries I wonder how extreme it is.

Rory28 wrote: »

The two women you are in a relationship with are both sexually and romantically interested in each other. That is not heterosexual behaviour no matter what they decide to call themselves but I don't really mind tbh. If you are all happy then thats all that really matters.

I think we are all happy on this thread - I just enjoy conversation and I personally find this an enjoyable one

Do not mistake my defending a position on this matter as being somehow upset or emotional or like I feel somehow wronged if you choose to describe people with terms they themselves do not at all identify with.

I love language. And I love the flexibility and malleability of words. For me the use of words to describe something has a single goal - to give the most accurate description of the thing described to another person so they leave the conversation with the best and most valid information in their heads.

I used the example of tequila earlier as I have tried many but only ever liked one. If someone sought your advice on what to buy me as a gift and you told them "He is a tequila drinker" you would have given them very bad information. And if they act on it that would be a little sad. But only a little. And we could have deep pedantic discussions for hours about "Well you drink that tequila so you are a tequila drinker - so I will never admit to being wrong" but at the end of the day your use of language was such that you conveyed a general inaccuracy.

People do not fit into near little boxes that fit into neat little words. If we start defining people by rare exceptions we will define them erroneously. If someone is one way 99.99999999999999999999999999999% of the time and another way 0.00000000000000000000000001% of the time it would seem an error to define them by the latter.

The sexual and romantic relationship two people have entered into was not stimulated or triggered by their gender - but despite it. Their connection was through a multitude of other factors all of which led them to a replace they wanted to express their mutual love in every way possible - including physical intimacy. I do not think it valid to define that as bisexual and I guess I have explained why enough to the ire of a few posters so I will gently wind it down now - as much as I love the conversation it ceases to be fun if it starts to actively annoy others.

ThinkProgress

Have we learned everything we're ever going to know/understand about human sexuality and how it works??

I'm going to answer my own question, with a big fat NO!!.... because I think it's fairly obvious that we are actually only likely in the very early stages of understanding these things!

For all we currently know, 100 years from now it might actually be possible to change a person's sexuality. Just like it might be possible to change a great many things that we are born with/as.

That's not my ringing endorsement of "conversion therapy"... I actually know very little about the specifics of such therapies. But I certainly don't like the idea of outright banning something, just because it rubs a few snowflakes up the wrong way... (I'd sooner ban the snowflakes tbh! :P)

If consenting adults want to experiment with "conversion therapy"... I say leave them to it. These things are really all part of human discovery. We try stuff - some things are successful, some are not. We make mistakes. We learn... we move forward in our understanding... perhaps not always quite so linear, but that's the basic idea!

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Some people think it is bad. That's within their rights. And some people may not want to be gay. Who gives you the right to tell them that they must accept it as a good thing and make it illegal to try and "help" people who may want to change?

If someone identifies as straight but has "gay tendencies" that feel alien or "bad" to him, why can't he elect to receive therapy? I assume you would be all for someone who was born a man but feels like he should be a woman to be allowed to get gender reassignment as they feel unusual or bad? Or should that be illegal too?

Wibbs wrote: »

Finally. But I get it, you're not a tequila drinker.
People can believe what they believe and claim whatever they claim more power to them, but the fact remains they are consistently sexually attracted to and sexually active with another woman and a man, ergo they're in a bisexual relationship.

They are in a bisexual relationship. That is a definition I would not question at all. I am entirely good with that one. Here you would be defining the relationship rather than the people in it. And I would see your description as being entirely an accurate one.

Wibbs wrote: »

Apparently not R. Apparently "what sexuality you are has absolutely nothing to do with who you are actually having sex with".

Exactly. It doesn't. Just like a homosexual virgin is still a homosexual. Because sexual orientation if a definition of your attractions not your activities - or lack of them. If you are a heterosexual male you are a heterosexual male as much in this moment talking to me - as you are when you are actually inside a woman. Assuming - nay hoping - the two are never concurrently occurring events

Wibbs wrote: »

I noticed very generally speaking here, that their attraction was initially more based around emotional connections, however brief, over sexual connections.

Exactly what I am describing too. There were emotional and other connections. And they reached a threshold where the expression of their mutual and deep love was - and continues to be - explored and expressed in both romantic and physical means.

Perhaps sexual orientation involved the genitals and sexual expression involves including everything else? And you can be heterosexual in orientation and definition - but still express yourself and explore a relationship sexually with someone of the same gender.

Enough connections are made and - as you put it - "a switch it thrown" - and sexual expression comes into the game in a way that was not triggered by anyone's gender.

Deleted User wrote: »

Some people think it is bad. That's within their rights. And some people may not want to be gay. Who gives you the right to tell them that they must accept it as a good thing and make it illegal to try and "help" people who may want to change?

Sure but that moves the conversation to a different area - we are now away from the area of the "therapy" implying being homosexual is bad - and into the area of efficacy.

Aside from a few testimonials - and lets face it every quack nonsense offered finds at least some of those and there is good reasons in biology and mathematics for that - there is no indication of efficacy of GCT. There is however evidence of positive harm.

So sure people have the right to think homosexuality is bad or wrong. And people who are homosexual have the right to want to change to being heterosexual. I know several such people myself.

But exploiting them by offering them a therapy that seems to do nothing but cause some levels of harm is something we should resist. Even homeopathy - one of the biggest and most successful shams of the modern age - quite rightly states on many of it's bottles "no side effects".

By resisting GCT we are not telling anyone they have no right to hate homosexuality - or no right to not want to be homosexual. We are sending the message that you have no right to exploit either group.

I'm not 100% sure how GCT works (not something I ever had to look into) but I can't see how it would be any more dangerous than a religion.

I just see no reason for it to be banned. I'm all for adults to be allowed to make their own choices providing they aren't hurting anyone else.

ThinkProgress

Deleted User wrote: »

Sure but that moves the conversation to a different area - we are now away from the area of the "therapy" implying being homosexual is bad - and into the area of efficacy.

Aside from a few testimonials - and lets face it every quack nonsense offered finds at least some of those and there is good reasons in biology and mathematics for that - there is no indication of efficacy of GCT. There is however evidence of positive harm.

So sure people have the right to think homosexuality is bad or wrong. And people who are homosexual have the right to want to change to being heterosexual. I know several such people myself.

But exploiting them by offering them a therapy that seems to do nothing but cause some levels of harm is something we should resist. Even homeopathy - one of the biggest and most successful shams of the modern age - quite rightly states on many of it's bottles "no side effects".

By resisting GCT we are not telling anyone they have no right to hate homosexuality - or no right to not want to be homosexual. We are sending the message that you have no right to exploit either group.

Right, but if you are in favour of banning certain "therapies" that you consider quakary (I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong in that assessment btw)... don't we still have a responsibility to cater for people who wish not to be gay?

You have said yourself that people have a right to not want to be gay...

Would you rather people went down the scientific route, rather than these "therapies" ??

And how do you think the scientific community would react, if people started doing research into these things in a serious manner?? I think it would probably cause WW3 in certain social circles tbh!! (they'd be very quick about banning that too, I'm quite sure)

There's no point banning things like this, unless you offer some kind of alternative to these people who are looking for help. Because, like it or not, a certain % of people will probably always be seeking such help!

(And it's quite likely that the quacks exist, because of the lack of other worthwhile alternatives... as is the case in many other areas of life)

Wibbs wrote: »

As a gay fella(making an assumption there R), would you chose to go out and have sex with women? I doubt it and you'd likely have the same "ugh no" visceral reaction as myself at the suggestion I go off a have sex with a man. It wouldn't be a choice on our parts.

You would be right, kind of. I would be open to a relationship with trans women who are pre-op and are happy that way. I have no interest in the punani is what I'm getting at here.

I have been told I'm a terrible gay by a lot of people tho so maybe I am a bad example.

Rory28 wrote: »

I have been told I'm a terrible gay by a lot of people tho so maybe I am a bad example.

I'm left wondering how someone could be described as a "terrible gay". Maybe if you exclusively went out with women, yeah then R I'd be thinking you're not doing it right.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Right, but if you are in favour of banning certain "therapies" that you consider quakary (I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong in that assessment btw)... don't we still have a responsibility to cater for people who wish not to be gay?

You have said yourself that people have a right to not want to be gay...

Would you rather people went down the scientific route, rather than these "therapies" ??

And how do you think the scientific community would react, if people started doing research into these things in a serious manner?? I think it would probably cause WW3 in certain social circles tbh!! (they'd be very quick about banning that too, I'm quite sure)

There's no point banning things like this, unless you offer some kind of alternative to these people who are looking for help. Because, like it or not, a certain % of people will probably always be seeking such help!

(And it's quite likely that the quacks exist, because of the lack of other worthwhile alternatives... as is the case in many other areas of life)

I don't, as a rule, like quoting whole posts just to agree with them but I have to say this is really a very interesting perspective.

There would definitely be quite the hooha if someone starting looking into the possibility from a scientific standpoint to 'cure' being gay.

Even though I suspect that if there is no such a thing as a fix for the moment (and I'm not saying this is something that needs fixing so don't all fall all over me) I suspect the answer is more likely found in a laboratory than a prayer group.

I for one am stuck somewhere between thinking that people should be free to be who they want to be, including not gay, and thinking it certainly seems that most 'conversion therapies' seem to be simple quackery and quite possible (likely) harmful.

But...if we do ban them then there may never be any answers for those (few) who would like them.

So yes, I was one of the few 'not sure' voters.

And, as an aside, I do wonder how many people there would be looking for a way to not be gay if it wasn't for societal preconceptions, pressures and all that.

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm left wondering how someone could be described as a "terrible gay". Maybe if you exclusively went out with women, yeah then R I'd be thinking you're not doing it right.

My housemate (who I referred to earlier on in the thread) was constantly called a 'terrible' gay....scruffy bollix, rowdy drunk, all the loutish behaviours you'd see in young straight guys.

Meh, to me he was just my mate who liked winkies instead of pussy's.
I guess in the end he was a terrible gay cause he's now married to a girl, with a pussy (presumably)

sbsquarepants

Deleted User wrote: »

Dictionaries do not define words and their meanings - they report on them. So I would be the last one to halt the changing definitions of words! But for me the use of language should have the goal of conveying reality as accurately as possible to the person you are talking to - not to be "right" in your use of individual words. And I can simply say that if you called someone like my partners "bisexual" you would not be representing them as accurately as you could.

Same as for myself (and I suspect most others) It's possible that calling your partners bisexual may not represent them with pin point accuracy, but I think it would do a damn better job of it than calling them straight!

It's impossible to define a person in a single word, but some words are much closer to the truth than others. These women are just not straight - maybe they were at one stage (that's a whole different argument) maybe they would be again if you all went your separate ways - but the fact the are in a loving sexual relationship with each other absolutely precludes them being straight.

Surely that's obvious?

Deleted User wrote: »

I can just picture the conversation now if you were to ask either of them.

So are you bi?
No.
But you are attracted to her?
Yes.
So you are attracted to women?
No.
But she is a woman?
Yes.
And you are attracted to her?
Yes.
So you are bi?
No.
But you are attracted to women?!?!?!?
No.

You're forgetting one salient point here - bitches be crazy!

Deleted User wrote: »

And around and around until you eventually tear either your own hair out or theirs or say "Screw this and chance of a threesome?"

It appears you know me well, sir!:D

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm left wondering how someone could be described as a "terrible gay". Maybe if you exclusively went out with women, yeah then R I'd be thinking you're not doing it right.

For a lot of the same reasons Wexies friend was. It goes back to the stereotypes. People think gay people are a certain way where as I have to constantly come out to new people I meet because on the outside I'm just a sruffy pothead who plays too much xbox. Unless you saw me eating face with another guy you wouldn't think I was gay. Although going by tax's girlfriends that would not be an indicator either.

wexie wrote: »

My housemate (who I referred to earlier on in the thread) was constantly called a 'terrible' gay....scruffy bollix, rowdy drunk, all the loutish behaviours you'd see in young straight guys.

Meh, to me he was just my mate who liked winkies instead of pussy's.
I guess in the end he was a terrible gay cause he's now married to a girl, with a pussy (presumably)

Your friend and I would have done well together but he went and spoiled it all by getting hitched to a chick. The gall of him.

Rory28 wrote: »

It goes back to the stereotypes.

Maybe we should all just conclude that stereotypes are bad mmmkay?

And then crack open Tax's bottle of tequila and your Xbox

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Right, but if you are in favour of banning certain "therapies" that you consider quakary (I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong in that assessment btw)... don't we still have a responsibility to cater for people who wish not to be gay?

Sure. But currently we have nothing to offer them. We barely understand what makes people homosexual - so how do we propose to offer them a change to it?

There are people who are gay who want to change this. There are people who are gay who would not change it for the world.

So what do we owe to these people:

1) We owe it to them to learn all we can about homosexuality.
2) We own it to them to address the issues in society that might be lending to the suffering that make them not want to be gay.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

And how do you think the scientific community would react, if people started doing research into these things in a serious manner??

I guess I do not care

I believe in doing science to uncover facts no matter who gets emotionally upset about it. We should be able to uncover and discuss the data about what is true in our world.

I realise however we are far from that ideal. Just seeing the toxic results of people merely _discussing_ data on issues like IQ variance between races demonstrates just what a minefield it is.

We of course should work on changing that atmosphere. But we should keep doing the research at the same time. And if a method to change sexual orientation is found it should of course be _offered_.

Who knows who will take it though? There are blind and deaf people who refuse cures for their condition because what some see as a deficiency or handicap in them they see as their very identity.

The XMen movies covered this in the episodes where a cure was found and offered too. Many of the mutants - despite how much they suffered in the face of societies prejudice - refuse the "cure".

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Same as for myself (and I suspect most others) It's possible that calling your partners bisexual may not represent them with pin point accuracy, but I think it would do a damn better job of it than calling them straight!

It wouldn't though. That is the issue. Of course this is an unfair conversation and stacked to me because you do not know them - have never met them - and have little to no knowledge about them. But you simply would not be describing them accurately.

There are in pretty much every way straight. They just happen to be in a relationship that they are in _despite_ their orientation because the source of the romantic and physical investment did not at all lie in the gender of the person they fell for.

And I think that is the linguistic issue at hand. There is an assumption that when you enter into a sexual and romantic relationship with someone that your sexual orientation had to have controlled this somehow. There seems to be no working concept that other pathways to the same result exist that go around this. Yet the number of people who fall in love in chat rooms without ever seeing each other shows us that physical attraction is in no way required to trigger an interest in pursuit of a physical relationship.

Sex is not just an expression of physical attraction. Sex is also a way to express a general connection between people. You can fall in love with a _person_ and then seek to express that love in many ways - including sexual.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You're forgetting one salient point here - bitches be crazy! It appears you know me well, sir!:D

Along with citations from Urban Dictionary - there can be no rebuttal to that truism

Deleted User wrote: »

We barely understand what makes people homosexual - so how do we propose to offer them a change to it?

I was thinking about this yesterday. We don't know what makes people homosexual do we? I mean as in, not barely, just not at all?

Deleted User wrote: »

I guess I do not care I believe in doing science to uncover facts no matter who gets emotionally upset about it. We should be able to uncover and discuss the data about what is true in our world.

Hear Hear!!!

wexie wrote: »

I was thinking about this yesterday. We don't know what makes people homosexual do we? I mean as in, not barely, just not at all?

I guess we do _and_ we don't. It is a bit like the origin of life. We have many working models on how life could have first arisen. We know ways it can happen. We just do not know - or have conclusive evidence for - which one it actually was.

Similarly we have loads of ideas on how homosexuality can arise - we just do not yet know which one it actually is. Or more than one. After all if you have two homosexuals there is no reason to assume they are homosexual for the same reasons.

My expectation is that whatever the explanations are - they will turn out to be remarkably mundane and simple. Nothing special at all. I am stealing from another boards poster here but he has a very simple explanation for it that very well could be at the core of the answer when we find it. Basically it is:

1) Sexual attraction is at some level genetic.
2) Mammals are a dimorphic species containing the genetics of both sexes. That is to say if you are a man - you contain all the required genes to be a woman.
3) Therefore you contain all the required genes to be a woman attracted to men.
4) Therefore all homosexuality requires is for genes _you already have_ to be expressed.

So no magic is required. You - me - everyone already contain all the genetics required to be attracted to your own gender. The difference is that in the vast majority of us those genes are not expressed or active.

Now that is of course a massive over simplification of genetics. But it is essentially true. If sexual attraction is genetic - then you already contain all the genetics required for homosexuality.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not 100% sure how GCT works (not something I ever had to look into) but I can't see how it would be any more dangerous than a religion.

Sure and at some levels aspects of Religion could do with being banned too

I see what you mean - I guess it would depend on the religion. I do believe there are very harmful aspects of those religions that - like GCT - invent the disease and the cure at the same time. Such as the doctrine of original sin which essentially tells us we are "We are created sick and commanded to be well".

You ask however why GCT would be harmful in this regard however and there is a few reasons:

1) Failure: When people are ill or in need of help - there is a tendency to try something and if it fails to give up. Therefore we should attempt to give them the best possible solution _first_ in the hopes of helping them rather than the worst one. Because they might not try something else. This is - for example - one of my greatest issues with AA. AA has a known horrifically poor efficacy rate. So when it fails people they are less likely to see similar assistance from groups that actually do often help. So if someone is genuinely suffering due to their homosexuality - and GCT fails them - they may be less inclined to go seek help for their actual issues from an actual useful source. GCT not only does not appear to actually do anything, it also has a high drop out rate. Why foster and create disillusionment in people that they can have treatment for their issues by giving them treatment that fails them?

2) Bias: Any psychology treatment of an individual needs to be unbiased and impartial. GCT is anything but. It has an agenda against homosexuality itself. As an artcile in Live Science stated "Leelah's Law, was named after a transgender teen, Leelah Alcorn, who committed suicide in December 2014 after receiving treatment from therapists she said were biased and hostile toward her identity". Anything claiming to be "therapy" that goes in hostile to what the patient actually is, their very identity, is more an attack than a treatment.

3) Efficacy: Ideally anything claiming to be a therapy or treatment should be verified and validated by the methodologies of science and epidemiology. They should not be able to claim efficacy or to be a therapy or treatment if they do not. Especially if they not only do not subject themselves to such trials but positively resist such examination (another huge issue I have with AA - not that this thread is at all about AA sorry). But what research there has been shows "that gay conversion therapy does not produce long-lasting sexual-orientation change in people who undergo it."

4) Compounding the problem: Someone suffering from homosexuality to the point they seek to "cure" it is likely already someone in pain and vulnerable. Offering them a "therapy" that seemingly does nothing at all is not going to help them at all. Worse however people who are not cured by a therapy often also feel they themselves are the source of that failure (compounded sometimes if the practitioner of the cure actively blames them for this - which we often see in everything from alternative medicine to psychic and religious "healers"). So this compounds the suffering of someone already in pain.

5) Regulation: Ideally a therapy should have been tested to the point there are "best practice" guidelines on how to do it. We do not just do therapy any way we want. Even the best therapy, done wrong, can cause only harm and do no good. The issue here is "because the therapy isn't approved by any psychological organizations, there are no guidelines on how to conduct it, and no standard metrics of success."

6) Torture?: What actually is GCT? Well a range of things depending on who you get it from. But one of the things used (still?) is aversion therapy. Which basically means "gay people were exposed to a negative stimulus (such as being shocked, given nausea drugs or imagining such exposures) while viewing same-sex erotic material.". Perhaps the practioners enjoyed torturing homosexuals they hate. But what they were not doing was exercising anything remotely credible in changing behaviour.

7) Public perceptions: "If there is nothing wrong with homosexuality - why is there a cure for it?". There are people in our word with an agenda to attack homosexuality and convince others it is wrong or immoral. The existence of a treatment for it that does nothing simply gives them a weapon in that conversation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/24/opinion/gay-conversion-therapy-torture.html
https://www.hrc.org/resources/the-lies-and-dangers-of-reparative-therapy
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57922309e58c628849784690/t/58823a163a0411bdddcb9e01/1484929559850/Understanding+the+Dangers+of+Conversion+Therapy.pdf
https://www.equalityvirginia.org/ban-conversion-therapy/
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/conversion-therapy-survey_n_3354253.html

dr.fuzzenstein

7) Public perceptions: "If there is nothing wrong with homosexuality - why is there a cure for it?". There are people in our word with an agenda to attack homosexuality and convince others it is wrong or immoral. The existence of a treatment for it that does nothing simply gives them a weapon in that conversation.

Thank you, that is kinda the whole point for me.
For this very reason I would personally be against any kind of a scientific "cure".
Maybe in a hundred years we can design our sexuality, something like taking a pill to be gay or straight for the weekend, same way we shape our faces or our bodies with plastic surgery.
And after watching " Altered Carbon", maybe swap bodies altogether.

I honestly don't know if I find that intriguing or horrifying.

But coming back to the tequila.
I argued all along there is a spectrum. Some people love it, others don't care one way or the other, whilst some would gag at the mere thought of it.
If someone engages in a same sex relationship, they are not 100%, ramrod straight. They physically couldn't. Same way as some people would gag at the thought of being with someone of the opposite sex.
It goes from 0 to 100 and everything in between.

Shadowstrife

'Should gay conversion therapy be banned in Ireland?'

How is this even a question. I'd be in the Shia LaBeouff motivational school of thought on this one. Just ban it.

pawdee

I didn't know you could be converted in this way. What does the therapy entail? Does it work the other way? Can one be converted to be gay? Interesting. I once read about a rugby player in the UK who got a whack on the head, was in a coma for a week or two and then woke up gay. I'd imagine that this isn't very common though.

taxAHcruel wrote:

1) Sexual attraction is at some level genetic.
2) Mammals are a dimorphic species containing the genetics of both sexes. That is to say if you are a man - you contain all the required genes to be a woman.
3) Therefore you contain all the required genes to be a woman attracted to men.
4) Therefore all homosexuality requires is for genes _you already have_ to be expressed.

I would agree with number 1, however 2, 3 and 4 are inaccurate. A man does not contain all the required genes to be a woman. Well not quite. Men have one copy of the X chromosome, women have two. Men have genes in the Y chromosome that women don't have. Oddly enough men have more genes than women.

wexie wrote: »

I was thinking about this yesterday. We don't know what makes people homosexual do we? I mean as in, not barely, just not at all?

There are a few areas of research that show differences alright. When looking at brain scans of men and women, homosexual brains look more like heterosexual brains of the opposite gender. IE Gay men's brains are more like straight women's brains than straight men's brains. Gay women's brains are more like straight men's. EG straight men's brains showed asymmetry in the hemispheres, whereas gay men and gay women have symmetrical hemispheres. The amygdala which governs emotional behaviour again differs between men and women and again gay folks have amygdalae that look more like their opposite gender. So the way women are wired up their amygdala and its wiring is more likely to result in higher anxiety and women do present more with anxiety than men. Gay women present less.

IIRC transgender people have these opposite gender brains to an even greater degree.

Finger length and even finger prints can show differences. EG thumbprints of straight men are more different than thumbprints of gay men. Lengths of ring fingers can differ too. This appears to be a result of different levels of testosterone in utero and in puberty. More testosterone longer ring fingers.

Why these differences are present is another area of debate. It seems it's laid down in the womb and down to exposure to different hormonal profiles. It has been observed that there is a trend for successive pregnancies increase the chances of having a gay son. Genetics appear to play some part alright, but that's not nailed down to any real degree. What has been found is that sisters of gay men are more likely to have more kids and that's an evolutionary advantage, which might explain one selective pressure for the trait on the female line. So even if gay men are less likely to reproduce themselves the genes carry on in their sisters line. Plus when we look at the important historical advances in art and science gay men and women are strongly represented in so that's yet another selective pressure.

Again irritatingly, bisexual folks are left out of these studies, or at least any of the ones I've read. For me personally they'd be the more interesting group because they are attracted to both. What are their brain structures like by comparison? I suppose it's easier to look for larger differences in things like brain structure and hormonal profiles when looking at the extremes.

Maybe and on the simplest level there are "extreme" male and female brains in structure, the more your brain looks like your opposite gender the more likely you are to be gay all the way up to transgender. Maybe bisexuals are in between?

Either way it's not a "choice" and no amount of "conversion therapy"(or a future pill for that matter) will change the structure of your hemispheres or amygdala and so on.

Wibbs wrote: »

Why these differences are present is another area of debate. It seems it's laid down in the womb and down to exposure to different hormonal profiles. It has been observed that there is a trend for successive pregnancies increase the chances of having a gay son. Genetics appear to play some part alright, but that's not nailed down to any real degree..

So would I be right in saying we've a fair idea of 'what' makes someone homosexual but much less so 'why' it occurs?

Do you know are there any studies regarding the occurrence of homosexuality? I've always just assumed it seems there are more gay people now because it's become more socially acceptable and there would be less pressure to conform but is that actually the case?

Just asking because you mentioned hormonal profiles. Would they have change much over the past few hundred years with the advent of better/different nutrition, healthcare etc. etc?

pawdee wrote: »

I didn't know you could be converted in this way. What does the therapy entail?

You can't it seems. That is the issue and likely why you did not know. They are selling a treatment that appears to achieve and do absolutely nothing at all.

Wibbs wrote: »

I would agree with number 1, however 2, 3 and 4 are inaccurate. A man does not contain all the required genes to be a woman.

In the rest of my post I did point out this was an over simplification. But it is essentially true in that the differences that do exist between the genders at the genetic level do not appear to be relevant to what we are talking about here do they? As in when I say you as a man likely contain all the genetics required to be a woman attracted to men - I am not really referring to containing all the genetics required to be a woman - but specifically those for being attracted to men.

Anyway it is a pedantic side point. It was just to show the user the _kind_ of things that could explain homosexuality. As in it simply could be a case that homosexuality is the expression of genes all of us already have and in no way requires we explain it with a "gay gene" or anything that people have been historically looking for.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

For this very reason I would personally be against any kind of a scientific "cure".

For me it is a case that I am against any "cure" that in fact does nothing at all. I see no reason to give fodder to the anti-homosexual agenda for no good reason.

However there _are_ people who do not want to be homosexual. And if we did in fact find a way to offer them a way to change - then my wish to offer them that treatment would over ride my concern of giving fodder to the bigots.

But I would object to calling it a "cure".

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I honestly don't know if I find that intriguing or horrifying.

If you are any way interested in Science Fiction I recommend all the culture novels by Ian Banks. The citizens of "the culture" have reached a technological point where they can basically change sexuality or gender at will. So the books explore a lot of the implications of this.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

If someone engages in a same sex relationship, they are not 100%, ramrod straight.

But again - sexual orientation is defined by who you your attractions are generally orientated towards - not who you are actively having sex with. You can be straight and have a lot of homosexual sex. So who you are in a relationship with is not a definition of your orientation at all.

Also what makes you "gag" is a separate issue too. There are people who are heterosexual and gag at the thought of sex in general for example. And given all the sticky bodily emission and location in the excretory pathways I can at least see where they are coming from even if not at all agree with them.

As Neil DeGrasse Tyson says - what kind of intelligent designer was it that built an entertainment complex in a sewage system.